Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 106

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 106

link

The "current statistics" link under Assessment Department in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Navigation shows a user subpage of User:WP 1.0 bot. The table shows two rows and one column. Both numbers are 0. I'm using Firefox 7 on Windows 7, if it is a browser problem. WikiCopter 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All I see is

With both Firefox 7, and 10 (Nightly). Looks fine to me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Numbers broken. Why is the link in the box? WikiCopter 22:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The page appears to have changed. User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 22:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The statistics changed to 0 for me as well. I asked Sp33dyphil yesterday (on the #Wikipedia-en-milhist channel) why it happened, he said he didn't know. They seem to be corrected now. Adamdaley (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine for me. (And, miracle of miracles, Safari isn't hanging...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 106

Remembrance services at the Cenotaph

Not sure whether this is the right place to ask this question (possibly the talk page of an article or two might have been better), but I was watching the end of a program tonight ('Regimental Stories', BBC4, for those in the UK) about the Royal Tank Regiment and it said that this regiment was one of only two regiments to carry out a separate remembrance service at the Cenotaph in Whitehall. The Royal Tank Regiment hold a service on the Sunday closest to Cambrai Day (20 November, signifying their role at the Battle of Cambrai). I then tried to confirm this fact by searching on the internet, but was unable to find anything about this. I was also unable to find out which other regiment is being referred to here. Would anyone here be able to help? Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.royaltankregiment.com/en-GB/diaryofevents.aspx where they mention Remembrance Sunday and March to the Cenotaph. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for something more like this: "The Regimental Cenotaph Parade is always held on the Sunday after the National Remembrance Sunday in November", but that doesn't say when the tradition of this separate parade started. I was also hoping for something from some external source. Searches on just "cambrai day" plus "cenotaph" are more promising. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a look about, found a few references at to what anniversary it was, but none as to when the first parade was held to commemorate that battle. Perhaps it was 1919, straight after the first Remembrance Day? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 05:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Two regiments. Could they mean 1RTR and 2RTR? http://www.royaltankregiment.com/en-GB/1rtr.aspx and http://www.royaltankregiment.com/en-GB/2rtr.aspx? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so. It was a programme about the RTR and its origins as the Tank Corps in WWI, so it is likely referring to a non-tank regiment. Possibly another regiment with special origin, such as the Parachute Regiment. Or maybe, based on this picture an Irish regiment? And that led me to Combined Irish Regiments Old Comrades Association, who state on their webpage that their "raison d'être is the Annual Parade held at the Cenotaph in June each year". So that is at least one other. Still need to find a source stating that these are the only regimental associations to hold parades on a date different to the main Remembrance Day parade, but that might be harder. Carcharoth (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I've had a look, but am drawing a blank. Who officially looks after the Cenotaph from an administrative perspective in London? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since 1999, English Heritage, though any closing of the road is done through Westminster Council. Some ceremonies have taken place with the road not closed, but traffic stopped by the police for the duration of any commemorative silence. I should have enough to go on now. many thanks for the advice given here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

A-Class review for William F. Dean now open

The A-Class review for William F. Dean is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

A-Class review for Albert Ball now open

The A-Class review for Albert Ball is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New template for weapons pages

I've created {{wepscontent}}, based off the aircontent template, for use on missile (especially) and other weapons pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Battle of Dahlen

Article: Battle of Dahlen,

I've cleaned up the article. I would like someone to take a look at it to see if deserves to be assessed any higher from a "Stub" (possibly to a "Start"?) also would the "Dutch" template be also included since the Spanish have theirs on the dicussion page? Feedback here would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Adam, I believe that it meets the B class criteria and falls into the Dutch and Early Modern task forces for Milhist. Not sure about the importance rating, though, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert. I did minor fixing of the Templates. Adamdaley (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Battle of Oak Grove

Article: Battle of Oak Grove,

I've cleaned up the Infobox and article. Would like to know if deserves a higher rating or stay the same or any other "attributes" for the talkpage templates. Adamdaley (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Adam, I believe that this also meets the B class criteria. I think that it is in the appropriate Milhist task forces already. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert. I did minor fixing of the Templates. Adamdaley (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Featured article candidacy for HMS Eagle (1918) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Eagle (1918) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Featured article candidacy for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II now open

The featured article candidacy for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Stronghold

Currently the above article is seven sentences long, but off the top of my head I can't think of what it could consist of that wouldn't fit in the fortification article. Is stronghold just another word for fortification or is there merit in having separate articles? I'm tempted to turn stronghold into a redirect to fortification, while at least has more information. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A stronghold is a place of strength, so could theoretically just be something naturally defensible, I suppose. However, essentially it is the same thing, so I think your suggestion is a good one.Monstrelet (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - seems the same in encyclopaedic terms. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree also. Strongholds don't necessarily require fortification (they may have political or geographic benefits separate from the pure physical ones), but I don't see how it merits a separate page. Besides, if somebody does, it can be forked or split off again later... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, instead of redirecting, perhaps simply moving Stronghold (disambiguation) to Stronghold, with a clearer link to Fortification at the top of the former page, might be the best direction? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article as it stands focuses solely on the military and historical context, but the concept of stronghold is broader than this, think of political stronghold and others which would not fit well with fortification but definitely be suitable for a broad article on the concept of strongholds. That being said, I have no time and will to expand the article to broaden its context. My 2 cents -- CharlieEchoTango -- 00:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Although stronghold as a dab page could link to stronghold as a Safe seat. Changing my objection to a weak objection. -- CharlieEchoTango -- 00:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Charlie. Stronghold should be a dab, with the military term linking to fortification, possibly an article about naturla stronghold, i.e. Little Round Top, and a link to Safe seat. Buggie111 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Stronghold, by default, means a fortress. You can't add adjectives to a word and change what it means, you go by its default meaning. For example, you can't make the article Hair into a dab and direct the user to Wig (fake hair) and Real hair, because hair doesn't mean and is not a wig, it's a naturally-grown fur found on mammals. Same with stronghold. Please redirect it to Fortification. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the encyclopedic value of the concept of political stronghold, currently best described in the article on safe seats? This a term that is widely used (at least up here in Canada), is derived from the concept of fortress and similar in meaning but has a different context. If stronghold in its current form is merged into fortification, then definitely it should be a disambig page directing readers to the other meanings of stronghold. If it is not merged, then the article should be expanded to cover all uses of the word and concept. Semantics is not a static science, and a concept can have valid contextual derivatives. -- CharlieEchoTango -- 01:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we place a nav template at Fortification if there was a redirect which says "Stronghold redirects here, for political stronghold, please see ..." Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can live with this, provided there is no other use for the word/context of stronghold. Buggie111 mentioned one above of which I am not aware, perhaps it is as valid a derivative context as political stronghold is; if this is the case then I must say I don't think it's appropriate for a hatnote to have more than one disambig. Best, -- CharlieEchoTango -- 02:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The article itself with the image of a castle. If both are relating to a "castle" then it should go into the "castle" articles. Does that make sense? Adamdaley (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really, there are many types of fortification/stronghold other than a castle. I'm basing this purely on my own understanding of the words (I haven't gone and looked for any refs I'm afraid), but doesn't a fortification imply structures built purposefully for defence, while a stronghold can be any area of ground held by a force for the purpose of defence? Even if that is the case, it might be a better thing for wiktionary rather than here though... Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Adam is right - the current article doesn't talk about the nuances we have discussed, just about fortifications. So, if we want a stub article on the three meanings it would need to be rewritten. I think we'd need to be clearer on what a natural stronghold is though. I would suggest it has a strategic rather than tactical meaning i.e. a safe base, rather than a feature on a battlefield, which might be a strongpoint ( and which we don't have an article on). We could hatlink off from a redirect to Fortification, but we would need to be sure the articles pointed to actually mentioned strongholds in the sense we are after, so that might generate work tooMonstrelet (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If no one's agaisnt it, I'll start work on natural stronghold in my userspace. Buggie111 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Book report

BTW, if you haven't noticed, the book reports for Wikipedia books have been extensively tweaked to help editors assess and cleanup articles. See for example Book talk:Arms control treaties#Book report. Features include breakdowns of article assessments, lists of cleanup tags found in the article, lists of non-free media, and a bunch of links to tools likes the external links inspector or the disambiguation fixer. Those are automatically updated by User:NoomBot every few days. Many books are created at WP:FTC, but you don't need to way until then to gain their benefits. Just thought I'd let you know. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A very handy tool! Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New tool to remove duplicate links

Ucucha has created a script at User:Ucucha/duplinks that highlights duplicate links in the text of an article (not counting links in the lead, infoboxes and navboxes, and soon, not counting links anywhere outside the main text). The next step is for us to use the tool and point out any exceptions we want to make, that is, any duplicate links we think it's important to retain, at User talk:Ucucha/duplinks. After we've played around with it a while to get a feeling for the unintended consequences, I'm hoping the tool will be further enhanced to pull up a list of suggested links to delete in an edit-changes screen, so that you can remove them all with one click if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a handy-dandy little tool. Installed! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone prefer that the tool only remove links that are, say, within 2 screens of a duplicate link in the main text? My sense is that this could go either way, that people aren't fussy about whether they prefer no duplicate links at all, or none "nearby". The MOS link Ucucha points to, WP:REPEATLINK, says that a second link is okay if it's a "long way" from the first. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That would make sense...as would modifying the tool so it doesn't flag "citation needed" as a duplicate link! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, GermanJoe requested that it ignore "file captions, templates, tables and references (named and unnamed)". - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Talk:Cultural impact of the Falklands War

Hi. When you have time, could you see Talk:Cultural impact of the Falklands War#Malouines ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Lord Angus Fairchild

Can anyone please confirm that Lord Angus Fairchild is not a hoax?

Googling "Angus Fairchild" doesn't turn up much, which is surprising for one of the "great Fighter Aces of his era". Same is the case with "Singdum, Walter and "That shatty sky" (cited as reference). Can't find any mention of the Distinguished Flying Cross at nationalarchives.gov.uk. utcursch | talk 12:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither Google Books nor WorldCat show any sign of either one. If he's such a great ace, howcum I never heard of him? I'm smelling a dead hoax. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything either - seems to be a hoax. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Hoax.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Shooting down a V-2 rocket...". Yeah. No. Just, no. G3 incoming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Featured portal review for Napoleonic Wars (redux)

Portal:Napoleonic Wars is still currently up for Featured Portal review at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Napoleonic Wars. WikiProject MilHist members are invited to comment. For those unfamiliar with FP criteria, please see Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 01:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

End of World War II in Asia

End of World War II in Asia (EWW2A) was until today a redirect to Pacific War#Final stages. I moved a little known article stub called End of World War II in the Pacific to that location. It consisted of nothing but a list of bullet points.

I have sectioned it off into three parts given it a brief lead and added a couple of sections at the end. What I envisage would make it a much better article is if it were laid out something like the "End of World War II in Europe" (EWW2E), which has grown over the years into quite a useful article.

The two paragraphs I added at the end of EWW2A are the lead sections from the Occupation of Japan and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. I think that a lot more can be done like that to improve the article quite quickly. Anyone want to have a go and adding text from other articles and/or improving what is there already? -- PBS (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ship's Names

Ahoy there mates! I have been around since '06 but am new to the history project. Just signed up about a week ago. I have been writing/contributing to articles relating to Naval Commanders/Commodores in Early American history, mostly from the Barbary Wars and War of 1812 periods. I have rewritten the Stephen Decatur, Thomas Macdonough and John Rodgers pages to near completion and have started on several others as well. Today on my user page I was pinged by an IP user regarding the italicization of ship's names. Here is the message. I prefer to italicize the entire ship's name rather than have the name spelled with two types of lettering, e.g.

( USS Constellation v USS Constellation )

...as the former usage seems more eye appealing, at least to me. Soon I will be nominating the Stephen Decatur page for FA, but before I do I would like to get feed back on this and any other issue these pages might have. I suppose it would be more appropriate to continue the thread here, than on my user page. Input is welcomed.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The first part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines states 'Put the ship's name in italics, but not the prefix or hull number'. So USS Constellation but never USS Constellation. The USS is not part of the ship's name, but is a prefix. Benea (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the referral. Have gone through these pages and made the changes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A former commando of USA, Kevin Thilgman

Is he notable enough for an article, Kevin Thilgman?

He died during a training mission with special forces FSK of Norway in 2010 (and the accident might not not increase his notability, but Norway's payment to his relatives and insurance companies after his death, might contribute to his notability.

References about the accident are at Forsvarets_Spesialkommando_(FSK)#Safety_violations.--155.55.60.112 (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

I recently published this article in the mainspace. Yet, the work is far from complete. It probably needs a lot of copy-editing love from a native speaker.

Also, there is an apparent problem with references. Most importantly, I don't have access to English language reputable sources discussing the battle in detail and I don't even know if such sources exist. It's a common problem for articles related to history of Poland: although we've been around for a thousand years, from British or American perspective our history is a relatively uncharted land.

Finally, Hawkeye7 assessed it as C-class (the article apparently failed to meet the B1 criterion). I would really appreciate it if someone helped me fix that. //Halibutt 12:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been helping Halibutt with this article. I've made changes to the main article already. Then decided to put it as a subpage so I could edit it (and anyone else is free to add or expand it's contents. I've made further changes to the article, mainly the distances Kilometres to Miles (the distance conversion template). Any ideas for the article create the Discussion page on my User subpage for the article. Instead of ideas being thrown all over the place about this article improvement. Adamdaley (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, the fork is here: User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 3 :) //Halibutt 16:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FACs needing reviews, October 12

This is a list of Milhist Featured Article Candidates more than two weeks old with fewer than 4 supports. Any substantive reviews will be helpful, particularly if you've reviewed the article before. It's easier to attract reviewers at FAC if there's been a recent A-class review, and it's also more efficient for the reviewers if they're not reviewing two completely different articles at A-class and at FAC, so if you want to bring your A-class articles to FAC, please do it sooner rather than later, and feel free to ask for help. Most FACs need "spotchecks" (checking for close paraphrasing and accuracy in the text, for any references you can get or can find online), although some nominators (like Ian) have passed so many spotchecks that it's not really necessary. All FACs need image reviews.

• 26 Sep 2011 - Chaplain-Medic massacre (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ed! (t · c); see discussion
  • Needs image review and spotchecks. I think it will be helpful to get opinions on how much of the material in the Background section is relevant to the massacre. The A-class review was almost a year ago. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• 25 Sep 2011 - Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ian Rose (t · c); see discussion
  • Needs image review. The A-class review closed in March. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both image reviews done. Other reviews would be much appreciated! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, and while you're here ... Nikki's nomination WP:Featured article candidates/If Day/archive1 is missing just the image check ... one of the commenters indicated they'd support after the source and image checks came in, and then we'll have 4 supports. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Now promoted! - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Images reviewed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Especially an image reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the shooting down of 1 aircraft during the Vietnam war notable? Does it deserve GA status?

User:Canpark has written an article Action of 7 May 1968 which relates to the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft during the Vietnam War. This article was assessed and passed for GA by User:SCB '92. I have questioned whether this event is notable particularly as the operative part of the article seems to be drawn from 1 page of one book. User:Canpark has also written another article Action of 16 June 1968 which essentially repeats all of Action of 7 May 1968 in order to recount a story of the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft. User:Canpark seems to be writing articles in order to transcribe the book by Topcerzer of Mig kills of the Vietnam war. Are these individual events notable and/or worthy of GA? Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Pages for every U.S. aircraft shot down in Vietnam, now? What about for every one in Korea? Every one in WW2? This is up there with pages for every single Allied merchantman sunk. Unless the action has independent notability, I'd say delete it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that's really 2 stages. Notability determines whether the event is suitable enough to have its own article on Wiki, in the first instance. GA depends on the quality of the article per criteria which generally assumes notability is sufficiently met and that the article is not low-quality. So the main question is to determine notability which, as a historic event, all depends on coverage and how many third-party sources have given the event some independent thought. If you have concerns that the articles are based from only one source, or that verifiability is a concern, then you could always tag the articles, and see if the author can produce further sources, although that may be a little counter-productive based on the simplicity of "shot down one aircraft". Alternatives may be to recommend the articles be merged, to produce a stronger article from the two. Personally, I think that the use of 4 or 5 references for articles as long as each of those seems fine, although I have only glanced over the articles without looking at the sources in detail. If you are concerned about the author transcribing from them, have you determined if there are any copyvio concerns? If not, then it's a matter of weighing up the information, and determining within reasonable doubt that it meets notability requirements. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 13:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read both articles you will see that large parts are the same and so have been used to bulk-up a relatively minor event. I would expect the subject of the article to make up most of the page, but here the subject (the Engagement) is just a few short paragraphs that seem to rely on just one source, the Topcerzer book, which I haven't managed to locate yet, but I do have copyvio concerns. Mztourist (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at those articles, and I wouldn't really consider them notable. For me it's not a question of the number of sources, but rather the type of sources. In these articles, the sources cover much broader topics. I'd change my mind if new tactics or methods of operation were introduced in either action, but I didn't see any evidence of that in the articles in question. Sorry, this just looks like possible GA number padding.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re your comment on GA number padding, I have raised this with User:Canpark before and been ignored. It certainly seems to be the case here. Mztourist (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I had criteria on the lines of Intothatdarkness': a DRVAF or USAF ace involved, a notable POW resulting, something. It doesn't appear there is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this criteria alloy to all wars. Does the shooting down of Douglas barder have its own artciel?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, no, nor IMO should it, in context. Neither was he in Vietnam, where the numbers of "friendly" airmen downed was rather smaller, & where his being downed might merit one. Presuming he didn't have his own page, where it would probably end up. I was looking for any reason it might pass. Do these pages meet even a low standard? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why sould being on one side make you more notable then being on the other, why should Vietman be treated differantly to any other war. This smacks of Americacenterism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Canpark focuses his writing on engagements where the Vietnamese defeated the Americans. Mztourist (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

But the point I was repsoding to implied that if the susject of the artciel was from "friendly" forces it should make it more notable then if it were not. I was pointing out that just being "on the right side" should not be a criteria of any kind. Nor should "begin in the Veitnam war" be a criteria".Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::::Certain shoot-downs could merit an article of their own. Bader's shooting down, for example, was controversial and there is a theory it was a friendly fire incident, so it could be worthy of a break out article from a main article to consider in more depth. Likewise Richthofen. In both cases, notable participants and subject of detailed analysis. Some might be notable for rarity (the shooting down of a MIG 15 by Fleet Air Arm Sea Furies in Korea for example), others for controversy (shooting down of civilian airliners by armed forces). But the downing of every aircraft during a long war? No. Monstrelet (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course some shooting downs will be notable, but the conflict they are part of or the nationality of the victim would not make them notable. The circunstances would. The length of the conflict shud make no differance, the only situation where it could be arguesd a shooting down might be notable (relate4d to the nature of the conflcit) are where it was a rarity (suchg as in the first gulf war where only 75 aircraft losses were redorced), but even then its dooubtfull.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since the conditions for Viet POWs was not especially harsh, I suggest being a Viet POW is prima facie non-notable, contrary to the case for Americans in DRV hands. And the relative numbers of aviators on all sides in Vietnam compared to WW1 & WW2 makes them more notable, IMO. The relative peformance in WW2 had to be better, on sheer volume. Marseille or Bong are notable in WW2, where Richie's score was equalled by 100s of flyers on all sides. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see these actions as especially notable. Even within the context of Vietnam. No major aces or high-ranking pilots were involved, no major tactical innovations took place, and they were not part of a larger, major offensive (and claiming they were part of Rolling Thunder doesn't change that point).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability aside the article is not just the shooting down of one aircraft. Its the engagement of five F-4 Phantoms by two MiG-21 Fishbeds. With the result that against odds of 2.5 to 1 the Vietnamese pilots shot down an American aircraft. Notability may be that this was the first arial victory by the Vietnam People's Air Force in the Military Zone IV of North Vietnam, which is cited. If you believe the article is not notable you should put it up for AFD. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not clear if this was a swirling dogfight with 5 F-4s really pitted against 2 Mig-21s, the F-4B that was shot down was apparently heading out to sea and hit from behind by 2 Atolls, after an engagement between the same Mig-21s and another 2 F-4s. Also its not clear that there is anything particularly notable about it being the first aerial victory in Military Zone IV. I'm sure if authors looked hard enough at any engagement they could find something that they regard as notable, but it seems that most of the rest of the community don't think this article meets notability Mztourist (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have notified User:SCB '92 of this thread, Canpark had already been informed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see this as truly notable. It was one air battle, out of a series of similar or near-identical air battles. What would make an air battle notable? Let's see:
  • Notable participant being shot down/captured: Bader, the Red Baron, and such. Not applicable here.
  • Notable impact on the course of the conflict. Not applicable here.
  • Notable aircraft involved, or the shoot-down being conducted in an unusual fashion - for instance, the A-4 that emptied its Zuni rocket pods at an attacking MiG-17 and, much to the Skyhawk pilot's amazement, blasted said MiG to pieces. Not applicable here.
  • Other circumstances. Being the first victory by the VPAF might be notable - if it was the first aerial victory against the U.S. overall. Was it? The cited fact is ...over Military Zone IV. If it was simply the first victory scored in that particular theater, then no, notability isn't estabished here, either.
  • WP:IAR, of course. Is there an IAR case here? I'm not convinced.
• In addition, I have concerns about the neutrality of the article, as well - or at least its balance, to be more precise. The article's commentary about the engagement is fully from the VPAF's POV, without any accounts of the battle's progress from the F-4 pilots' POV. Also, the fact that the "Background" section of the article is longer than that for the engagement itself raises my eyebrows. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was alerted to this from a similar discussion started at WT:GAN, and drew many of the same conclusions as expressed here. I just wasn't sure if things like this actually have notability. The red flag for me was he same as Bushranger - there is very little discussion on the actual shootdown. Most of it appears to be related to the overall aspect of the conflict. It occurs to me that this article, and any similar, would probably make a decent list, but otherwise is pretty trivial independently. It strikes me as being akin to writing an article each time an insurgent fires an RPG at a military vehicle. Resolute 18:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems no better or worse than other one day battle articles. See Action of 5 May 1794, Action of 7 May 1794, Action of 15 July 1798, Action of 18 August 1798 and Action of 18 August 1798 all are Good Articles and there are several more to select from. This boils down to are the sources reliable and is the action notable.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Those examples all seem to be fairly minor incidents, but the death tolls are much higher and in some cases ships were destroyed. As I see it the issue is that if these 2 apparently non-notable actions continue as stand-alone pages it just sets a precedent for almost any trivial engagement to have its own page - as Reso points out "each time an insurgent fires an RPG at a military vehicle". I think the Engagement section of Action of 7 May 1968 should just be transposed onto the page for Nguyen Van Coc and the rest of the article deleted or anything usable merged into the Operation Rolling Thunder or similar pages, while Action of 16 June 1968 which has no notability whatsoever should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Sorry, but I just don't see anything automatically notable in these actions.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I also concur. This could make Nguyen Van Coc into a nice page, but as for the engagement itself...not notable. Nice writing, but... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So if the death total had been higher that would have been OK for the article to stand?. Any trivial engagement can have its own pages if it has reliable sources. The battle section is cited to books by the Naval Institute Press and Osprey Publishing both respected publishing houses. As I suggested above if your not happy take this to AFD any more discussion here seems pointless. Also Mztourist needs to expand on why there are copyvio concerns. If there is no reasonable ground for suspicion the comment should be struck. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A higher death toll would be more notable which is the first criteria in writing an article. A trivial engagement by definition is not notable. I don't have any problem with Naval Institute Press and Osprey Publishing as sources, but reliable sources do not make a trivial engagement notable. In relation to copvio concerns I have noted that most of the information in the Engagement section of both these pages seems to rely on only 1 or 2 pages of Topcerzer as the only or main source and I believe that is reasonable grounds for concern. If anyone has the book please share the relevant pages. In relation to moving this to AFD, I think its only fair to leave this open for a few days so User:Canpark and any other authors have time to comment. Mztourist (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to distinguish between the question "is the incident notable?" and "is it best communicated in a separate article?" In this case, I'd be tempted towards "yes" for the former, and "no" to the later. But I can't claim to know the literature well for this period. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My spider sense is tingling. My feeling is that the background and section on tactics gives an air of weight to an otherwise brief encounter. But without access to sources its hard to tell if coverage from whole cloth or various snippets have been stitched together to make a larger (harlequin) whole. As to its GA-ness, it was assessed as B before going to GA nomination, which suggests it was already on the way to being well written, just not necessarily a suitable topic. I'd say content is good, but given the similar articles mentioned, but best not left as an individual article. Probably better covered as "air engagements of...(insert name of campaign)"GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

?I wouldn't rely heavily on comparing the a/c engagements to the naval ones. After a quick glance at just one of the naval encounters linked above, I'm seeing "squadrons" engaged, not single ships. A single-ship action, as I've already said, would be a fail, & should be merged into the page of the aggressor (or the individual participants, as the case may be), or into another page. In this case, perhaps Air battles of Military Zone IV? Which would allow for not only these encounters, but information on the strengths & deployments of NVAF...tho that suggests to me a broader page might be better, with this one linked out from it.

?I 'm not troubled particularly by reliance on a single source, since that may be all there is ATM. If these got merged, would we be complaining about it being single-sourced? I don't think so. I'd rather it be merged somewhere than lost... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Canpark had previously worked on a few articles that I think document events that aren't really notable. Some of his articles have background sections that are longer than the events in question themselves -- see this. I'm also concerned with NPOV problems (patriotism) here. Sp33dyphil © o © 02:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That article needs addressing Phil - Canpark has originally used mdy for dates, whilst Mktourists edits appear to be use dmy format in some cases. Towards the end, the last couple of sections especially, dates are mismatched, meaning it's falling short of meeting GA requirements. A few copy-edits would fix it, but editors need to respect the original date format, none the less. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 02:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sp33dyphil and have made these comments to Canpark directly before. Several of his articles are of negligible notability, but are bulked up with background information to lend them more importance. Canpark seems to write articles and push them for GA status as soon as possible, e.g. Action of 7 May 1968 was only created on 4 August 2011 and put up for GA on 12 August, similarly Action of 16 June 1968 was created on 11 August 2011 and put up for GA 12 August, I would have thought some more "cooking time" was appropriate Mztourist (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting my contributions on the spotlight again. As usual, I will follow majority consensus on issues, so if there are problems I am willing to rectify them accordingly. However, if one individual has issues with my contributions, that's not my problem.Canpark (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio claims - the Toperczer book is on line in snippet view only [1]. Having done some spot checks I can find no evidence of any copy violation. The nearest close paraphrasing I located was

in the book

This aerial victory had been the first success for the VPAF in the airspace above

article text

The action of 7 May 1968 gave the Vietnam People's Air Force their first aerial victory over the airspace above

of course this is only a limited view of the page and other editors may wish to search deeper but with no evidence I think we should AGF. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that some people see a positive side to this. I obviously contribute to these Vietnam topics in good faith to further expand knowledge, especially in the area of air war where there is limited coverage. I have nothing to gain from writing these articles, yet certain individuals are hell-bent on questioning my intentions. If after seven days everybody here is in favour of deleting my articles, then I will accept the decision. As much as I would like to contribute more articles, I feel it will only hit a brick wall. So I am pretty much finish with Wikipedia.Canpark (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Editors who worry about articles whose main event is documented on a single page of a suitable source need to worry about other things. There are plenty of actions (including notable ones, here's one of mine) where the meat of what happened can be described in that space. Magic?piano 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

USAF Helmet P-1A, unknown unit decal

Can anyone identify and share the ~1950 unit decal history on this USAF P-1A helmet. thank you. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

VF(AW)-3 "Blue Nemesis" - all weather NORAD fighter squadron flying A4D Skyrays'. See [2] and ccdemo.info/AircraftPix/Skyray.html (Wiki hyperlink does not work!) Farawayman (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, we'll update the records at the Wing Over the Rockies Museum, Lance. ...LanceBarber (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

North American F-82 Twin Mustang

I've made a number of high-resolution scans of F-82 Twin Mustang photographs and have uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. Also have expanded the gallery considerably. Also have expanded the captions of several other photographs and replaced them with high-resolution scans as well. Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley P.1154 now open

The A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley P.1154 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil © o © 07:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mahdist flag RFC

Please comment at Talk:Battle_of_Omdurman#Mahdist_flag, thanks, SpinningSpark 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

GA backlog

Hello all. Just a note to highlight the rather intractable backlog of unactioned requests for GA Reviews at the moment. If you're interested in helping out please have a look at: [3]. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As an update to this quite a dent has been made now, and the backlog has been reduced from nearly 50 articles to 28, so great effort to those that helped out. I would like to think we can do even better though, so if anyone else is looking around for something to do please consider doing a review. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

.25 ACP Article

Article: .25 ACP

There's been a couple of lines on the Discussion page about this weapon (or bullet) and it's possibility it may not fit the WikiProject Military History. It is assessed as a "C Class". 11:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the two lines on the Discussion page about this article? Is it related to Military History, has this ever been used to fit into our WikiProject Military History? Adamdaley (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone know if this was used by Military? Adamdaley (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Baby Browning which uses this caliber was supposed to be part of the standard gear pack for USAF pilots during the Vietnam War.
>>>-Berean-Hunter--? 18:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Panzerschiff Deutschland and heavy cruiser Lützow (again)

Sorry for bringing this topic up again here. I was involved in the GA review of the heavy cruiser Lützow. What I normally do when committing myself to reviewing an article is to visit my own sources and verifying the key statements of the article. In context of Lützow and Deutschland class cruiser I came across the following book which I bought.

• Prager, Hans Georg (2001). Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow: ein Schiffs-Schicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit (in German). Hamburg, Germany: Koehler. ISBN 3-7822-0798-X.

Prager, a former crew member of Deutschland/Lützow, wrote his book after the Russians opened up their archives. The entire fate section of Lützow differs significantly from the older books published prior to opening the archives. According to Prager (pages 317 to 320), and this is documented with pictures detailing the types of explosives used, etc. Lüzow was sunk by Soviet bomb tests on 22 July 1947. Our articles here state she was scraped in the late 1940ties "Raised by the Soviet Navy in 1947, she was broken up for scrap over the next two years".

Even though this alternative/true fate is based on a German book (I know that some editors here have strong concerns when it comes to non-English literature here on Wiki) I feel it needs to be incorporated into the article. I can't get myself to pass the Deutschland cruiser class GA-review without it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Contact fuse

Hi,

Could I ask some knowledge members of Military history to comment in Talk:Contact fuse please. The article is currently being held at the name Contact fuse by editors claiming that the correct British English spelling is fuse per WP:ENGVAR. We know it should be fuze but they aren't listening. Other than obstructing what should have been an uncontroversial move they have not contributed to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This argument seems to come round every so often. IIRC last time it came round it was shown that both spellings are correct in British English but fuse is the more common modern usage. Thus, it is not an ENGVAR issue but a COMMON one. I'm sure the agreed solution will be in the archive somewhere.Monstrelet (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the main article is at Fuse (explosives), not Fuze (explosives) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to seek support from other boards, then please use neutrally toned requests for opinions. The wording used here could be construed as canvassing. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 16:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually see Fuze for the main article, this is not a saltpetre soaked length of string per Fuse (explosives). And asking for people who know what they're talking about to comment is not canvassing. See also Talk:Fuze archives for the discussion, which funnily enough concluded the correct term is Fuze. People seem unable to distinguish between simple match fuses and the complex devices that makes weapons go bang. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The related discussion is a consensus. Invitations to a consensus should be framed neutrally. Or, to rephrase what you wrote "asking for people who know what they're talking about" which equals "selectively inviting people more likely to support my opinion", is also canvassing. Either way, you are attempting to vote-stack in favour of your opinion, no matter how eloquently you phrase it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 18:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still chortling over your comment that experts are unable to spell. Your point was moot anyway as other had piled in on my comments. Your lecture in that respect was out of place and seemed more intent on starting an argument, I see no point in responding to you any further. I bid you adieu. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good riddance. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 18:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

military template naming

Came across Template:Infobox US Infantry, as it lists the regiment before and after that which is the subject of the article in which it is used surely it is a navbox (or succession box). Should it be renamed? If so, how? There is also a matching artillery and cavalry template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of these templates might be, actually. Presumably the idea is to list the individual regiments in terms of the order of precedence; but I don't believe that's a particularly key consideration outside the British regimental system. Would it perhaps make more sense to simply list all of the regiments in a typical navigation box format, rather than using what's essentially a variant of a succession box?? Or, alternatively, if we are going to use a succession box, to use the actual {{succession box}} template rather than creating our own? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

They're a hangover, really - they mostly predate widespread use of footer navigation templates or succession boxes, and I think we just hadn't quite figured out what to do with groups of articles like this at the time. They should be deprecated, I think, though whether or not to replace them with a general navbox (which would be quite large) is debatable. Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Northrop F-89 Scorpion

Have organized, expanded and updated the F-89 Scorpion gallery on Wikimedia commons. Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

21 cm Mörser 16 and 21 cm Mörser M. 16/18

Could someone knowledgeable about the subject verify if these are two articles about one and the same gun or if indeed two separate articles are justifiable? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Mörser 16 article is about a German gun while the Mörser M. 16/18 article is about an Austro-Hungarian gun.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a good source from which to expand the German ones (incl. 21 cm Mörser 10)--Guy Francois wrote an article on their development in a TANK ZONE number, can't tell you off the top of my head which. Not before I finish some Spanish medieval stuff though. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

USS Concord (1828)

A couple of hours ago (from this writing) I have created the page USS Concord (1828). After a little building, citing, linking, etc I attempted to italicize the article's name, but when I made the move the name simply showed the apostrophes, while the title remained the same with no italicization. If anyone can do this would they please make the move and if they would, tell me how it's done on my user talk page? This is how I would like the move to look USS Concord (1828). -- Thanx, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have had only partial success finding information about this ship If anyone knows of other RS's would they please cite them on the Concord's talk page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Responded to title italicisation issue on your talk page. -- saberwyn 22:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Albert Ball

Just a quick note for anyone interested, the A-Class review for Albert Ball is now looking for further eyes after completion of additions based on an early in-depth review. The article is now stable again and ready for further review, so please stop by and give us your input! Thanks!--Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (co-nom with Georgejdorner)

A-Class review for May Revolution

There is an A-Class review open for the article May Revolution (an event that took place in Buenos Aires in 1810, one of the starting points of the Spanish American wars of independence, and closely related with the ongoing Napoleonic wars), at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/May Revolution. Any comments are welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly spurious article - late Roman period

Skimming around a bit, I found Battle of Soissons (486), which has some comments on the talkpage suggesting it's spurious. Gibbon seems to confirm it (eg) but this is many centuries from my area. Anyone with expertise care to take a look? Shimgray | talk | 11:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Spurious is too strong a word, I think. The dispute seems to be about the nature of the military action at Soissons in 486. It seems pretty clear that the Domain of Soissons (aka the Kingdom of Soissons) fell at this date to the Franks. Despite its name, the article only mentions the battle in passing and has no details. A quick google suggests that the modern scholarly answer may be found in the research monograph Late Roman Warlords by Penny MacGeorge (2002). The abstract says "The second part is concerned with the Gallic general Aegidius and his son Syagrius, who ruled in northern Gaul, probably from Soissons. This extends to AD 486 (well after the fall of the Western Empire). The problem of the existence or non-existence of a `kingdom of Soissons' is discussed, introducing evidence from the Merovingian period, and a solution put forward." The monograph is available on line but only to those with the appropriate subscription access, which I don't have. If anyone does, perhaps they can resolve the issue (and provide modern referenced sources for the article).Monstrelet (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sadly, I don't have access either... perhaps the article should be merged into a broader topic on the period? Shimgray | talk | 21:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I quote from that article (which I do have access to):

The existence of a Gallo-Roman leader named Syagrius, ruling the city of Soissons and defeated by Clovis in ad 485/6, seems more probable than not. The story in the Historiae is a detailed and coherent one, and the names of people, places, and battles are highly durable items in oral history and legend. The kingdom based on Soissons was the creation of Syagrius rather than his father, although it may have had its beginnings in his career. Aegidius, magister militum per Gallias, is still recognizably a figure of the late empire, Syagrius hardly at all; and the two decades of North Gallic history that wrought this change are almost totally obscure to us. It is likely that Syagrius was one of the last (perhaps the last) independent Gallo-Roman rulers, as indeed stated in Frankish genealogies. ... Syagrius' defeat marked the beginning of Frankish dominion of Gaul. That the victory at Soissons had political as well as military significance is substantiated by the surprising importance of Soissons in the following century; this can best be explained if the city was taken over as the centre of an important Gallo-Roman political unit. Perhaps in the process Clovis came into personal possession of substantial landed estates, previously belonging to Syagrius and his supporters, which became Merovingian royal estates.

Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum's new collections search

Hello all. It may interest members of this project that the Imperial War Museum has recently beta-launched a new website at beta.iwm.org.uk. The website includes a new collections catalogue, beta.iwm.org - Collections search. If you have the time, the museum's web team would be grateful for any feedback on this new search interface; you'll find a welcome banner and a link to the museum's online feedback form at the top of all the pages of the beta site. (Alternatively, of course, simply post your comments here) -- IxK85 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The images in the search results are larger now, which is nice. Still wish I understood copyright law on them though... - how does the IWM possess copyright of bundersarchive images for example? Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see that a great deal more material is available than previously on the catalogue. The thought of having to go all the way to Lambeth from Cumbria (again) to listen to a particular interview recording (which is now available online) was too much to contemplate. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, IxK, would the IWM be willing to release high-quality or even decent-sized photos of (for example) Surgeon [Oscar] Parkes' collection of ship's portraits for upload to Wikipedia? The benefit for you is that if you choose 'decent-sized,' you'd retain the rights to distribute the high-quality image. Another benefit, no matter what you choose to release, is the increased traffic to the IWM site from people clicking through from the images hosted here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites related to the Civil War to the NRHP county lists." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on needed at Polish Army Scouts

This is a possible hoax, and has been prod'ed by one of our valiant Polish contributors. Further opinions would be welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible collaboration?

I've been mooting for a little while the possibility of creating a Good Topic on air-launched ballistic missiles. Bold Orion is already at GA, and I might be able to work on High Virgo to bring it to GA status as well. That leaves GAM-87 Skybolt and the title article itself - the latter of which is merely a stub! Is there anyone out there who'd be interested in working on those two articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got some time up my sleeve, so why not? The problem is, I barely have any sources for these subjects. I also have other GT ideas including:

• Harrier Jump Jet - Hawker Siddeley P.1127, Hawker Siddeley P.1154, British Aerospace Sea Harrier, Hawker Siddeley Harrier, McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II are all GA
• Stealth aircraft - Northrop YF-23, Lockheed YF-22, Lockheed Have Blue are all GA plus, and we can add to it Northrop Tacit Blue, Northrop B-2 Spirit, Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Lockheed Martin X-35, Boeing X-32, and the like
• Teen Series - General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is at GA, but we can probably revamp McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and its daughter articles, McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and its daughter articles, and Grumman F-14

Anyway, back to your point, I'm happy to collaborate with you. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So many projects, so little time? I know the feeling very well. :) I'm going to start working on getting the HV article upgraded to GA soonish, so that's where I'll be concentrating. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whipped up a quick topic box for this... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hi guys! I've been poking around at WP:Contributor copyright investigations, and there are several over there that fall within MILHIST's scope. It's easier to find the copyvio when you're at least somewhat acquainted with the material, so I think that this project could be a great help in clearing up some or all of these investigations:

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111004 - User:Ken keisel - aviation articles, including some military aviation
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dawkeye - User:Dawkeye - naval articles
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101 - User:Ktr101 - general military, mostly military aviation
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Communicat - User:Communicat - World War II
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Chewygum - User:Chewygum - Philippine military
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Razzsic - User:Razzsic - Pakistani military & politics
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Craigy144 - User:Craigy144 - mostly British peerage, but some military scattered throughout

Some of these are fairly small investigations, but others (such as Dawkeye, Razzsic, etc) are quite large. It's a little scary that we have so many potential copyright violations within our project's scope, so I'm hoping that by posting here we can have many hands make light work of at least some of the above. WP:CCI is overburdened, with just a few editors doing the majority of the work - hopefully we can change that at least a little bit on MILHIST-related investigations. Dana boomer (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Communicat one can probably be closed. It turns out he was taking material from his own books, which he released under a GDFL-compliant license when pressured about this copyright violation. I'm fairly sure that all this material has since been removed from articles anyway when the copyvio was picked up and as part of the response to other problems with the content Communicat was adding. Nick-D (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've actually been working through this one today. There is still at least one article (History of South Africa) where information he added is still in the article, and isn't sourced to his book. It may not be copyvio, but since he was found to be copying from other books than his own, someone with the sources is going to need to take a look at that article; either that or remove the information presumptively. It does look like most of it has been addressed, but I'll probably end up going through the rest of the articles just to make sure that everything has been caught. Some help would be great, but if no one's interested I'll just keep plodding along.

The Chewygum CCI is another one that's quite close to closure, if there's anyone here with a knowledge of Phillipine military sources. There are just a few articles left that haven't been checked over, and there's a good chance they're copied from someplace, but I haven't for the life of me been able to figure out from where. Again, any help would be appreciated. All of the guys working on the Ken keisel CCI have been doing a fantastic job! Dana boomer (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

With some help from MRG, the Communicat CCI has now been completed and closed. Dana boomer (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ACR Queries

I passed an ACR for Battle of Nam River October 2 which was my third for an eighth ACR medal. I haven't seen anything about it, though, and the Awards page seems rather inactive, of late. Do we no longer award those? Also, on a related note, I've had two ACRs with 3 supports and no activity for a few days (Kenneth R. Shadrick and William F. Dean) is there something holding them up I don't see? --Ed!^(talk) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

They are still being awarded. The MilHist coordinators just need to re-group after the recent elections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye has given the correct official answer -- in fact of course, Ed, it's punishment for not putting your hand up as a candidate at the recent election... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking for adequate ship's image

While rewriting the John Rodgers page and noting in the article that his son, John Rodgers, Jr., served aboard the USS Concord of 1828, I came to find out that there was no page for this vessel when I attempted to link to it, so I ended up creating the page just so it wouldn't appear as a red link in the JR article. One thing led to another and now I'm pretty involved with expanding the page. However, I have only been able to find information in an indirect manner, as there doesn't seem to be a dedicated book about the ship, or any book that covers it well for that matter, leastwise an image for it. The Concord is a Sloop of war, of 700 tons so I used an image from another (sister) sloop of war with a note in the caption saying so, but was informed by another user that the image of the SOW I used was of a vessel with almost twice the tonnage as that of the Concord built in 1828. So I looked to other articles of SOW's and came across a couple whose tonnage, length, beam and draft are identical to that of Concord's. I have made a comparison chart of the vessel's characteristics on the Concord's talk page, inquiring as to which vessel's image would be best suited for this new article. If anyone with knowledge in this area can help, would you please leave input on the talk page there? Thanks, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1945)

The article has been up for FLC review for 6 weeks now. Maybe someone here not yet bored to death by this topic could pay the article a visit an leave some comments. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to see that ... it seems likely that if people have similar experiences at FLC, then people won't take articles to FLC, which makes the process less than useful (for us, anyway). But I've never been tempted to get more involved at FLC, just because my skills aren't particularly relevant there. Someone else might want to post regular updates on what's happening and what's needed at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't much think to visit the FLC page. Perhaps we should track the articles there on the Announcements template in addition to everything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Stub salvage

If anyone's interested in a bit of article (re-)assessment, I've run some reports to identify stub-rated articles which are probably needing up-rated - mostly through having been expanded and improved substantially since they were initially assessed, which might have been four or five years ago. They fall into three groups:

• Articles with MILHIST stub templates but which "look too long" - over an arbitrary 5k of wikitext. (report)
• Articles with MILHIST stub templates but at least one start-class or above rating from any project. (report)
• Articles with MILHIST stub ratings (on the talkpage) but at least one start-class or above rating from another project. (report)

A static, wikified list of all three groups as of Saturday 15th is here, or you can generate updated versions of an individual report using the links (scroll down to the bottom of the page and press "do it" - I've not included direct links to avoid excess toolserver loads).

Hope they're of some use... Shimgray | talk | 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I had a look at six or seven. All but one were stub tagged though they were assessed at start (I've fixed these). Several were stub tagged after assessment as start, which was rather lax. Is there any way that an alert can appear on the main page saying you have put a stub tag on a page assessed at a different class, to prevent this in future?Monstrelet (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

We can run a report to catch them (as above), but I think coding the stub template to warn you is fairly impractical - it would need to pull relatively complex metadata off the talkpage, and I don't think anything like this is currently in use. On the other hand, there's a very useful tool in the gadgets now - "Display an assessment of an article's quality..." - which colour-codes the article title according to the highest talkpage rating, and hopefully helps avoid this sort of thing... Shimgray | talk | 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I think an editor who puts a tag on the front page without looking at the discussion page won't bother to use a tool either. Perhaps the stub template itself should warn "Check the article rating before using" in a comment clause? Seems like stating the obvious but clearly not everyone does this.Monstrelet (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm hoping that the people interested in article ratings (& thus probably stub-tagging) are more likely to have this turned on in recent years :-). A comment would be difficult to implement - the template isn't subst'ed, so we can't add html comments, and we probably don't want to clutter the reader-facing text with too much detail about metadata. An interesting problem... Shimgray | talk | 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My assessment of a "stub" that is too long is simple: 1.5k, qualifying for DYK. :-) As for the color-coded-for-your-convienence took, is there a link to it? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Pyrospirit/metadata - it's also available as a gadget, through Special:Preferences (listed about halfway through "Appearance"). Shimgray | talk | 18:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Help fixing Sailing Ship's articles

Recently discovered, by myself at least, is perhaps 100's of sailing ship's articles that were cut and pasted, to one degree or another, many of them entirely, from a PD source. Every one of them are lacking inline citations, most of them with zero inline citations. The links to these articles have been placed in a list/nav-box here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC update

... is at the coordinators' talk page, and I'd rather do it there every week (generally right after the Signpost comes out). - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

UAV categories

Anyone here see any reason that Category:UAVs and drones by country should not be renamed to the spelled out and combined Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by country, and all subcategories renamed similarly? The article is at Unmanned aerial vehicle and the parent category is Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles. Comment at the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_21#Category:UAVs_and_drones_by_country if you like.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Le souper de Beaucaire now open

Peer review for Le souper de Beaucaire (a pamphlet written by Napoleon Bonaparte), is now open. I'm aiming it for GAN. Members are invited to comment.

I have rated the article as Start-class, because it's short and concise, though in all modesty it is probably C- or B-class, given the references. If anyone feels up to quickly running through the B-class checklist in the talk page {{MILHIST}} template, it would be appreciated.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

BNF have a PD copy of it, including an 1821 cover of the 2nd edition, which might be suitable for inclusion as an image or as an external link. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was already aware of this scan but hadn't checked to see if the site had any official status or was just one of those "scribd" type sites where anyone can upload (meaning things quickly get deleted/removed that are not legal/required). Looks like it is very official, though. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that BNF are the equivalent to the British Library; Gallica is their on-line arm. The French government have taken a very forward leaning attitude to the digital rights, though, as well as producing a really good site. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah looks good, wish these tossers in British government were the same instead of closing libraries left, right and center backwards attitudes. Wonder which MPs/Councillors back-pockets those "savings" are going in. Rant aside, I did include it in the article, thanks. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 10:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

William Clark (explorer)

Someone please sort out this edit request, Please remove that William Clark was the second governor of the Missouri territory because he was not. - here. Thanks,  Chzz  ?  08:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Now done (thanks, The ed17)  Chzz  ?  08:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Hobey Baker now open

The featured article candidacy for Hobey Baker is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

discussion on Reliability of a source

there is a discussion on Reliability of a source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#bharat-rakshak.com_vs_pakdef.info interested editors can give their views.--ÐBigX?a? 14:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Project A119 now open

The featured article candidacy for Project A119 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Massive NPOV issues at Public opinion in Canada on the war in Afghanistan

Redundant red links

On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks page, under 'Articles to be created' the link Battle of Xinfeng occurs three times. Looks like there's thousands of links there (blur). Be nice if they were alphabetized and perhaps put into categories i.e.'Civil War', 'This War', 'That War', 'People from Here', 'People from There', so this sort of thing is easier to catch. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The links are collected from the requested articles lists maintained as part of individual task forces, so the occasional repetition is not entirely unexpected; some articles simply happen to be requested by more than one task force.

Your point about categorization is a good one, and I've taken a stab at implementing a basic scheme based on the requesting task force for each article. I don't see any automated way of ensuring that the requests are alphabetized, unfortunately; that's something that will need to be done by manually alphabetizing the requests for each task force. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That was quick. Is it possible to load all the words/titles (section at a time) into a word processor that would alphabetize the lot of them, after which you could then copy/paste the alphabetized list back into the section -- nice and civilized looking? :-) I use Word Perfect but it doesn't have that function. Also, inserting a note just beneath the 'Articles to be created' title saying -- Before adding a Subject Title please search to see if your Title is present -- might alleviate the situation somewhat. Then all that would be left to do is hire an army to write about all of them subjects. (!) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. I had a look at areas I might be able to help with and noticed a couple of weaponry ones could be solved by a redirect, as they are sub-types in main articles. What's the protocol on deletions though? In weaponry, there is a request for Plancon a pico which is simply a mispelling of Plançon a picot.Monstrelet (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's a typo of an existing article - delete and be damned. Equally I guess that if a requested article redlink is not notable, then remove it too. Eg Jack Wheelis - a guard of Goering at Nuremberg seems to have no notability outside being possibly duped. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

With a combination of spelling corrections and redirects I managed to fix five in the weapon section. I suspect there are a number of others generated by alternative spellings or names which would need someone with a bit of task force related expertise to pick up. Some of the foreign task force ones might be picked up in the appropriate national wikis. There are, for example, lots of requests for French nobles who, if they are notable, could be found in a translatable form on French wikipedia. Perhaps it needs a rallying cry to the task forces to organise a sweep through their categories?Monstrelet (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:General of the Armies

For those who are moved by the minutiae of capitalisation of military ranks and titles, there's a discussion going on at Talk:General of the Armies that could use some neutral editors. Shem (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Counter-insurgency merger into Insurgency proposal

I've proposed a merger of Counter-insurgency into Insurgency. Interested editors should comment on Talk:Insurgency.--S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing The Times History of the War

I am currently trying to spruce up Battle off Noordhinder Bank and need to use a couple of citations from The Times History of the War. Unfortunately i am rather unsure of how to do that seeing as it doesnt have an author or editor listed and is a 21 volume narrative lol.XavierGreen (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've used "Editors of The Times, eds". Is that against MOS? Does it suit you? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The OCLC has a description here that may be useful. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

HTMS Chakri Naruebet

Some extra eyes on this article might be good - an IP editor is attempting to add information (including some that might be BLPish) using WikiLeaks as a source, and is claiming that this justifies treating WL as a reliable source despite it saying that only applies for WL itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ship losses

Please can we ensure that all ships that are lost, through accident or enemy action, are added to the relevant year's list of shipwrecks and the relevant year category for maritime incidents. Thus a ship lost in 2011 would have an entry in the List of shipwrecks in 2011 and be categorised in Category:Maritime incidents in 2011. If there is no list, the ship should be categorised, to allow easier creation of the list in future. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This week's Milhist FAC update

Just a pointer to WT:MHC#Milhist FAC update, 26 Oct. These updates will generally show up after the Signpost comes out each week. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Military history of the Russian Empire

Could use an expert review (for what's done so far). Thanks guys. ResMar 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

KV-4 in AfC backlog

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KV-4 (tank). Looks a bit sketchy to me, so I'm not promoting it myself to mainspace, but perhaps someone here would like to work on it? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A merge to Kliment Voroshilov tank would be more in order. A design that never left the drawing boards, there's really not enough meat there to have a separate article. I'm tempted to decline the article myself unless others think I should stay my hand... GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Update. has been placed in the article space at KV-4 (not by me). I've given it a once over but needs attention if its existence before it enhances the Milhist project. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, whenever they have one of those drives to clear the AfC backlog some questionable stuff goes through. It's basically sourced to one website. U? (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Bering Strait/Battle of Komandorski

I just noticed that an article titled Battle of the Bering Sea was recently created. At first i thought it might be a hoax article, but it seems awefly similar to the Battle of the Komandorski Islands given that the dates and force compositions are nearly identicle. I think a deletion is in order.XavierGreen (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - same battle! Farawayman (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as it is redundant. The fact it has been known by two different names can be noted, if need be, in the prior article. Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Coordinators and copyright experts attention requested

I've just had a message from my good friend Mr W.B. Wilson regarding WP:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_October_26#File:14th_Zouaves.jpg. This is a ridiculous policy that appears to be being taken - can anyone give advice? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry to say that it seems that you have run afoul of "freedom of panorama" provisions in copyright law. :(

Some countries have provisions in their copyright laws to allow people to take pictures without fear of copyright concerns of various items installed in public places; the items covered and the definition of "public places" varies by jurisdiction. Some countries do not have exceptions for this kind of content. The United States does not, and neither, evidently, does Belgium. (Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Belgium) In the absence of freedom of panorama exceptions, we can only host the picture under free license if it doesn't contain any copyrighted elements or if the copyrighted elements are de minimis. When the plaque is the point of the picture, de minimis won't apply, so we're left to evaluating if the elements are protected, and that may be a sticking point here.

I'm sorry. I know it's counterintuitive that people can permanently install something in a public place and then control your right to share photographs of it (and it's even more vexing that you can do it in some places, but not in others), but we're kind of stuck until the law evolves on this question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Spanish coup of July 1936 now open

The peer review for Spanish coup of July 1936 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Bhagat Singh now open

The peer review for Bhagat Singh is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass moves of Canada Second World War articles

Military history of Canada during World War II makes the following puzzling statement:

As noted in the article on World War II, the official name of this conflict varies from country to country. In Canada, official historians refer to the conflict as "the Second World War". Wikipedia, as an international website, uses both terms, with a consensus to use "World War II" in the title of all articles, categories, etc.

Can someone elaborate on the origins, scope and context of this consensus? I would expect to find the Canadian English Second World War in this and all similar articles as per MOS:TIES, and the systematic move of Canadian Second World War topics seems to violate MOS:RETAIN pretty flagrantly. Albrecht (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen any discussion to use World War II over Second World War in article titles or any thing else. I always use the British terms First and Second World War. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What articles have been moved?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(aside) In the past I've seen the term changed in articles multiple times, but I haven't seen a move based on the name... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with template (?) at AfC

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914 and User talk:Hamish59. I need to go offline now. U? (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE). These are broadly comparable to an order of battle (OOB) but are the generic organisation for a military unit rather than the OOBs time specific organisation . While we have lots of articles which a nothing but OOBs (some of which are of featured status) I'm not sure if we have any on TOEs in isolation. There's a large literature on TOEs so WP:N is probably going to be met here, but I'd suggest bundling these kind of articles together to avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE-type problems (eg, Organisation of German Army units during World War I or similar rather than individual TOEs). Nick-D (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A TOE article for German divisions in WWI is pretty feasible I think. It would have to be sectioned by division type and period as the equipment changed (MG availability, etc.) There's no WP:N problem there or INDISCRIMINATE-y/SYNT-y; there are some Osprey books (in fact an entire series if I recall correctly) for the equipment of soldiers, and they also cover typical operational TOEs. Cronn is in fact a good source for that, although it's mostly focused on the beginning of the war as far TOE goes; (Hamish59 has the English translation.) It can probably be supplemented with the Osprey stuff, e.g. [4] Similar articles could be put together for the other nations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In general, what we've done in the past is have the ToE in a more general article - Panzer division; British Armoured formations of the Second World War; Brigade combat team; Formation reconnaissance regiment. This doesn't work quite so well for more "mundane" units, but I think there's potential there - German cavalry in World War I or French infantry in World War I, perhaps, discussing divisional organisation, size of regiments, etc, as well as operational usage and other factors. Shimgray | talk | 21:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeing this issue I've created Category:Tables of Organisation and Equipment under Category:Military organisation to bundle together what we have already. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help everyone. I will look to extend TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914 to a more useful German cavalry in World War I. There remains my original problem: how do you include common information in multiple articles? Other than cut-and-paste which leaves a big maintainance problem, or links to another, separate article. I thought Templates was the way to go, but it looks like they are intended only for navigation / links to other articles.Hamish59 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Topic 1st Airborne Division

Hi the 1st Airborne Division Good Topic has been promoted. I have been working on this since March and would just like to say THANK YOU to all those who helped. Be it supporting the promotion, copy editing articles or just offering advice. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work, Jim. Congratulations. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm so pleased, I might buy the book! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Jim. I've enjoyed reading these articles. Nick-D (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Me too. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I heartily agree. Congrats Jim, you've done a fantastic job with the 1st Airborne. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A-class

Are A-class symbols supposed to be added to articles that've passed A-class reviews? DCItalk 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to the article itself, no. It took years to get acceptance for the idea of adding the green cross at the tops of the pages of Good Articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. DCItalk 23:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Remembrance Day: 11 November

Do we have an "On this day.." or similar submission ready for 11 Nov? Farawayman (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's located at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 11 Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Confederate regiments categories

Per this discussion here, should all Confederate regiments categories be renamed "(State) Confederate Civil War regiments"? Wild Wolf (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian war Operation Corridor

We've had a persistent problem with POV pushing and edit warring at Operation Corridor for months now, and it looks like there's a general confusion regarding the timeline of the operation. The Serbian POV edits have limited the time of the operation to around two months, but still mentioned Bosanski Brod three months later, and used Croatian POV sources to reference that (d'oh). The Croatian POV edits have pointed to the preceding invasion of Bosanski ?amac and largely ignored the stated length. I've tried to make some sense of it, and enforced WP:ARBMAC against the most egregious POV pusher, but I fear it's still incoherent and no less prone to dispute, so I would appreciate it if someone else could examine it and try to fix it properly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper now open

The A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Andrew Davis, Jr. now open

The A-Class review for George Andrew Davis, Jr. is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Scope and context in Background of the Spanish Civil War

In this article's latest FAC, Dank has raised some concerns about the content and narrative. Further input would be useful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not an easy one. I've left some brief thoughts on the review page. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a larger context here ... I'm not copyediting at A-class at the moment, and I was hoping that wouldn't create problems at FAC, but it already has. This is one of 3 Milhist FACs I've opposed recently on prose, and there was another one that piled up 6 supports and no opposes when the prose was not up to FAC standards. It annoys the crap out of delegates when everyone is supporting a FAC that the delegates really don't want to promote. I realize that FAC prose standards are tough and not entirely in line with standards elsewhere. What's changed is, I'm watching the clock now ... after my initial questions and the nom's initial responses, I'm doing the best I can in two or at most 3 hours (and most articles take less time), and if that doesn't work or looks like it can't work, I'm going to have to go ahead and get my oppose in, or risk losing the trust of the other reviewers (and then we're really screwed). I still want all our FACs to pass, but our win/loss percentage is probably going to drop a little compared with the last year or so, unless someone else develops a burning desire to read style and usage guides. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That reasonable. So you can't fix an article in 2-3 hours and you oppose it. Do you state which parts of the article need more work or something? I personally miss much the prose/clarity issues with articles I've worked on a lot, since I know what the text really means. What about checking back on the article later to see if the fixes were made? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I need to go look at McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. And things are less dire than I thought ... I asked for help on one FAC over at the coord's talk page and got some help and two more offers of help. If nominators or anyone will do their best to tick off the 10-point Checklist, we'll be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My comments & questoins above were only of a general nature, btw. I think most of us moved on after that FA nom was closed about a week ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a more general answer is: Absolutely, whether I oppose or support, I keep the FAC page watchlisted and respond to developments. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Forward operating base name standardization

Currently, forward operating base articles in Category:Military bases of the United States in Afghanistan and Category:Military bases of the United States in Iraq are chaotically named. Some use the abbreviation "FOB" in their titles, some use the full "Forward Operating Base." Would anyone object to me changing the abbreviated articles so that all use the full "Forward Operating Base"? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I support expanding FOB to Forward Operating Base in all article titles. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me as well. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Cerebellum (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I was about to voice my support but its done already! Anotherclown (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Masan now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Masan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Theodore P. Savas

Perhaps someone of this project could have a look at this (apparent) autobiography of an author of (mainly) books about the US Civil War. It's not my field, but I don't think the bio is neutral enough. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal reviews required

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Napoleonic Wars has been open for a month but has only received one person's feedback so far. Further support is required if the portal is to be promoted to Featured Portal, otherwise the review is likely to be closed due to lack of interest and no consensus. Please could a few members take 5 minutes to further support or comment on the nomination asap. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 12:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Ambrose

I've got a question over at the talk page for our Operation Normandy task force. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of heavy cruisers of Germany now open

The A-Class review for List of heavy cruisers of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of The Bugle

Hey folks, I've started a discussion at WT:MHNEWS#The future on how The Bugle, our project's newsletter, with some ideas on how it can continue to improve and grow. I'd like some comments on them if you have an extra minute to spare, and please don't hesitate to add your own ideas. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles needing coordinates

Hi guys! I was looking through the list of featured articles with cleanup tags, and realized that most of the articles tagged as needing coordinates were within MILHIST's scope. Here's the list; hopefully those of you with better knowledge of the subject than I can either provide the coordinates or remove the "needed" tag:

• Action of 1 January 1800
• Attack on Sydney Harbour (also has citation needed tags, if anyone's feeling ambitious)
• Battle of Gonzales
• Bombing of Singapore (1944-1945)
• Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)
• Brazilian battleship São Paulo
• Canoe River train crash
• Carlson's patrol
• December 1964 South Vietnamese coup
• Glorious First of June
• HMAS Australia (1911)
• HMS Indefatigable (1909)
• Japanese battleship Tosa
• Matanikau Offensive
• Operation Camargue
• USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente
• USS Constellation vs La Vengeance
• Vkhutemas
• Voyage of the Karluk

Any help that anyone could give on these would be awesome! I don't have enough knowledge of the subjects to know exactly what the coordinates should be (or how to go about finding that information), but when you do have that knowledge, adding coordinates is a pretty easy way to reduce the number of tagged featured articles! Thanks in advance everyone, Dana boomer (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows where Sao Paulo sank... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If there aren't any good coordinate points for them, I see no reason to not remove the tag. It seems to be a bot that tags them, though, so it may be put back at some point... Dana boomer (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure how these articles are tied to geographic locations Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For the three Quasi-War articles, data is rather scant for the entire war so i doubt any exact coordinates can be found expecially for the Action of 1 January 1800.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if anyone feels that coordinates are not needed/inappropriate on any of these articles, they should feel free to remove the tag that is generating the "coordinates missing" category. The tag is generally located at the bottom of the article, and is only visible in the edit window (as well as putting the article into a hidden category), and generally looks something like {{coord missing}}. I don't have the right expertise to make that call on the above articles, so I was hoping that someone else would! Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with no associated task force

I maybe blowing my own trumpet here, the Category for the "Military History articles with no associated task force" is empty! Not sure how long this will stay the way it is currently at "0". We should be happy that a Category is empty. Adamdaley (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice job Adam! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - nicely done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed disambiguating Battle of Jackson

Greetings! The disambiguation page, Battle of Jackson, has a large number of incoming links, the repair of which requires expertise in the area. Please help. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Most were Battle of Jackson, Mississippi but there were also several that actually were Jackson Expedition/Siege of Jackson and were erroneously linked as Battle of Jackson. Mojoworker (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much. bd2412 T 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Thomas Blamey now open

The A-Class review for Thomas Blamey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for ?ód? insurrection (1905) now open

The A-Class review for ?ód? insurrection (1905) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias now open

The A-Class review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Implementation of "list" flag and List-Class

Per the recent discussions, we've now begun to implement a distinct assessment scheme for lists. The initial changes include the introduction of a top-level "list" parameter in {{WPMILHIST}} and the availability of "List-Class" as an assessment result; more details on the specific template changes can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Implementation of "list" flag and List-Class.

Anyone interested in helping to test the new features, or seeing any errors in the assessment templates, is invited to join the discussion at the coordinators' talk page. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean lists no longer undergo GA or A class reviews? 65.94.77.11 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

List articles are not normally assessed for GA, per Wikipedia:GACR#What is not a good article? although nothing is to stop you nominating, as GA reviews are not part of WikiProject scope. We hope to create a new line of assessment criteria, so that there might be something along the lines of BL-class, AL-class, etc - filling the gap between List and FL, with criteria more suited to lists and equivalent to B-class, A-class, etc, as the current criteria are not well-suited to general lists. Will take some time to organise, though. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 14:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as "Good lists", lists go for featured list directly. It may not be a good idea to create "Good lists" at wikiproject level, it may be confusing. As for A-Class, it is at wikiproject level, and nothing prevents us from using it for either articles or lists alike. Cambalachero (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no plan to create "Good lists", only to create List-class criteria for this WikiProject, unique to MilHist, such as the BL-class, AL-class mentioned above. They will still show as "List-class" on the Assessment page for the time being, but once the concept has been developed should follow their own rating, eg List -> BL -> AL ->FL, parallel to the standard Start -> B -> A -> FA for prosey articles. This will also make it easier for reviewers to assess lists within their own right, instead of trying to adapt the current criteria to suit. It also means some of the well written "List-class" articles but not at FL standard, can be rated rather that remain as "List-class". Members are wanting such criteria to help bridge the gap between List and FL in "bunny hops" rather than having to make one big step. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of bharat-rakshak.com and pakdef.info

There is a debate going on about the reliability of bharat-rakshak & pak-def info web sites at Reliable sources noticeboard. Interested editors may please comment. Imho this is important to ensure only reliable sources are used in WikiProject Military History. Please dont avoid this just because its an India-Pakistan issue. AshLin (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Courageous (50) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Courageous (50) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rocket Fighters

This is a rather rough draft, but technically we could have an article on that instead of just Rocket-powered aircraft. Thoughts? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you could break that down several different ways. Rocket-powered research aircraft, fighters and maybe something for the space/aircraft like the Shuttle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep drafting, you could use some references that approach the topic as a whole rather than individual aicraft in isolation eg this and this. the article name will need modifying. And you could expand it to rocket powered combat aircraft by covering the bomber designs too. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The draft was not written by me, I've declined it for now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Confederate regiments categories

Per this discussion here, should all Confederate regiments categories be renamed "(State) Confederate Civil War regiments"? Wild Wolf (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the easiest thing to do would be to use the same name structure as the corresponding Union categories. For example, if the Union categories use the form "(State) Union Civil War regiments", then we should use "(State) Confederate Civil War regiments"; if the Union categories use the form "(State) Union Army regiments", then we should use "(State) Confederate Army regiments".

On a slightly tangential note, if we are going to use "Civil War" in the name, I think our normal convention is to place it at the end (e.g. "(State) Confederate regiments of the Civil War") rather than in the middle. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Eastern Theater of the American Civil War now open

The peer review for Eastern Theater of the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Bautzen (1945) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Bautzen (1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Polish Underground State now open

The A-Class review for Polish Underground State is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Radzymin (1920) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Radzymin (1920) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article elimination drive

Hi all there is a Good Article backlog elimination drive planned for December. Anyone interested in participating may wish to add the page to their watchlist. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

47th Army Article

Article: 47th Army.

I was wondering if the above article could be renamed to 47 Army (Soviet Union)? It's currently in the Category with "Military history articles with no associated task force" in our WikiProject. I'll be able to fix up the article and maybe the assessment. I don't how to rename a page. Adamdaley (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see a need to do so yet. Once there's another 47th Army article, the new one will have to be disambiguated, but it's fine for now, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

From my reading there was (and potentially still is) a 47th Field Army in the Chinese People's Volunteer Army during the Korean War. Perhaps pre-emptive disambiguation might make sense? Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For the reference, Chinese 47th Army still exists...Jim101 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for C. A. Patrides

Hello!

The following DYK nomination needs to be reviewed:

Did you know

• ... that Constantinos A. Patrides, the author of Milton and the Christian tradition, earned a medal for heroism for his boyhood service with the Greek Resistance against the German Occupation?

He carried messages for the resistance, according to the Michigan Daily (1986). The medal, the Order of Unknown Heroes, was awarded by His Holiness, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge / No Merge ... Forgotten?

Article: Prisoner functionary.

Has this "Merge" been forgotten about since May 2010? What is the end result of this? While it has been about 18 months since it was tagged. Feedback is appreciated. I have left the same questions on it's Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Theater of the American Civil War

While peer reviewing Eastern Theater of the American Civil War, I came to the realization that there is at least some amount of copyvio in the article (the first paragraph of the first section is copied wholesale from the first ref). See also my comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastern Theater of the American Civil War/archive1. All of the other refs are print books, which I don't have access to at the moment. Does anyone else have access to any of these books, that they could check them for further copyright violations in this article? Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona (BB-39)

Sturmvogel and I had a plan to get Arizona to FA for the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but even though he finished his part, I let him down due to school and other commitments. I put off asking for help for too long because I believed I could get back and finish it, but that never happened. Much of the article is complete (only 1929-1941 remain), but if one or two interested editors could adopt the article, finish it, and nominate it for FA, maybe we can still get it on the main page. I'll be around in on-and-off doses to help as well. Thanks everyone, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got several of the books, I'll give it a try. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Call me up if help is needed. Buggie111 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ACtually, why not try for next year (1 December, date of striking). It would be much easier, IMO. Buggie111 (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

December 7th is a much more important date, IMO. It is a much closer, deadline, though. Otto Tanaka (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ACW regiments

I've noticed that there are several differant ways for ACW regiment article titles (like "23rd Tennessee Infantry Regiment", "2nd Regiment Alabama Volunteer Cavalry", and "10th Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment".) Would it be simplier if the articles had standarized titles like Number/State/Branch of Service? Wild Wolf (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The current convention (WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME) is to use the official name of the unit as determined by the armed forces to which the unit belongs. In this case, the names are admittedly irregular, but they are the actual ones used by the armies in question; I don't think we should change those names merely for the sake of standardization. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to close the Duke of Caxias' article assessment

Hi, everyone. I'd like to ask to an administrator to close Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I lost the interest on trying an A-class nomination and no editor seems interested on reviewing the article. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can one of the more experienced admins have a look at this one. The GimmeBot assessed it as passed on 4 November. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Viipuri/Vyborg naming RfC

For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/Viipuri during World War II. This will affect quite a few articles on the Finnish/Soviet conflict, including Winter War, Continuation War, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939-1945), and others. If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards -- Mr. Stradivarius ^? 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Category discussion

A discussion about category names that might be of interest to the project is here and here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Armed Forces Special Weapons Project now open

The A-Class review for Armed Forces Special Weapons Project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Relief of General Douglas MacArthur now open

The A-Class review for Relief of General Douglas MacArthur is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The A-Class review for Battle of the Bismarck Sea is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Oswald Watt now open

The featured article candidacy for Oswald Watt is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add United States military history task force under WikiProject United States

Greetings, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the United States military history task force of Military history might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include a joint task force for it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the joint task force being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. If have any thoughts, comments or questions, please let me know. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Having seen how this worked with the Old West project, I'd have to vote against this should it come to that. Besides, isn't this TF already supported by the Military History project? Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what's being requested here. Obviously, as the other parent project for the task force, WPUS is perfectly welcome to provide links to it within its own task force lists; I don't think we need for any formal process to determine that the task force is a "joint" one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Kirill. Just remember, it's a joint task force run by WikiProject United States and WikiProject Military history, like American cinema task force of WikiProject Film. Just to clarify were not talking about deprecating the project. Just adding it to the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. The only significant change would be to add this project to the {{WikiProject United States}} project banner as you can see here like with others such as WikiProject District of Columbia and WikiProject West Virginia. This would allow the project to be visible to a much larger pool of editors as well as take advantage of the various bots and scripts currently running on the WikiProject United States articles. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with having the WPUS banner generate a task force tag for USMIL; a lot of our national task forces already have that sort of dual-tagging scheme (i.e. matching parameters in both {{WPMILHIST}} and the other project's banner). We just need to make sure that the category names you use are the same ones we're using, or we'll wind up with two copies of the assessment statistics. ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand. My only hope is that supporting under the WikiProject United States umbrella we can use the infrastructure in place for the project, including, collaboration, portal, noticeboard, newsletter, etc to increase visibiliy and participation, which Kumioko did. Additionally, since many projects have overlapping scopes we can use that to our advantage and coordinate multiple projects on article improvements easier. The last few months the focus has been on getting WikiProject United States going again and getting the infrastructure in place. In the future we will be focusing more on article content with improvement drives (tagging, stub reduction, assessment, picking a topic for improvement, etc.). JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to have you guys on board. Just one little misunderstanding: that task force cranks out a lot of FACs, I'd hardly call it inactive ... I think someone was confused by the fact that the talk pages for all our task forces are redirected to this talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, its a rough start and it takes a while, usefully I've been tagging around with the {{WikiProject United States}} banner myself, along with Kumioko which uses with an AWB. The assessment can be done by bot. BTW, is it possible to support American Civil War and Revolutionary War task forces on the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States as well? JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

5 years now

I just realized that it has been 5 years now that I am contributing to Wiki. Thanks for all the help and positive feedback I received since. Have a nice day everyone. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work over the years. It's been a pleasure working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, Mr. B. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the anniversary !!! Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop it, Mr B, you're making me feel old. ;p Time flies... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal nominated for deletion

A Featured Portal related to this WikiProject, Portal:Biological warfare, has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been closed as "speedy keep". ···???^? · ?? · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed military history articles

Several times I've added articles from the "Category:Unassessed military history articles" to be assessed. They seem to be deleted or ignored from the assessment list. I realise I am new to being a Military History Coordinator and have encouraged some users to improve articles they've made edits too. Which they have kindly taken the time to do improve these articles. However, I am disgusted how some articles I've put on get taken off for no good reason without being assessed.

Personally, I am trying to help as a Coordinator and get the unassessed, assessed. I've resorted to trying my best to try and get the assessment correct as I see fit. Sometimes I expect something to be low assessed while it turns out to be assessed higher, while the same goes for the opposite I might feel it could be something higher, but it is assessed lower. Really it's a "gamble" to let someone assess it for you. It still needs to be done in the end.

Yes I feel honoured that people that have voted for me (into this position) as a Military History Coordinator, this is the first big role I've had since I opened my account in 5 years of being on the English Wikipedia. While I have tried my best at all times, even contributing some image to Commons.

Over the fourteen days or so, I was going to ask every Coordinator how is my "contributions" to WikiProject Military History?

• Is it upto standard?
• Or am I not doing much and letting other Coordinators do most of the work?

Being a Coordinator isn't easy when someone doesn't know all the shortcuts to improve articles or various coding for articles. I do my best and stick with what I know, I am willing to learn, but not to the point of being overwhelmed. In the end, I could basically be a full time Coordinator 24/7. Over the years I've learnt alot from Wikipedia and when someone comes down hard on me it doesn't feel very good. My knowledge of Battles to people, through to personally getting books ordered and reading them to simply improve an article, I will tell you now, I hated reading out loud at Primary School and High School.

As some of you are probably aware, my english isn't perfect. Failed English in Year 10, went onto Year 11 and did two courses of English even though I am born and raised in an English-speaking country. Then after Year 11, just passing being absent for most of the time due to anxiety and other issues since it was a brand new High School, double the amount of students that I came from the High School prior only had 550 students in 4 years then to go to 1,150 students in 2 years. Went back the following year to do Year 11 again to improve my marks and do Year 12. Unfortunately the same thing happened the year before. Dropped out and went to TAFE to do computers, until then I had done computers in High School since Year 9 through to Year 11. Hated it though, wasn't really interested.

Then I decided what would I do since I'm not at School anymore, I should go to TAFE. What did I end up doing between 1998 and 2003? Computers. While I was at School in 1995 and 1996, I a decision to make for three subjects to do for those two years. I chose, the German language, Computers and History. Of course the German language back then, didn't get enough students for 1 class, so I was basically forced to choose again and it ended up being "Cooking" for two years. In that time I took to "History" especially World War II and Cooking was alright, because you got to eat before other students in the other classes for lunch or we'd pass food through the window for other students.

So basically I'm doubting myself being a Coordinator and I thought that I could help relief the "Backlogs" on the Assessment page of WikiProject Military History. Guess I was wrong in a way, at the same time I'm proud (to be a WikiProject Military History Coordinator) and to be doing this and I'm willing to learn. Just don't come down hard on me, I am fragile. Adamdaley (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Adam. To address your two questions directly:

• I don't think there is a "standard" in the sense of "these are your duties", so no one can really judge you except by the standards of your work. If you are actively contributing a lot and producing a lot of high-quality articles, then that is a high standard. Alternatively, you might contribute a high-turnover of administrative duties, like Kirill, for example, who doesn't write a great deal of articles, but whose presence keeps things going. There are dozens of roles on Wiki that people can fulfil - in essence, you become a cog in a great machine. If you slow, or work faster than others, the results can vary - you might create a backlog, or you might leave yourself without anything to do in your chosen area - in which case, there is plenty more to do. As a volunteer you can do what you want, in whatever proportion. True, there is no form of coordinator review in the same way we have editor reviews or even admin reviews. It is up to you to determine your ability to fulfil the role or coordinator as set out by and Wikiproject you work with. Although MilHist says there is not much a coordinator here can do that a regular editor can't do, I think most people do see the coords as a team with a certain set of duties that are their tasks, so to speak, that by becoming coords they have stepped up to the plate and are expected to bat - reviewing and promoting, for example. Whilst anyone can review, someone is expected to close each review, and often it is a coord who does this, because they are left to do it. How you do it, is up to you. So in short, I don't think anyone can question your standards due to the fact that there are none in terms of the standard at which you can perform any duties, only the standard of your articles is really measured by any formal scale.
• Are you letting others do too much work? The underlying question being, are people complaining? Has anyone suggested that you are shirking your duties? Are you happy with the efforts you make, and do you feel you are putting ample effort into the role you have been granted? As I said in the first question, coordination is as much a matter of personal standards, coupled with performing a number of tasks that help keep this Wikiproject going - you need to identify what cogs need turning, and which aren't going as well as others, the see if you can help speed things up. Wiki is full of backlogs, "wanted" and "to do" lists, things unassessed, low-quality material needing work. I think it will always be the case. No one can blame anyone - Wiki has its strengths and weaknesses. But you need to play to your own strengths, rather than feel you have to deal with the weaknesses - because some of Wiki's weak areas are so vast, that any one-man attempt to right them could prove futile - like tossing pebbles in the sea and hoping the water level will rise. There are ways, places on Wiki and the WMF to voice your concerns and motion for changes to the way Wiki operates, to improve turnover, makes weak areas less weak. Consensus often agrees to act upon suggestions that will make Wiki a better place, if the person with concerns has a solution, or even the foundation of a solution that others can build upon. Wiki didn't appear overnight and it has a ways to go. Simply be proud to be a part of it.
• Finally, to comment in the number of unassessed and low-quality articles. History is a vast topic. Military history is just as vast - if the sum of history was the Earth, I'm sure military history would be the equivalent of a vast ocean, like the Pacific. It's a huge place to take a plunge into. If you go by Lists of wars and through the earliest eras, the oldest recorded battle is something like 4700 years ago. But even if we take roughly 5000 years of military conflict on Earth as the range for "military history", that is an area so big, no one could learn it all in a lifetime apart for in a very general glossing of the "when, where and who", perhaps the basic "why". Taking 2 of the most popular modern wars, WW2 and Napoleonic Wars as examples, a) because they have more influence on our lives/society, and b) they are better documented than, say, Roman Gallic Wars. Again, each of these wars are so massive they require a lifetime to study. Hence why many historians are oft considered "specialist". Men like Richard Holmes, David G. Chandler, Shelby Foote, Charles Oman, et al. who dedicated their lives to one or a few wars, are in the same boat as all of us - life's too short to know everything. So don't think that by not being able to assess everything you have "failed", the task itself is grand. I know there are some editors, like Dank who can comfortably read and assess "any" article, regardless of where in our 5000 year spectrum it falls, and kudos to his flexibility and determination - he's a rare breed. There are areas of history most of us don't even touch, due to total lack of interest. I expect most of us "specialise" in just one or two wars, eras or periods of conflict, and beyond that everything else is rocket science. And there are some of us who have a "passing interest" in everything and "get the gist" enough to review anything that is considered "military history". Your area/s of interest, learning curve, etc are just as flexible as your personal standards. If you've only ever studied WW2 with any great detail, then nothing is to stop you focusing purely on WW2 reviews, assessments and improvements. On the other hand, if someone presents a half-dozen articles they've written on The Crusades, there's nothing to stop you "having a go" - based on the theory, that "war is war" regardless of if they use swords or guns, the premiss is the same: causes, battles, sacrifice, victors. Sometimes I think of history like music, instead of periods, I think of it as "genres" - war, politics, society, etc. It suddenly becomes neater, draws things together - if you focus on the genre, it helps you assimilate the content a little easier, even if the period is new to you.

Not sure if that's of any help, or even the sort of response you were hoping for. I think, all that really matters is what do you want to achieve through Wiki, as an editor, or coordinator, or whatever role you take, whilst still being able to enjoy yourself and feel your contribs are recognised. There are no certificates, cheques or parties from Wiki, it's all about personal achievement, merit, confidence to do as much as you want. Don't push yourself, and don't let anyone push you. You have the right to be happy with your own standard and level of contribution, and no one has a right to question your commitment to any degree. Personal reviews are about competence, and I'm sure no one doubts yours.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 17:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish - I'll be honest, no one has complained. I may have had one question my ability (or judgement) on one article for adding "Citations Needed", we got past that and that particular article has been expanded. I can understand I'm only one person in thousands to a couple of million users who contribute constructively to Wikipedia. I may do things a little different and a longer way, with things, but with my illness I'm like that. Really, I don't do drugs, smoke, drink (well maybe one or two beers a year), I consider myself not stupid, but sometimes I can play to be stupid and not get the point. I'll see if I can go through some of the backlogs in the "Biographies" that is associated with WikiProject Military History.

Just wanted to let the Coordinators, that I am doing my best even though it may not be much and I do have alot of time on my hands, compared to others that maybe busy in real life and can only get on every now and then. I'm probably a Wikipedia-aholic. Once again if anyone has objections that I am not pulling my weight, please tell me. Because I feel I may have assessed some articles too High, as "B" class when it may have only been "C" class. I'm also willing to listen and learn from the more experienced Coordinators, past and present. Adamdaley (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't do drugs, smoke, or drink either, and some people just have a thing for being thorough, whether it simply be habitual behaviour, peace of mind, OCD or just good practice. I expect many Wiki-users are the same. As long as you're content with your methods and they work well for you, go for it. But we don't judge contributors by their habits.. just as we don't judge by age, race, religion, orientation or level of education. No qualifications are required to be a good editor.. or even a bad editor in good faith. As long as a person is competent, and not disruptive, and proves they can be a good team player, that's all that matters. People aren't monitored daily unless they prove themselves troublesome and need someone to keep an eye on them. I very much doubt you need to worry that you are doing a bad job. As for C/B class assessing, don't worry too much about it - as they are both easy to assess without review, if you rate C and someone thinks B, they can change it. If they think C and you think B, again, they can lower it. There is unlikely to be much fuss, and they may even discuss their reasons with you. Once it comes to A-class, the reviews are in-depth and logged, so the promotion is more or less based on a group decision. You neither need to be a coord nor an admin to review anything on Wiki, it's just another set of those cogs, working through a list and criteria to the best of your ability. The more you do, the better you'll become. If you feel you're becoming a Wiki-holic, take a Wiki-break to freshen up for a day or two, even a week. When you return there's no rush to worry about what you missed doing or thinking you have to catch up. I'm sure no one thinks you're "stupid" either. Doesn't matter if your English is good or not - we have people here from English-speaking countries, Germany, France, Poland, Russian, Asia, the Far East, and so on. As long as we can understand each other, nothing else matters. Self-confidence doesn't come easily to everyone, but you stood for nomination as a potential coord and clearly people showed faith in you, whilst a couple of people received fewer votes. That can't be a bad thing. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently I helped someone from Poland to re-write an article, it was like two weeks of doing minor editing for him and of course I didn't mind, because no one else seemed to have wanted to help him. So I decided to help him. I get on IRC and talk to people on there in the Wikipedia channels or to read what's going on, on Wikipedia that I don't know. I am honoured to be a Coordinator for WikiProject Military History even though it maybe for only a year. Adamdaley (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Poles can be pleasant people to talk to. I also like the Dutch, they're very keen on having an English-speaking majority in the Netherlands, though you'll find a lot of Europeans that genuinely enjoy talking to native English-speakers to help strengthen their own English. I've known a few in the past. Even Americans/Aussies/Canadians who like to learn British-English words (usually slang) can be fun to chat with, I used to do that a lot when I was highly into online gaming/clans/forums/msn, but I haven't done that for a long time. Copy-editing articles written by people who are not pro/native English-speakers can be rewarding and not too frustrating as long as you know what they're trying to convey and can phrase it better. Aside, you may get re-voted next year, if you stand for coord again, depends how well things go for you this year, I suppose - plenty of time yet. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 01:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

AdamDaley, for what it's worth, I think you're doing fine. As MarcusBritish suggests above, you were elected because a representative majority of the community felt that you had something to offer as a Coordinator, and could see that you would give it a good go - not because they thought that you (or any of the other coordinators for that matter...) were either perfect or knew all aspects of Wikipedia intimately. You've done a lot of work on the backlogs, for example, and I certainly appreciate that contribution; you've illustrated many other contributions you've made above. Given the huge potential for activities on the wiki, just in the field of military history - from GA, ACR and FA work, copyediting, help for non-native English speakers, help for native English speakers (!), content work, copyvio fixing, wikignoming, coaching, outreach, etc. etc. - no one could contribute to all those opportunities. This community is all about valuing what people do contribute, not worrying too much about the inevitably long lists of things we each don't do! Keep up the good work, Hchc2009 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam m'boy, I have the same (admittedly flip) advice I had for Dank when he was considering the merits of the Lead Coord position: don't think too much! You're doing just fine, really... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

To echo what others have said Adam, don't think you have to do it all. I've been amazed at the reduction in the unassessed backlog. I make a point of visiting to see if I can pick up any within my expertise and I know it's usually between 50 and a hundred there most of the time so well done. If you feel you need someone with period expertise or who can help a non-native speaker, then ask. I'm truly amazed by some editors' mastery of English as a second language but some need a little help and most people in the community will give that. Keep going Adam but don't beat yourself up. Best wishes Monstrelet (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank the people who have given support in this discussion. I appreciate it very much. Over the last few days I've started to do the Backlog of "B class" which is over 26,000 articles. Tonight I've managed to do four easily. Off-topic I am having personal problems as my mother was hospitalised around 2:30 am Sunday morning (Sydney time), which I stayed till around 9 am in Emergency then came home had a sleep, shower and went back with some stuff as the Doctor feels she'll be there for a few days. Hence the semi-wikibreak notice on my Userpage and Discussion page. I'll be around, just leave a message on my Discussion page if you need to contact me. Adamdaley (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tonight, I had a conversation on Freenode concerning an Admin (Sp33dyphil was actually in the channel and saw the whole thing). It wasn't good. Because not only my personal life is getting too much but also, my health is deteriorating both physically and mentally. Wikipedia has been the only place that I could volunteer my time too and it didn't matter what was wrong with my life (every other volunteer place in real life didn't want me there). I'm going to see if I'll be able to have a few days off, but the question is, what will I do with nothing to do? Honestly, it doesn't matter. Wanted to be a good Coordinator, I feel the way I am health wise and in my current situation, I'm letting the team down. Adamdaley (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam, reading the above would very much recommend you put yourself on light duties for a little while while you get things stable. Don't worry as much about the admining for a while, use your wiki time for something that engages your creativity and interests. You need something fun and diverting not another stressor at the moment. Best wishes and look after yourself Monstrelet (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Echoing the above, without wishing to devalue the co-ord positions, don't take them too seriously Adam or you'll never get off the co-ord page! I think it was EyeSerene who gave me some good advice when I was doing it - don't allow it to divert from doing what you enjoy on Wiki. It's not a job, so nothing is expected of you. Just do what you enjoy and don't stress when you can't manage everything you intend to. You only need to look at my co-ord term to notice that I not only ran out of time to fulfil co-ord duties, but I ran out of time to contribute to Wiki altogether! My point is, don't even begin to worry about taking a few days off. Best, Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Done it two nights running with another Admin. This time not on Freenode or with the same Admin, but a second! I tagged this article for translation: Panzerlehrbrigade 9. See source code for the Infobox it's in German, not english Wikipedia "Military Unit". I've tried to do my best with this, but unfortunately, I don't have anyone to help me on this to translate the German to English due to not wanting to stuff up the Infobox once it's been changed to english "Military Unit" for the German Unit in question. However, I do appreciate all the support the people here have given me. I'm very appreciative and thankful, since I'm going through a bad time not only on Wikipedia but in real life too. Adamdaley (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how I could make this any clearer. The infobox displays in English on the article. Therefore you can use that to show what each term in the source code means. Therefore you can use that to swap it out with the english infobox. No translation required.--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The translation has been done by someone and I have left them a message and given them a Barnstar to show my appreciation for this person taking the time to change the Infobox from German to English (source code) for english Wikipedia. Adamdaley (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic Revolutions

This is a cover term for the "revolutionary wave" that spanned from the 1750s to the 1830s: basically, the end of the Age of Enlightenment. The current article is listed as start-class and does not have a great deal of information. I know that the articles on the individual revolutions give plenty of information, but have started working on an expansion to the article. The expansion includes summaries of the revolutions (more than one paragraph). I am wondering if anyone else is interested in contributing to this. DCItalk 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Corsica is not in the Atlantic, this looks a bit like an OR essay.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just a term (not a very correct one) that names the wave of Enlightenment-spawned revolutions. Some even list Poland's 1790s chaos as part of the revolutionary wave, and it's certainly not part of the Atlantic world. The article is far from done. DCItalk 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we have some sources that use the term Atlantic Revolutions fpor a series of interlinked evetns please?Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• [5]
• The Search for Beulah Land is a book written by a Welsh historian. The subtitle reads: the Welsh and the Atlantic Revolution
• World History in Documents by Peter N. Stearns mentions the "Age of Atlantic Revolution"
• Revolutions in the Atlantic World by Win Klooster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Revolutions, we have a page.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The current article (the one in the main namespace) is just a list, barely beyond being a DAB page of sorts. It certainly needs growth, but not in the form of a "list of summaries" of semi-related topics. It should be focused instead in the connections. Explain which things from the X revolution influenced similar things at the Y one, which ones were similar but not the result of an influence, and which ones were rejected (for instance, the Spanish Enlightenment was more conservative towards religion than the French one) Cambalachero (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is very very important when dealing with theories in academic history to weigh the influence of the theory in the contemporary scholarly world, and to primarily discuss the theory rather than its explanatory examples. Structuring an article around the examples the theory proposes is coatracking together an article in support of a theory, rather than discussing the proper subject of the article: the theory. For example: Australian settlement is an theory explaining Australian history in the 20th century. In contrast, almost all scholars agree that a French revolution occurred. One should be discussed as a theory, the other as a sequence of events. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Can't say much beyond Fifel. Historical theories often come out of the dominant narrative of the historiography of a subject. However, just because a majority of historians subscribe to the narrative does not mean they are right. You're going to have to focus on the theory, as Fifel says, but I'd also include a section on the work of historians that differ from this theory, aka the alternative narrative. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • There are no "rights" or "wrongs" in social sciences. Cambalachero (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a very good link, Cambalachero - I haven't seen it before. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Be aware that nothing in this will prevent me from marking your history assignments as E or F when you get it wrong. I'm just saying. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Affair of Abu Tellul

We are having difficulty finding consensus regarding the name of this article. Some think 'battle' most appropriate but the sources don't describe a battle - more an action, although the naming authority for the war assigned 'affair'. In the Sinai and Palestine campaign there were engagements which were significant but which were really too small to be called battles; if they were all called battles the campaign would look a bit out of proportion. Would it be possible to add to the 'Article structure' another sub-section to cover 'actions' along the same lines as for 'battle' -

1. The name of the action (including alternate names).
2. When did it happen?
3. Where did it happen?
4. Which war or campaign does it belong to?
5. Who were the combatants?
6. What was its outcome or significance?

I'd really appreciate some advice regarding this problem. Thanks, --Rskp (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above. See the heading Request for opinions. Anotherclown (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rskp, although the matter is being discussed above, I want to mention a few points. Sometimes the term given to an engagement does not relate purely to the scale of the engagement but to the conditions of the encounter, in that some engagements occur as a chance encounter and become known as "combat", "clash", "rearguard action" (during a retreat), etc. In the cash of two (or more) armies drawing together, positioning guns and troops, then fighting out, the term "pitched battle" often applies. Though these are usually thought of as grand Napoleonic style battles with huge columns and lines of men and cavalry forming up before engaging, the size of those battles ranged from as few as 15,000 per side (a few brigades/a division) to 200,000 per side (several corps or whole armies), making the scale vast in comparison. In contrast, WWI land engagements often come across as entirely pitched given the use of entrenchments, barrages, etc, but it could still be matter of determining the form of encounter rather than proportion in comparison with other battles, as it's not always a simple matter of numbers. A campaign is an overall objective, regardless of scale, so it doesn't matter if the engagements within a campaign are all minor clashes, or a series of battles, sieges, actions at sea, bombing raids, or whatever - a campaign is something a side plans to commit to with an end result in mind, engagements are not always pre-planned in terms of location and scale of combat situations within it. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 09:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about an article I have at FAC, the Battle of Kaiapit. Officially, it was an affair too, being a fight between an Australian company and a Japanese battalion. I did not create the article (Nick D did) so I didn't name it, and don't know the thinking behind the name, but there is a clue in the last paragraph, where I compare it with the Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam in 1966. That too was a company action, against a somewhat larger force than at Kaiapit (but at Kaiapit they didn't have artillery support, which sort of evened things up). On this model, Long Tan, generally celebrated as a battle, would only be an affair or engagement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I see things on this, simply: what term do the majority of sources use for the combat? Using anything else strays into WP:OR territory I'd think... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bushranger and Hawkeye7 - I have strayed into WP:OR and will move Katia back to affair. --Rskp (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Queries

The following two articles have sections () hidden from the actual article. The Panzerlehrebrigade 9 seems to have also German among the article is it really necessary? What could be done with this information? Or could be done to these two articles to improve them?

• Panzer Division Tatra

• Panzerlehrbrigade 9

I'm asking help from fellow Coordinators. I do not know what is done in this situation. Adamdaley (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The text in the Panzerlehrbrigade 9 seems to be from a slightly old version of the corresponding German Wikipedia article. I'd suggest removing it from the article as it's not very useful hidden away like that and any translations should be made from the current German-language article (which, in theory, will be more up to date and of higher quality). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Has any changes been made to that since Nick-D? Since I pointed it out or removed? Adamdaley (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinions

Hello all, if possible could a few editors please take a look at Battle of Abu Tellul (also known as the Affair of Abu Tellul)? There is a debate on the talk page about whether it should be named a "battle" or an "affair". All opinions are welcome and of course I'm happy with whatever decision the majority comes up with. I just want to establish a consensus so we can move on with improving the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What's with this term "affair" for a military event? It sounds feeble, more like a title from an Agatha Christie book than a dangerous combat situation in a war. The debate on the talk page seems to revolve around the scale of the event, so why are people not using words like "campaign", "battle", "skirmish" or "clash", or if a more general term is required, "action", "combat" or "engagement", all of which have more context than "affair" which conveys no meaning, and seems more like an outdated romantic term used by people such as H.G. Wells and Victorian authors, than a historically accurate modern encyclopedic description. Just my 2c regarding the wider choice of better words available rather than arguing between those two. Will anyone seeing "Affair of..." in a search or category page think "oh, that must be a battle!" For all we know "Abu Tellul" could be a person having an affair (i.e. knocking someone up behind his missus back) which was notable. As far as I can see, there are only 2 other "Affair of..." titles on Wiki - Affair of Nery which redirects to Action at Néry, and Affair of Katia. So despite the best interests of RoslynSKP to portray an accurate definition via the title, there isn't any great use of the term on Wiki, and as AustralianRupert says, it appears archaic and not recognisable as a combat event, in which case "battle" is the better of the two, but there may be a more accurate word to suggest the scale of the fight, from the few I suggested, et al. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 23:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RoslynSKP is only following the official nomenclature, as laid down by the Imperial Battles Nomenclature Committee after the Great War. It's the name that readers will find in the British official history, and therefore what a researcher may well key in. We don't have to follow the official nomenclature, but have to be careful when we don't that readers will still be able to find stuff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to share your opinions. I appreciate it. Does anyone else have anything to add? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Battle" or "Engagement" would work, with "Battle" being preferred. No reason for "Affair" not to redirect though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - a redirect would cover both nicely. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I had some concerns about this when I wrote Action at Néry. As Hawkeye notes, "affair" is more or less the "official" title - it's what's used as a heading in the official history, for example. (Note the distinction between Nery (an "affair") and Villiers-Cotterets or Crepy-en-Valois, on the following pages, which were "actions".) I am guessing the approximate approach is that something was only "Battle of X" if a battle honour was authorised for it; otherwise it was termed an action or an affair, though the distinction between those two is not very clear to me, and seems to be blurred in current writing.

If we deprecate "affair" as a bit meaningless to modern readers, which is fine as long as we include redirects, I'd strongly recommend going with the less formal "action" rather than "battle". Names of the form "Battle of X" are almost always a standardised, well-used form appearing in historical works; if the sources don't use "battle", we shouldn't either, lest we confuse readers who can't find it referred to elsewhere. This is comparable to the situation with ship engagements, where we prefer "Action of [date]" to "Battle of [date]". Shimgray | talk | 22:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just been looking at Wikipedia:MILMOS#Battles and note there is no formal convention with regards to the names of different types of engagements. If there are formal names such as those given by the Imperial Battles Nomenclature Committee (which I personally have never heard of until now), then it is not unreasonable to use those names in the form of a redirect to more modern naming, e.g. Affair -> Battle. I like the idea that "Action of..." is often designated to smaller naval battles, particularly older ones between ship of the line type warships, whereas once we reach the age of Ironclads and modern warships, the term "Battle of..." seems more appropriate. Although I think "action" is also often used to refer to "cavalry action", quite a lot, and engagements between cavalry units only are often titled "Action of..." events, for some reason. It is probably, therefore, too difficult to standardise the use of terms without being imposing, as in many cases they often have historical ties of their own, depending upon how contemporaries or earlier generations of historians to ourselves have termed battles. Historiography, though, is a more modern concept than history, and the "way we study history" leads to the way we identify it, often to the point of rewriting history books to suit modern audiences, but without actually rewriting the history or altering the context itself. I'm sure historians who have released subsequent editions of their works have done so not only to correct any mistakes and include new information since the last edition, but to also update terminology, and such, as older editions become more outdated by modern names and as academic writing conventions change over time. As a result, Wiki must also strive to keep up to date with these practices, and benefits from the ability to simply edit, redirect or move articles to more suitable titles without having to limit itself to irrelevant or outdated terms indefinitely - that's not rewriting history or meddling with "officially designated titles", it's simply common sense to target a modern international audience as best it can. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 23:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Another point to consider is whether adopting the name used by Imperial Battles Nomenclature Committee is neutral POV. Surely the Turkish and the Germans had there own name for the engagement? Why then should we use one official name over another? Use of a generic naming format, per WP:MILMOS/C such as "Battle of X", "Seige of Y" or even "Action of Date" is less POV in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the other issue of course. The Committee was made up representatives of the various Imperial governments. From memory, Carl Jess was the Australian representative. The Committee recognised that its decisions were arbitrary in some cases, as it was sometimes far from obvious when a battle began or ended, and what series of battles comprised a campaign. There was debate over some of the classifications. There was considerable debate, for example, about the Battle of Fromelles. As a rule, the de facto standard followed on the Wikipedia is to use the common name of the battle in English. Where there is a foreign name that is more than just a translation of the same, then it should be noted, but I feel that this being the English language Wikipedia, the articles should use the English names. So we have the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway rather than whatever the Japanese call them. I did query once before as to how some of the articles on battles of the South West Pacific in the Second World War were named, and when the answer was that editors selected them as they thought best, I felt WP:BOLD enough to change some of them. In all I think the current names should be retained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, use of the common name of the battle in English seems appropriate, where such a "common name" exists (IMO in the case of "Battle of Abu Tellul" it doesn't and hence why my opinion is to use a generic name). I've certainly no desire to open a very large can of worms and propose bulk renaming of articles! Anotherclown (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In some cases that itself is an issue. Take the American Civil War, for some battles there is a Southern and Northern name, e.g. Battle of Manassas / Bull Run. Same with the Napoleonic War, e.g. Battle of Borodino / Moskowa - in these cases, it's easy enough to name the article by the most popular usage and redirect the other, and mention both names in the lead's first sentence. But in the case of WWI/WWII battle where you have a British name and Turkish, French, German, Japanese, Burmese, etc alternatives, is it prudent to redirect all the non-English ones to the common English name - excluding cases where non-English characters would pose an issue (Japanese, Russian, Arabic, etc) - it's fair enough to say "Wiki is English, we use English per MOS", but there does come a point when Anglo-cising every event, place and battle in history to suit ourselves takes the piss in a fashion, right? I'm saying this, also, from the POV that I'm writing an article about Napoleon and am trying hard to use French names of places, e.g Marseille, not Marseilles, because it is French history. So if a battle occurs between, say, France and German forces, is it acceptable to use the common English name of the battle over any alternative names given by those who actually fought it? To pose a question: changing battle names to "common English" - is that a biased POV? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think per Commonname etc, if you have an event that has been well covered in English language sources you use that name (and other common alternate English language names) for the event. If the name of the event in the language of the participating parties is signficantly different (ie more than a straight translation) then it, with the addition of a note to explain it, should also be given in the lead. Using a common English name for a foreign battle is not necessarily POV - it's more following guideline policy. (And perhaps in cases using an outsiders name is NPOV.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Battles Nomenclature Committed states: 'The rank of "battle" has been confined as a general rule to engagements of primary importance fought out between forces not smaller than the corps. The title "action" has been employed for the next class, the limit in this case being taken as the division; lesser engagements have been styled "affairs".' [Battles Nomenclature Committee 1922 p. 7] I agree that 'affair' is now archaic, and that while the BNC is a guide that it should not be followed always e.g. Maghdaba and Rafa have both diverted from its guidance. And calling Abu Tellul an action might be stretching it a bit as has been pointed out re Action of Tell 'Asur. My concern is that if these small engagements are titled battle in the Sinai and Palestine campaign they will be compared with the battles on the Western Front and elsewhere during the First World War and the S & P campaign will look overdone and exaggerated by comparison. However skirmish leads straight back to battle on Wikipedia and clash leads to the rock band and music. What about 'fighting,' or perhaps 'combat' as defined by Wikipedia, might be more suitable? --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BNC seem to have some unusual definitions in terms of "ranking" engagements. Given that everything is an "engagement" per se. I define things as follows, rather than muddle terms, as historians do not always agree on naming conventions:

• Campaign: Overall "mobilisation plan" of an aggressor - refers to goals rather than engagements.
• Engagement: Confrontation between opposing sides, regardless of scale. In terms of the phrase "full-scale engagement", I tend to think of it referring to the commitment of all available resources at the time it takes place, compared with a limited-engagement where less resources are employed to confront an enemy.
• Action: Confrontations within engagement, regardless of scale. In naval warfare "Action" used to refer to a minor sea-battle.
• Battle: Per "pitched battle" (shortened to "battle"), usually a major large-scale battle where neither side has withdrawn and prepares to attack/defend, possibly hoping for a decisive result. Used for large-scale sea and some major aircraft battles, also.
• Clash: Confrontation, possibly between lead/flank elements of a force that is unplanned. May result in one side's withdrawal, or develop into a full-scale battle.
• Skirmish: Minor confrontation between skirmishers/light troops.
• Combat or fighting: To have engaged the enemy, regardless of scale. Both take place within any engagement. "Combat" sometimes used to indicate a minor clash between skirmishers/scouts, that did not evolve into battle or heavy fighting. Sometimes used for dogfights between aircraft as "aerial combat" (shortened to "combat") is commonly used.
• Siege: Engagement where one side is heavily fortified against besiegers. May lead to battle conditions if storming occurs, but "siege" used to differ from open battle.
• Affair: Not in my military vocabulary, possibly an out-dated term or limited to BNC titled engagements. At best, just another word to mean an "engagement" with no suggestion of scale or conditions.

Because of this, I don't advise "fighting at..." be used, too broad a meaning. Whilst "combat of..." is often relatively light fighting and rarely conclusive. There are a lot of terms to consider, and although I don't expect everyone to agree with my line of reasoning, it helps to have a similar way of logically scaling things.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Using English names to label an event is not POV, but using English names to define the scope of an event is POV. IMO, the real problem is to recognize distinction between the two and to make sure we don't cross the fuzzy red line. Jim101 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How so? NPOV is used to balance opinions. A large percentage of articles on battles have a victor, and the defeated. It is more important to maintain NPOV in the prose than in the title when describing the battle and how one side won. Regardless of if Napoleon or Wellington, et al, had won the Battle of Waterloo, it would still be a "Battle of.." some place. If the Germans had chased the Allies back into the sea during Battle of Normandy, would it be any differently named? IMO, no - D-Day would be a "failed campaign" and Battle of Normandy marked as "defeat". It's not like we're calling these events "Brits kick Boney's bum at Waterloo, 1815" or "Nazis got thrashed at Normandy, 1944". Whilst the scale of any engagement is always a variable, the name of it is really to define a fixed event, and aim at "suggesting" a scale rather than defining it due to lack of standard naming conventions, and the unlikely chance that historians would ever agree to one, anyway. No one benefits or loses, POV wise, if we call it an "Affair..", "Battle.." or "Action..", in terms of rewriting history or discrediting those who fought. It's simply a matter of using wording that works on a present day encyclopedia, to label, yes, but also to "broadly define" rather than specifically rate or rank an engagement in terms of size and possible strategic importance. Military history is always going to be full of minor and trivial examples of questionable and disputed POV where there is no easy way of settling the matter without changing the facts - something Wiki is oft criticised for is having highly-disputed articles that are based on consensus rather than reliable research and citations (theoretical example: if 500 people call 9/11 a government plot, 500 call it a terrorist attack - no consensus, the article becomes "neutralised" to suit "people" rather than "evidence", making that wiki article encyclopedic, the context uneven, and the content of no use to anyone!) Military history articles should avoid the same behaviour of supporting theorists and advocates of trivial historical beliefs - holocaust denial, etc - to maintain its integrity as a serious project. I don't think the name of an engagement is a serious matter of POV, especially in comparison with carefully determining and describing the strategic/tactical outcome of some disputed battles to everyone's liking, as there is no historical "fact" in the difference between using the word "battle" or "action", it's simply a matter of context. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here...what I mean by "to define" is the habit of using the official English name to limit the article content to English POV just because foreign sources don't use the same name. I mean, it would not be neutral to describe Affair of Abu Tellul as "just an affair" in the article while ignoring German/Turkish POV because their sources don't use the same name. But per the principle of WP:DECISION, I don't see a problem with calling the event as "Affair of Abu Tellul" when the article itself made it clear that it is a large scale battle and German/Turkish POVs on the matter are evenly presented. You have to have faith on reader intelligence. Jim101 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure, I agree with you there, all the way - ignoring sources is bias, or even synthesis to selectively use sources that only support one's own preferences surrounding any engagement. It's understandable that a lot of editors do not speak foreign languages, but there's no excuse for excluding sources that have been translated, or studies based on foreign sources. The broader the sources, the better the content. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 21:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's really interesting MarcusBritish about '"combat of..." is often relatively light fighting and rarely conclusive.' In the case of Abu Tellul no territory was won or lost and the fighting mainly between 2 regiments and 2 and a half battalions was over in a few hours. --Rskp (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the majority of my military history lies in Napoleonic/American Civil Wars, and often very different tactics/formations, more massed men and horses due to lack of modern equipment - specifically MGs, shells, tanks, planes, etc - I would agree that if there was a better alternative to "Battle" or "Affair", based on the relatively small numbers engaged at Abu Tellul, that "Combat" is a reasonable term to hint at a fairly small-scale event with no major decisive value per se. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 06:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - I've already moved Affair of Katia to Combat at Katia (I know ... it doesn't sing, but ... what can you do? :) :) ) and am trying to track down all the references to it. Got the main ones anyway. Its a good result for Katia, pity about Abu Tellul but 'that's life'. --Rskp (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's only a matter or raising it as a valid alternative name in the talk page discussion, based on logical reasons, like I've expressed above. The consensus is about coming to an agreement over "what is best" for the article, it's doesn't have to be a fixed vote between "Battle" or "Affair". Just because Anotherclown wants "Battle" and is throwing his weight around doesn't make his opinion "right" and not open to dispute - within reason, that is. Whilst I think wanting to use a name only ever adopted by the BNC is somewhat POV and has limited appeal as a military description, I also think there are good arguments why "Battle" might be too strong an emphasis on the event. That's not to say it wasn't a battle - it seems to have had organised attack/defence positions to deem it "pitched" in a sense - just that it seems to have been a very scrappy one, and could possibly be better named, without affecting POV. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I think I've stated my case fairly clearly and others have stated their's. I'm sorry that the generic battle has won as I think the articles describe events which were too small to be called battles but I can't waste time going over and over it. Looks like Combat of Katia is being challenged too - what a joke. --Rskp (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I also created a redirect Affair of Qatiya, as this is the form in the official history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look through the sources I based the Katia and Abu Tellul articles on; none of them mention 'battle of ...' or 'affair of ...' just the place names, excepting Hill's 'brief battle of Abu Tulul', and Erickson's 2001 Appendix G (he does not mention Battle of Katia in the body of his book) while the Battles Nomenclature Committee and Falls official history both support 'affair' in both cases. The sources are 2:1 in favour of affair for both Katia and Abu Tellul and the sources should be reflected in the name of these articles rather than fashion or a consensus based on web searches. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Saintes

For those with an interest in, or sources related to, naval battles in the age of sail, I've raised some questions at Talk:Battle of the Saintes#Shifting commanders, if anyone would like to comment. Benea (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias now open

The peer review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for May Revolution now open

The peer review for May Revolution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD Notice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southside Composite Squadron if anybody is interested in taking a look. Safiel (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon warfare

My attention was drawn to this article, which seems to be an OR essay. I've tagged it and explained the need to improve it on the talk page.

I could improve this article, though not in the next few days. What I would like, though, is for someone knowledgeable in these matters to have a look and see if they can find a published source which would support what is an arguable but non-standard view of the subject. Alternative academic interpretations could then be given to balance the article. Thanks. Monstrelet (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Monstrelet, the only editor I know offhand who is into the Anglo-Saxon period is User:Mike Christie. Hopefully he can help or at least point you in the right direction. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth can also hook you up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Ealdgyth is likely to be able to help with this. I don't have much on this topic myself, but Lapidge's Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England has a few references listed in the "Arms and Armour" entry:

• H.R. Ellis Davidson, The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1962)
• M.J. Swanton, The Spearheads of the Anglo-Saxon Settlements (Royal Archaeological Institute, 1973)
• M.J. Swanton, A Corpus of Pagan Anglo-Saxon Spear-Types, BAR Brit. ser. 7 (1974)
• N.P. Brooks, "Weapons and Armour" in D. Scragg ed., The Battle of Maldon AD 991 (Oxford, 1991)
• T. Dickinson and H. Härke, "Early Anglo-Saxon Shields", Archaeologia 101 (1992)

I hope that's helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Alas, books I am aware of but don't have access to. There are others, though, so not impossible. The key thing is to see if the very specific theory given is in any published work, so that it can be properly cited and compared to other published theoris.Monstrelet (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd--neither Blair nor Stenton seem to offer much on the topic. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really - the military dimensions of general history weren't particularly fashionable when they wrote. Tended to be left to specialist military historians.Monstrelet (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now done some work to improve the article in structure, content and refs. I have contacted Ealdgyth but no reply as yet. If anyone wants to do some further work on this, I've left some suggestions on the talk page. Monstrelet (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Report from the German Wiki

I want to share a little bit of what is going for a while now on the German Wiki. I follow the evolution of some of the articles there because of personal interest and occasionally I am pointed to a new book or story. I want to put this in the most neutral way possible without jumping to any conclusions prematurely, for a while now a very heated debate is raging between the inclusionists and exclusionsts. The debate is very much centered around the biographies of various recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. You can find examples of what I am referring to on the talk page of Joachim Helbig or talk page Erich Hartmann. What I find so astonishing is how personally offensive this debate is slugged out. The core of the dispute is centered around whether these personalities are noteworthy or not. The inclusionists argue that these men have earned Germany's highest award for military valor or have led a major unit as commanders. The exclusionists argue that most of these stories are "brown propaganda", alluding to the color of the Nazi uniforms. The line of reasoning then tries to discredit sources used leading to the inclusionists calling it censorship or comparing it to the Nazi book burnings. Edit wars rage and information originating from the "questionable" sources gets deleted. In some cases the article gets castrated to the point that indeed the noteworthiness is questionable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that MisterBee. It's a shame that the debate is so heated, though I can see why this would be an uncomfortable topic. The military history exhibits I saw in German museums had a very different tone to those in most other countries. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

True...but it's a shame when it's decided that historical facts are to be avoided - or changed - because they're uncomfortable. Those who cannot remember the past.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This kind of thing really disturbs me. Deleting or sanitizing the historical record effectively covers up the bad. Historiography cannot afford to take sides. Nor, if we are to be taken seriously, dare we. History will judge; we merely record. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. A danger with having lots of articles on heroes of the WW2 German military is that there's a risk that people will focus on the deeds of these individuals and not realise what the big picture actually was. As such, there are lots of sensitivities with these kind of articles which I think that we need to be mindful of. As long as WP:N/WP:BIO and WP:NPOV are adhered to there should be no problems, but of course these policies aren't always followed and are open to some interpretation anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

cough Last time I checked a significant part of Historiography was taking sides on the theory of document-reader relationships and the nature of the processes governing external reality. Encyclopaedists might not judge, but historians do a fair bit more than recording. Of course, other historians do a fair bit more than recording about each other too, it keeps them honest. Sometimes it also results in a highly reported failed libel prosecution. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm asking for an ideal. In the long view, history will tell it all. I see no reason we shouldn't set a good example, even if nobody else does. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:I Corps in the West (Poland)

Could we please have some additional views here about whether this article should be merged or reduced to a redirect in its current state? Briefly the pro argument goes that it was only an administrative formation, never engaged in combat, and the article is currently a short, unreferenced, stub. The con argument is that the formation existed and was of corps size thus the article should remain unmerged despite it's undeveloped state. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a proper, notable stub. We don't merge such articles into larger ones... stubs are quite acceptable, AFAIK. Aren't they? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

German formations

Hi folks. I've been creating (by translation) basic articles on German divisions and brigades in the Bundeswehr, and generated a suitable template: Template:Bundeswehr divisions. However, this has identified a potential confusion. Currently divisional and brigade names are disambiguated using "(Germany)" ie. "1st Armoured Division (Germany)". However, when Bundeswehr division has the same name as a historic (e.g. Wehrmacht) division, we have a problem. e.g. both the Bundeswehr and the Wehrmacht had a "1st Mountain Division". Currently the existing article, 1st Mountain Division (Germany) is the historic one, but I wish to create its Bundeswehr counterpart. Usually German names are retained for the Wehrmacht (e.g. "1st Panzer Division" as opposed to "1st Armoured Division") but this is not the case for mountain divisions. An easy solution for now would be to use "(Bundeswehr)" and "(Wehrmacht)" for the articles affected. In the longer term that poses the question as to whether all German divisions should be disambiguated this way or not. Views? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for two articles, can the details not be included in 1st Mountain Division (Germany) with separate sections for the Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr periods.? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that and it would make sense if one was derived from the other, but they really bear no relationship apart from the name. This appears the norm - AFAIK Bundeswehr formations do not seem keen to associate themselves with formations that existed in the Second World War. The Wehrmacht division formed in 1938 in Munich and surrendered to the US Army in May 1945 in Austria. The Bundeswehr division formed up in 1956 in Ulm as part of the new German Armed Forces and disbanded in 2003 in Garmisch. Also all other identically named divisions in English and German wikipedia have separate articles. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

While I do see that they are identical from a nomenclature point of view, which would justify a "one article serves both" approach, I do see the need to separate them from a political affiliation point of view. The last section on "Report from the German Wiki" is testimony of why I believe we are safer to draw a more stringent view of separating them. The Bundeswehr is trying very hard to distant themselves as much as possible from its Wehrmacht heritage. The Wehrmacht fought a war of aggression for a totalitarian regime, crossing the borderlines of war crime more than once. The Bundeswehr of today goes on peace-keeping missions for a modern democratic country along with the enemies of the past. My advise would be to separate them. Maybe not that simple as I try to make it here MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that handling both divisions in one article would affect a huge scandal through the media in Germany, asking wether Wikipedia is reliable or even infiltrated by Neo-Nazism. Together with the fact that the divisions have nothing in common except their number and that they are a military unit of a german state, I would ask everyone please to seperate all divisions of the Wehrmacht and the Bundeswehr with the same numer/name. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1st Panzer Division (Germany) and the 1st Armoured Division (Germany) have set a precedent so 1st Gebirgs Division (Germany) and 1st Mountain Division (Germany) for the Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr periods could work. Or we could use 1st Mountain Division (Wehrmacht) and 1st Mountain Division (Bundeswehr) instead of disambiguating by country, which on reflection would be my preferred choice. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer (Wehrmacht) and (Bundeswehr) too because it's solved in this way in the german Wikipedia. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Panzer" and "Armo[u]red" approach has the disadvantage that it's fairly opaque - you can't look at the title and tell what it's about unless you know we have an arbitrary naming scheme. I'd support splitting by (Wehrmacht) and (Bundeswehr), with (Germany) as i) a redirect to the "main" disambiguation page, as we do for, eg, 1st Division (United Kingdom); ii) a short disambiguation page for German units only (including German Empire), or iii) optionally pointing to the "most prominent" example Shimgray | talk | 17:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation by date might also be an option in some cases. eg "1st xxxx Division (1938-1945)". Or state name :German Empire/German Reich/Federal German Republic (West Germany) etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Further comment. Military formations in other countries e.g. Britain, have a more or less unbroken lineage. For example, many of the British divisions and brigades in the Second World War ended up in Germany after the war and just continued in existence. E.g. 7 Armoured Brigade etc. Such formations reckon their history back to the World War II, even commemorating various wartime battles. By contrast, German divisions were disbanded after the war and, when a decade later the new Bundeswehr formed, my impression is, as suggested above, that they didn't draw on their wartime heritage for obvious reasons. So it's logical to separate Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr formations and not to do so for the formation of countries like Britain. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the identification of "1st Panzer Division" and the "1st Armoured Division". The latter really does have Panzer in its title, and it would be confusing to the reader looking it up. I would much prefer the prefer (Wehrmacht) and (Bundeswehr) solution, even if it involves renaming some articles. I note that we also have separate articles for some divisions under (German Empire) and (Germany). I also note that some British divisions have separate articles for the World War I and World War II versions of the division, even though the British Army regards them as the same division. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I support "Wehrmacht" and "Bundeswehr" (or "German Army" for the latter) solution - precedent supports it in naval matters as well, for instance, the ships of the German Navy are divided up into four categories (Imperial, Reichsmarine, Kriegsmarine, and German Navy for post-WW2). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bermicourt for bringing this issue up. I have been faced with the same issue with my rather pedestrian creation of some German Bundeswehr Heer units - principally III Corps (Bundeswehr). I too support "Wehrmacht" and "Bundeswehr" (along with 'Imperial Germany' for the Second Reich, perhaps?) and I would argue we can, in accordance with WP:UE exceptions where a word is very well known in English, use 'Panzer' for all German armoured divisions that used that title. I'm openminded on 'Panzergrenadier' or 'Panzer Grenadier', but editors should be aware that in my expansion of German Army and III Corps (Bundeswehr) I have been using the form 2nd Panzergrenadier Division (you'll see in the linktos it has about three). Thanks again Bermicourt for raising this for discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The British case is a bit odd. Some are separate (51st (Highland) Infantry Division and 51st (Highland) Division); some are unified (38th (Welsh) Infantry Division). There's no logical basis for which are and which aren't (the 51st had a continual existence in the TF/TA, while the 38th was a New Army unit which had its number "resurrected" in the TA expansion of 1939), and we should probably standardise one way or the other. The matter is complicated a bit by the fact that the names did change - the formations were simply "Division" in WWI, but "Infantry Division" in WWII. Shimgray | talk | 22:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Did they change? I know when the US divisions changed; does anyone know when the British Army officially changed the style of the infantry divisions? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I know it's common usage to refer to 2WW divisions as e.g. "Panzer" divisions, but I'm pretty sure Bundeswehr divisions are called "Armoured" by NATO etc. So, although it seems illogical at first, our convention is entirely reasonable in that regard. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Did German Army units of the Wehrmacht period inherit their lineage from pre-Nazi era units? (eg, were Wehrmacht divisions technically the same units as those which had existed earlier under the same name?). If so, the use of 'Wehrmacht' alone might be inappropriate. The use of 'Bundeswehr' for modern units seems appropriate given that it's the name of the post war German military. However, were any East German Army units retained in the Bundeswehr after reunification? - if so, this might not be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we, ought we, deal with 9. Panzerdivision of the Landstreitkräfte of the NVA? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Shimgrey: the divisions that are not merged are the divisions that I have not gotten around to, like 51 Highland (that's about two), or those that I deemed could not be continued (pre 1919 divisions having different titles from post 1919 divisions). If you look on my userpage you'll see that's on my list of things to do!! Like Hawkeye7, I would be very pleased to see some unambiguous evidence either way that the title did change from 'Division' to 'Infantry Division' and some dates for that change - right now I sense we are guilty of a lot of wiki-invention of titles.

Nick-D, we've actually had this discussion before; my talkpage has some evidence that User:W. B. Wilson dug up, and my academic research uncovered scholarly discussion that in an ad hoc fashion, some Bundeswehr units tried to attribute and create links with pre 1933 Heer units. This was not systematic or formalised. No East German Army units were retained after reunification; they formed divisions 13 and 14 and brigades 37-42 of the Bundeswehr Heer after 1990. Some of those units remain today.

Fifelfoo, I would argue that was a completely separate country, thus 9th Panzer Division (East Germany). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I knew someone had been working on amalgamating them in the past, I hadn't realised it was you :-). I'll have a dig around for firm details on the naming. Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think NVA-Divisions should be handled in the same way as Bundeswehr and Wehrmacht-Divisions. So it has to be 9. Panzerdivision (NVA). --Bomzibar (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However, English-language works generally don't use German terms such as '9. Panzerdivision' but translate them to something like '9th Panzer Division'. 'NVA' is rather obscure for English-speakers as well, and military buffs generally associate the term with the North Vietnamese Army so (East Germany) might be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted - with regards to my earlier comment about ship categories and their naming for the various German states - that the category for East German ships is Category:Ships of the Volksmarine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that names of NVA (and other Warsaw Pact) formations were usually fully translated by NATO and the West, whereas terms like "Panzer" are normal for the Second World War period. I will check my sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would note in response that virtually all of the many, many, many, books and articles I've looked at over the past twenty plus years use 'Panzer' and some variation of 'Panzergrenadier' for Bundeswehr Heer and indeed Nationale Volksarmee units. For example, 'The Armies of Europe Today,' c.1974, and 'Armies of NATO's Central Front,' Jane's, 1985. Because of this practice, and because the German term was 'Panzer' or variations of throughout, we should use one term for both Second World War and current units: either Panzer/Panzergrenadier or some sort of translation. I understand the situation which gave rise to the present 'split' system, but it boggles the mind that we should use the German word Panzer untranslated for the 1940s and translate it in the 1950s. It's ridiculous!! Thus, as I said above, I believe we should use Panzer/PG, not 'Armoured'. In addition, our current terminology for Bundeswehr units is internally inconsistent: Armoured (British Commonwealth English) but Mechanized Infantry (American) versions of ENGVAR. This is another reason to use the original German throughout. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all the English-language works I've seen on the postwar German armies use terms such as 'Panzer' and 'Panzergrenadier', so these can safely be considered the standard English-language names for these units. This much-reproduced order of battle of NATO forces in 1989 on Orbat.com provides an example of the kind of designations which are commonly used. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In which case, I guess we will need to use disambiguators like "(Bundeswehr)", "(Wehrmacht)" and "(NVA)" to avoid confusion. BTW according to the Oxford Dictionary of English (which is international), "mechanized" is the usual standard worldwide spelling (with "mechanised" as a standard variant) , so we're not inconsistent on that count. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good in general, since we've got (German Empire) already, but I would urge use of (East Germany) as it was a separate country, and doing otherwise would deprive them of their own country suffix bracket, which is standard across WP:MILHIST.

Therefore I would argue for, in historical order, (German Empire), {Wehrmacht) and (Bundeswehr) & (East Germany). I read that sentence and realise I'm being inconsistent about the (East Germany). But Nick's point on 'NVA' is very well taken for an online encyclopedia read by millions of Americans. Does anybody else have any suggestions - (Nationale Volksarmee) perhaps? Is that too long? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+(East Germany) is fine, I think - it's inconsistent with the other Germanies, but consistent with everything else. One caveat - for consistency and retroactive compatability - would be that we should make sure that any article with a (German Empire), (Wehrmacht), (Bundeswehr), or (East Germany) suffix has a corresponding redirect (or disambiguation page) at the (Germany) suffix. Likewise, it might be a good idea to make sure that any (Bundeswehr) suffix has a corresponding redirect from (West Germany). Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia