Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 129

Archive 125

←

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

→

Archive 135

Style of operation names

This topic was just archived. I thought this should be left open for about 30 days before acting on the consensus indicated. I have copied it back for continuity. Is there any way to prevent archiving before some reasonable pre-determined time? Further comments invited. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A recent discussion has occurred regarding this. It is apparent that there is no consistent format for referring to 'Operation XYX'. Common formats are:

Operation XYZ

Operation XYZ

Operation XYZ (less common)

There are also occurrences of single and double quote marks being applied to the full phrase and the codename only. All of these permutations occur in Milhist FAs on operations. In some cases, there is not even consistency within the articles. Few articles use italics at all for the page name but many use the second format within the article (Operation XYZ). Some articles (not necessarily FAs) don't use italics in the first occurrence that is bolded but do elsewhere (see Operation Barbarossa). In List of World War II military operations, the operation names are all in itaics (but the names in the list are not preceded by 'operation').

Complicating matters is the use of 'foreign' language words for operations by both English and non-English speaking 'countries' and the question of whether a name is a foreign word, such as Barbarossa. It might be easier to use the same format regardless of potential variations such as foreign language.

The lack of consistency indicates a need for guidance in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history. This could be placed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Operational codenames, as a suggestion. For discussion. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. In my experience, the first of those three options is the most common one, and the one normally used by modern historians. There's also the issue of whether the second half of operations' names should be all caps (eg Operation OVERLORD), with modern usage generally being to avoid this (it seems to be common in professional military works and older histories). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that there are a couple of 'foreign named' operations, the FAs on operations use the first two about equally. No, I didn't actually count them but it is not predominantly one or the other, using this sample. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A further matter to be considered is the formatting/style when the operation name is not cited in this format (Operation XYX) but, for example, as 'the XYZ operation' or 'convoys of XYZ'. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Small caps (after an initial normal cap) is another style common in printed sources. Small caps states:

They are used in running text to prevent capitalized words from appearing too large on the page, and as a method of emphasis or distinctiveness for text alongside or instead of italics, or when boldface is inappropriate.

One perspective is that an operation's name is 'just a code word'. Another is that it is the title of the 'operational plan', as well as referring to the implementation of the plan (if it was implemented). I think it is fair to observe that operation names are universally identified as proper nouns. My own preference is subordinate to the issue of defining a consistent style. Having said that, it is probably unreasonable to expect that a determined format should be imposed retrospectively, notwithstanding that articles should be internally consistent. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Two wordings are proposed on the presumption that one of the following will be the preferred style that will be adopted.

Operation Xyz

Operation Xyz

As a suggestion, the proposed wording could be placed as a sub-heading after Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Operational codenames.

Style of operation names (option one)

References to operations are be in accordance with the following examples, noting the use of capitals in the examples.

The Axis plan, Operation Xyz, was a proposal for the invasion of ...

The Xyz operation called for a combined overland and amphibious ....

Troop movements in preparation for Xyz commenced in ...

Operation Xyz is a compound proper noun and capitalised accordingly. No emphasis such as quote marks or italics are added even in the case of foreign words such as the following. A distinction is made when the correct foreign name or a translation is being offered.

Operation Rimau

Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa")

Operation Wunderland (German: Unternehmen Wunderland)

Boldface is used to highlight the first occurrence of the title word in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence or when the operation name is a redirect to a page about the associated battle or an alternative name for the operation as follows.

The Normandy landings (codenamed Operation Neptune) were the landing operations on 6 June 1944 ...

Operation Torch (initially called Operation Gymnast) was the ...

While pages should apply a consistent style within themselves this amendment to the Manual of Style/Military history does not mandate compliance by pages created before [insert date of adoption].

Style of operation names (option two)

References to operations are be in accordance with the following examples, noting the use of capitals in the examples.

The Axis plan, Operation Xyz, was a proposal for the invasion of ...

The Xyz operation called for a combined overland and amphibious ....

Troop movements in preparation for Xyz commenced in ...

'Operation Xyz' is a compound proper noun and capitalised accordingly. No variations in emphasis such as quote marks are added even in the case of foreign words such as the following. A distinction is made when the correct foreign name or a translation is being offered.

Operation Rimau

Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa")

Operation Wunderland (German: Unternehmen Wunderland)

Italics are omitted from a page title as in the following example.

Operation Overlord

Boldface is used to highlight the first occurrence of the title word in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence or when the operation name is a redirect to a page about the associated battle or an alternative name for the operation as follows. In this case, the italics is omitted.

The Normandy landings (codenamed Operation Neptune) were the landing operations on 6 June 1944 ...

Operation Torch (initially called Operation Gymnast) was the ...

While pages should apply a consistent style within themselves this amendment to the Manual of Style/Military history does not mandate compliance by pages created before [insert date of adoption].

[Editorial note: not using italics in the page title or in the first (bolded) occurrence is suggested to avoid some complexities that might otherwise arise. This second option could be readily adapted to any variation other than the first option.]

Invitation to comment

Hi all, in the spirit of getting a consensus I invite comment on my suggestions.

1. What style do you think should be adopted?
2. How should this be worded / what ammendments would you make to the proposed wording?

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just found a reference that may carry some weight.

Military operations. The names of military operations are capitalized and italicized (Operation Just Cause). After first reference, the name can be used alone (without the word operation). (National Defense University Press Publication Submission Guidelines and Style Sheet http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/style-guidelines.pdf)

Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how much that helps on en WP when different English-speaking countries use quite different formats. Australian, Indian, Canadian and UK forces use plain text all caps for operation names, per this, this, this and this, ie Operation CATALYST. I think plain text lower case (ie Operation Catalyst) is a good compromise between the major English speaking armed forces, taking into account the WP MOS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

South African ops are usually also in caps. OPS PROTEA, OPS SMOKESHELL etc. I don't think it's practical to have a standard between different countries. Possibly though a solution might be to create a template for ops names similar to the one for ships for example SAS President Kruger so that formatting can be re-done in one foul swoop if/when required? BoonDock (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for not including South Africa. All Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries probably use a similar pattern, Zawed might know the Kiwi approach. I am an Aussie and ex-military, but my view is that neither the all caps or italics approaches are really in the letter or spirit of the WP MOS as it stands, so we should adopt an approach that stays within the WP MOS guidance re: italics and caps. This is why I am advocating the plain text title-case version. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No apologies needed :-). One of the reasons I used the SAS Template as an example is the particular convention that ship's names are in italics, but not the SAS/HMS/etc part which makes for complicated wiki-code especially if WikiLinking it. I thought that something like {{OPS|PROTEA}} could work well because then case and formatting could be decided in the template script and if the consensus changed, then the formatting could be changed, irrespective of what that change is. It might be a good idea to add a country option to the template so that there is one template but each country could maintain their list of ops etc. Something similar to the Post-nominals template. BoonDock (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The preceding discussion noted the uses outside Wiki, including all caps and small caps which are used in the US histories. There is also a reference to small caps being used to add emphasis in a similar way to italics. What appears apparent to me is that the 'codeword' does usually have some sort of 'emphasis' (caps, small caps, inverted commas, italics etc) attached to it. My observation would be that an adopted style should be in keeping with having some sort of emphasis and this is not in keeping with option one. Secondly, an option based on caps or small caps is not generally in keeping with Wiki style. My third observation is that the conventional use of italics for operations in campaign boxes supports the wider use of italics. I would not suggest different national styles. The aim is to establish one consistent style. While it is good to look ahead to implementation, I think we need to come up with something to implement first. It was not my intent that this should cause a mad scurry of change. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Try this. {{Ops|Protea}} Only the simplest functionality, but maybe something to work on? BoonDock (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should avoid templating operation names - it adds very little benefit while making our articles more complicated to edit and maintain. (I've never been convinced the ship templates are worth the effort, either). I don't see us changing our mind on how to handle these six months down the line, so preparing for future change isn't really an issue. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Option One. I'll look at the wording over the next few days and see if I have any suggestions. Up-front, I don't agree with a "not mandatory before" date, as with other WP guidelines, when they are implemented, all articles should be brought into line with them as the opportunity arises. Doesn't mean they are going to be put up for re-assessment because they have a different text formatting for operation names, just that they can be brought into line with the guidelines without starting an edit war. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1 seems more natural to me (in keeping with a general trend of avoiding special formatting emphasis unless needed). However, there seems to be a well-established practice to italicise operations in campaign navboxes (eg {{Campaignbox Normandy}}, to distinguish them from battle names, and I think this is reasonable - perhaps worth mentioning it as an exception? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) @Andrew Gray

• Option 1. But, I'd note that the MOS discourages bolding links, so rather than either Operation Neptune, the

Normandy landings or The Normandy landings, Operation Overlord, I'd prefer Operation Neptune, the invasion of Normandy or The Normandy landings, Operation Overlord. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1 is what I would prefer, but I would point out that U.S. Military style guides circa Vietnam War used all caps for operations in all instances. An example would be OPERATION MARKET TIME mentioned on several pages of this U.S. Navy monthly summary of operations for June 1968. It is also notable that individual last names of sailors mentioned in the same report are all caps, as well as ship names. Personally, I believe this to be a bit much to the readers eye and would much prefer Operation Market Time or USCGC Point Marone (WPB-82331) over OPERATION MARKET TIME or USCGC POINT MARONE (WPB-82331). Wikipedia style guides currently specify the style for ships names and I believe that Option 1 comes the closest to conforming to that same style for operation names. Andrew Gray's suggestion about campaign navboxes should be given serious consideration as an exception to the option as it eliminates some confusion for the reader. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Just an observation that the example you give is typed and with a standard typewriter, there are very few options to give emphasis to text - all caps is one and it does not change the rate of typing like underline. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Good call, however, I don't believe that emphasis was needed in the first place. Thanks for the comment. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see the need for emphasis. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• G'day, I think Option 1 is probably best (e.g. Operation Coburg) as it is consistent with what is at WP:MILTERMS: "operations and so forth are capitalized (Spanish Civil War... Operation Sea Lion)..." Thanks for your work on this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• My preference is option 1, on the grounds that it's what's normally used by modern mainstream historians. I agree that a template would be undesirable - the MOS is only a guideline, and we shouldn't imply that editors are locked in to this option if they don't like it (or, more importantly, all their sources use italics or all caps and they want to reflect this). Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• I incline (geddit?) towards Operation Italic but I'm happy to go with the majority view. I wouldn't like all capitals though.Keith-264 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• No to All-caps - that might be a necessity when writing out military orders but doesn't fit with the MoS. I don't think italics are necessary either. So that puts me with Option 1.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1 (e.g. Operation Tor Ghar) as it seems to be the most common approach used on wiki and is MOS compliant. IMO its not really relevant what format various militaries use (which has changed over time too I might note), we should be following our styleguide and applying it consistently. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1 would be my preference. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Look's to me like we have a consensus for Operation Coburg. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, I intend adding option one (as follows) as a sub-heading after Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Operational codenames. I have amended it to include the exception of italicising operation names in campaign boxes. I have omitted the original reference to bolding only for the first occurance of the page's name in the lead since it is addressed by formatting style and is redundant (it really only applied to option 2). Would you mind confirming that this reflects the consensus please (particularly re campaign box)? Then I will make edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Style of operation names (option one)

References to operations are to be in accordance with the following examples, noting the use of capitals in the examples.

The Axis plan, Operation Xyz, was a proposal for the invasion of ...

The Xyz operation called for a combined overland and amphibious ....

Troop movements in preparation for Xyz commenced in ...

Operation Xyz is a compound proper noun and capitalised accordingly. No emphasis, such as quote marks, boldface (see special case, below) or italics are added even in the case of foreign words such as the following. A distinction is made when the correct foreign name or a translation is being offered.

Operation Rimau

Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa")

Operation Wunderland (German: Unternehmen Wunderland)

Links to articles in a campaign box are to be italicised but are not preceded by the word 'Operation' – ie "Cartwheel" only. Refer to the example in the Solomon Island campaign box for an actual example.

Boldface is used to highlight the first occurrence of the title word in the lead section in accordance with MOS format of the first sentence (lead). It is also used (almost exclusively in the lead) when the operation name is a redirect to a page about the associated battle or an alternative (synonymous or nearly synonymous) name for the operation as in the examples that follow [see also MOS:BOLD, particularly the section on Other uses (of boldface)]:

For the article, Normandy landings, the lead opens: Normandy landings (codenamed Operation Neptune) were the landing operations on 6 June 1944 ...

For the article, Operation Torch, the lead opens: Operation Torch (initially called Operation Gymnast) was the ...

Amendment to final draft

Following discussion with @Lineagegeek (see User talk:Cinderella157#Operation names), I have made explicit that boldface is also an unacceptable form of emphasis. To accomodate this, I have essentially reverted to the original draft amendment with some minor tweaks for clarity. To be very clear, this draft in no way alters the accepted use of boldface in the lead, as it is detailed in the MOS. It is included to clarify this specific context. Without this clarification, the inclusion of boldface ("No emphasis, such as quote marks, boldface ...") might otherwise create a conflict of style with the MOS. An inclusion of the example, Operation Torch, will require some minor changes, including a move, since the article title presently italicises Torch. I do not perceive that any of these changes to the final draft are inconsistent with the consensus already obtained but I will leave this open for at least 24 hours before proceeding. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WWI French POW currency

I know this is a bit last minute, I'm at the Smithsonian and there is a box of WWI French POW currency organized by location. If anyone has any requests for images, I'm here for a few more hours (but will be back in about 6-8 weeks)...--Godot13 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Help needed with ISIL article

We some people to keep an eye on both the ISIL article and the articles related to it.I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and their murderous campaigns across Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Judging from recent sources about their organization and the level of their control over certain areas, I think it's pretty clear that they are no longer just a simple insurgent group. They are for all intents and purposes an unrecognized state, and they have been this way since at least the 2014 offensives. This is reflected by the country infobox in the article.

Unfortunately, a user known as Legacypac has been constantly trying to change this. I have already gotten into several lengthy discussions with this user, and it is clear that his arguements don't hold up, and that his views are largely based on political bias. His arguements is basically this: because the UN doesn't recognize the existence of ISIL as a state, and since international law only recognizes states that have diplomatic recognition, ISIL can't be considered an unrecognized state. He is actually trying to use international law, which doesn't recognize unrecognized states, as a criterion for inclusion as an unrecognized state on Wikipedia. It's pretty laughable when you think about it. I'm sure all the military history buffs out there know that what exists on paper and what exists in reality are two very different things. Just because a group's control over the area isn't recognized by politicians doesn't mean that they don't have effective de facto control over said area. I have tried to point this out, but Legacypac and some of his fellow users refuse to listen. He keeps trying to remove the infobox from the article. Fortunately, the restrictions placed on that article have partially succeeded in keeping him and his friends from messing up the article, but some of their edits still get through.

I recently had to revert an attempt by one of these users to label ISIL a geopolitical organization. At first, I didn't mind having to revert these edits, but this is gradually trying my patience. I cannot watch the article twenty-four hours a day, and I can't always be there when he try's argue his point on the talk page. Since no one has tried to help me revert his edits, or bothered to join in on his little discussions on the talk page, he assumes that he has free reign to dictate what the "consensus" is, when I know for a fact that there are multiple users who disagree with his arguments. Since they aren't bothering to help, I have turned to you. That article discusses the current situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and ISIL's status depends largely on the level of control they have been able to exert over their conquered territory. Judging from recent sources, they appear to have de facto control over the much of the area. Since this control is not diplomatically recognized, and they have declared an Islamic State, that would make them an unrecognized state. With that in mind, if it's not too much trouble, could some of you please keep an eye out for his edits and contribute your two cents to the articles discussion page. I've been pretty busy lately, so I barely have enough time to contribute as is, so I would appreciate the assistance. If you know of an individual or group that would be better qualified to do this, please pass the word down. Sorry for the length of this post. I thought it necessary to give a thorough explanation of the situation. If you could find the time to help me out, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Anasaitis (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest using infobox settlement instead. It has been very effectively used for similar territories, such as occupied or annexed territories during WWII. See Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories for an example of its use in a FA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mystery minesweeper

What was the name of the minesweeper that was built by Bath Iron Works in 1930 which subsequently became a sealing vessel named Beater that was wrecked in Hurricane Daisy in 1962? Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing obvious at http://www.hazegray.org/shipbuilding/biw2.htm MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The two in Albatross-class minesweeper (1940) were built 1930/31 at Bath as trawlers and taken into service in WWII. This may be your best bet to try and find the ship - dig through the auxiliary lists for similar cases. It doesn't look like any minesweepers were built as minesweepers that year. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Grackle and Goldfinch are also possibles. Couldn't see any other obvious cases. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Grackle seems the likelest candidate, but nothing to positively pin her down. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it! It was in fact Goldfinch; Grackle was lost in 1954. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

USS Goldfinch (AM-77) then? Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit. Details for 1946-60 are lacking though. 1930-40 could also do with some filling. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Stubs for this project?

Where can I find a list of stubs for this project? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

See the Assessment page that's linked in the top of this page. On that Assessment page there's a link for Stub category linked. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. What I am looking for is which stub types are available for this project. For example I see that 105th Regiment of Foot (Madras Light Infantry) is included as a stub in this project's article assessment list, but it is not included in Wikipedia's Category:Stubs. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Stub category on the Assessment page has Military History articles that are rated as Stubs. Category:Stubs is populated by the presence of stub templates in those articles. You can add a stub template to that article if you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme

First, moderated discussion concerning the article about this battle is in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Other editors are invited to add themselves to the discussion and to participate in the moderated discussion. You may also comment at the article talk page.

Second, a Request for Comments has been opened concerning the inclusion of the phrase "especially in English-language writing" in a statement that the battle has been controversial as to its scope and necessiry.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Is their anyone with a good knowledge of the British Indian Army?

I have just posted a cmt at Talk:Indian_Army_during_World_War_I#Possible_discrepancy_regarding_commander about a possible discrepancy IRT its commander in 1914. This issue may affect the accuracy of a couple of other articles including Indian Army during World War I, Beauchamp Duff, Percy Lake and Commander-in-Chief, India. Unfortunately this is beyond my knowledge and sources, otherwise I would fix it myself. Is there an editor with the required knowledge and sources which is able to have a look at this issue and resolve it? At the moment we have a bunch of articles that seem to contradict each other. I have no idea which is right, just that one (or more of them) must be wrong. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Indian Army during World War I but as far as I can see all is OK Lake was never Commander-in-Chief, India during this period he was Chief of the General Staff in India. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is resolved - thanks again. Sorry for wasting your time (I blame editing whilst watching the cricket and perhaps the fermented vegetable drink I was consuming at the time). Self administering upper cut. Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

International Brigades

• The article doesn't inform about NKVD activities in Spain.
• Notable associated people contains Nordahl Grieg, who probably never has visited Spain. I would prefer to be informed who was a soldier and who produced propaganda in his armchair.Xx234 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Although Grieg did spend time in Spain, during the civil war, he did so as a war correspondent. So he was no armchair propagandist. Sympathetic to the brigades, but not as a member. If you feel there's room for improvement, go do it. Manxruler (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

German Army (1935-46)?

German Army (1935–45) has recently been renamed German Army (1935–46). As most historians, I would regard 8 May 1945 to mark the end of the German Armed Forces. The editor who made the move obviously expresses a different opinion [1]. As there have been a lot of changes to other articles already, I was wondering whether this move is supported by general consensus? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is on the basis of a small contingent of feldgendarmerie is similar who were kept on by the Allies to keep order etc. Seems pretty thin to me. The sources must be pretty clear as to when it was disbanded? Essentially, it was not under its own control from the surrender, so how it had any real existence after that date is beyond me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that all elements of the Nazi state, and especially its military, ceased to exist in 1945, with the surviving military units ceasing to exist as their personnel entered captivity. The source (available on Google books) states that the Army was "officially dissolved" by a regulation on 1 August 1946, so this seems to be confusing bureaucratic housekeeping for something meaningful: the German Army certainly wasn't a functioning organisation for long after early May 1945. I'd suggest that this be moved back to its original title. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, the Army was not a "Nazi state", but the official military of Germany, and it didn't "cease to exist" in 1945, because it had millions of conscripted soldiers under obligation to serve, in fact it was a huge organization for months after 8 May. It was dissolved in August 1946 by the Allied control council, after being demobilized. Can you offer any evidence that the army had been demobilized already by 8 May 1945? Are you accusing the Allies of holding millions of prisoners, who were initially taken as prisoners of war, after they were no longer soldiers, a very grave violation of the laws of war? A key point here is that when you are a prisoner of war, you are still actively serving military personnel. If you are no longer military personnel, you are entitled to be released immediately. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the source meek Wiki standards of reliability etc? If so and 1 August 1946 is the legal terminus date, then so be it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Large has written widely and recently on a variety of German WWII subjects, and the book is published by a mid-range university press. So I'd say, yes, definitely WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The test seems to be whether this is a commonly held view. The wording in the book ("officially dissolved" is rather different to just "dissolved" as it indicates that the action was a formality) certainly doesn't provide conclusive support for a 1946 disbandment date. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, does the date have significance beyond legalism, perhaps to do with a debate about continuity or change or does something flow from it, like the rearmament of W. Germany, which is subject to commonly held views and Large has a minority view so far? If so, perhaps the 1945 headline date would better on the commonly held view criterion but with a caveat somewhere on the representing of minority views proportionately criterion. Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a review here [2] (E. N. Peterson) which might help. Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at article I of Kontrollratsgesetz Nr. 34, Auflösung der Wehrmacht, vom 20. August 1946 (Allied Control Council Law no. 34, Dissolution of the Wehrmacht, from 20 August 1946) and de:Kontrollratsgesetz. On 20 September 1945 the Control Council proclaimed that all military units, organizations, etc. are to be disolved. I think the reasoning is sound that the Wehrmacht, and thus the German Army, did exist (at least legally) until 1946. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the law dissolving the Wehrmacht became effective on 26 August 1946. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fact then but is that enough according to Wikicriteria? Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled in 1954 that the Wehrmacht ceased to exist on 8 May 1945 (full text in German) after the Federal Court of Justice of Germany had ruled so earlier. ACC Law no.34 merely states that the Wehrmacht is considered to be dissolved. That law itself was revoked in 1949 by the Allied High Commission, would that mean, that the German Army came into being again?

But the question is rather, whether there are any scholars who support the claim that the German Army existed as an organization well into 1946 and how to deal with the fact, that most historical accounts on German armed forces stop with the unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht, including the Army, was only dissolved on 20 August 1946 by the Allied control council, after it had been demobilized from the summer of 1945 onwards and through 1946. (Large, David Clay (1996). Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era, p. 25). It would be impossible to demobilize the army and the rest of the Wehrmacht in just one day or less, and that was certainly not the case either. The Wehrmacht had millions of serving soldiers in the months after 8 May, who were then prisoners of war, under military command (with the wehrmacht military justice passing out sentences to them if they did not obey the officers), wearing uniform, and not demobilized yet. There was a lot of Wehrmacht activity going on after 8 May 1945, with millions of serving soldiers stationed in multiple countries. If the army had been dissolved on 8 May 1945, then the millions of conscripted soldiers would no longer be under any obligation to serve, not be under military command and would have to be released immediately from the powers holding them as prisoners of war under international law. The notion that the Wehrmacht suddenly ceased to exist in just one day is laughable and contrary to what happened, and to the decision of the allied control council. It is also a grave accusation of a serious violation of the laws of war against the Allies, who would have committed a war crime if they had held all these people prisoners after they were no longer soldiers. It is also a serious misunderstanding of what surrender means to think this means the army ceases to exist by this fact itself (and immediately). The Wehrmacht ceased to exist in this case after the soldiers had been repatriated and demobilized, as required, and after the allied control council formally decided that the army was dissolved in 1946. We are talking about a huge amount of activity in the year or so after the war ended, with the Wehrmacht as a very real and very large organization in the months after the war. Calling all this activity and all these millions of POWs just a "bureaucratic detail" is simply wrong. Also, it would be very unfair to the Allies who abided by international law in this matter to portray it as if the Wehrmacht had been dissolved more than a year before the Allies actually dissolved it after demobilizing it correctly in accordance with the laws of war. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If consensus dictates that August 1946 is the date of dissolution, the proper date is 26 August, not 20 August. The cited document states: " in Kraft getreten am 26. August 1946 " or, in force effective 26 August 1946. Peacemaker pointed this out earlier, I'm just clarifying for those not clicking on the link he provided. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The German court ruling, 1 BvR 371/52 needs to be put in context. The court processed the case of a former Major of the Wehrmacht, who processed against de:131er. 131er was a colloquial term referring to servants of the state (including professional soldiers), who due to the war lost their job. In a nutshell, the court ruled over a job relationship and pensions. The court also ruled that "Proclamation No. 2, the directive no. 18 and the Law no. 34 of the Control Council shall, insofar as they relate to the dissolution of the Wehrmacht, has only declaratory nature." Back to the naming problem, an alternative way to distinguish the German Army of the Third Reich era from the other German Armies could be achieved by naming the article "German Army (Wehrmacht)". This is in line with how we disambiguate the various divisions of the Wehrmacht. It gives the editors the opportunity to address the issue over the exact date when the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Heer ceased to exist, in a content discussion. Also note, that the de:Wiki article de: Wehrmacht states that the Wehrmacht officially ceased to exist in August 1946. Also noteworthy, the last German forces surrendered on 4 September 1945, see Operation Haudegen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, I find it interesting that the article named German Army links to the article of the German Army of the current Bundeswehr. In terms of historic significance, the army of the Bundeswehr is probably the least known German Army of them all. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

... except in Afghanistan.... Keith-264 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Had a quick look at Wikipedia:Article titles. The arguments here are somewhat pedantic, notwithstanding that the information is relevant to the content of the article. I would suggest that the principle of "common recognizability" applies here IAW the MOS. I suggest that 1935–45 is more commonly recognizable. I note that the title used does not limit the scope of the article to just those dates. IAW MisterBee1966, "German Army (Wehrmacht)" may well be a better title but not German Army (1935–46). Cinderella157 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, MB's suggestion of German Army (Wehrmacht) is a very neat one. I think it should be moved to that, and would support an RM. It eliminates the pedantry about 1946, in the title at least. So far as the dates are concerned, I believe we should defer to the OUP official history rather than primary docs like laws. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine. There is no benefit from the slightly inaccurate 1935–45 or the completely foreign Wehrmacht to the vast majority of readers. Let's just stick with pedantically accurate dates—the readers who will be confused will probably thank us later. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

An interesting statistic - (quoting the number of page views for yesterday), there were 1,825 for Wehrmacht, 649 for German Army (1935–46) and 922 for German Army. I do not think that one can, on the basis of this, reasonably assert that Wehrmacht is "completely foreign ... to the vast majority of readers." Even before the move (11 Jan), the maximum page views per day (in the last 30) was 507 (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/German_Army_%281935%E2%80%9345%29) for "German Army (1935–46)". Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Corrected double tap - not as dramatic but still makes point. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But Wehrmacht has more than twice as many internal links. Srnec (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And it is visited nearly three times as often as "German Army (1935–4?)". I think my point stands. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Wehrmacht is a well-known term. We use it is disambiguate all German Army divisions of WWII. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention, it would seem, in common parlance the army and Wehrmacht are one and the same.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a reason not to move the article. "German Army (Wehrmacht)" is potentially confusing in a way that the current title is not. Srnec (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that German Army (Wehrmacht) is an acceptable alternative. German Army (1935–45) is not only wrong in using the wrong year, but also has serious implications in that it implies that the Allies did not abide by international law in the year or so after the war in regard to their handling of millions of prisoners of war, who as noted, needed to be repatriated (released) and demobilized before any army they belonged to could be disbanded. As I pointed out, we are also talking about a huge organization that continued to function for quite some time after 8 May 1945. German POWs were required to wear uniform, were subject to military Wehrmacht justice and were under military command as mostly conscripted soldiers until 1946. A private court case started by some major regarding his rights or benefits can not have any bearing here when it's completely contrary to what actually happened, to how a surrender takes place under the laws of war, and to the official position of the victorious powers. It rather seems the court lacked an understanding of public international law and the laws of war in particular, and a familiarity with with the history of the period 1945–1946 in Germany. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My point about interpreting a law (as a primary source documents) stands. Court judgements are a different matter, courts weigh up evidence submitted and make legal rulings on the interpretation and process of laws. But we are talking about historical issues, not legal ones. I suggest the comprehensive multi-volume German history published by Oxford Uni Press be checked to determine when they say the Army was wound up. As I say, I would support an RM for German Army (Wehrmacht). That would be a good start. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the German Army (Wehrmacht) proposal, it's succinct and the niceties can be explained in the text. If anyone will cough up for DRZW (about £180 each volume) I'll swallow my pride and take them, even if the description of Normandy is all wrong and derivative of low-brow Anglo-American writing. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that! I believe they stop 8 May 1945. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression that we are about to achieve consensus and the "German Army (Wehrmacht)" is the preferred name of the article. How do we proceed? Rename and archive the discussion on the talk page of the article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That should do just fine. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Open an RM the normal way. Srnec (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"...also has serious implications in that it implies that the Allies did not abide by international law in the year or so after the war in regard to their handling of millions of prisoners of war, who as noted, needed to be repatriated (released) and demobilized before any army they belonged to could be disbanded..."

So what about those prisoners the Soviets held onto until the 50s?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question, I suggest we discuss that on the article's talk page. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Since we have consensus on a title that does away with dates, I agree. It just seems to be a left over nagging question: if the army officially came to an end in 46 due to - in part - POWs in Allied hands. The logical implication is that the Wehrmacht didn't officially disband until the 50s due to Soviet-held POWs and that's just ludicrous ;)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Following that logic would lead to a claim that the Imperial Japanese Army was a going concern until the last Japanese holdout surrendered in 1974. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there is some strange logic going on here, IMO. Let's just get the article moved, hey? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Was the date different in the DDR? Keith-264 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin generally showed very little respect for the laws of war, and for any other rules of civilization for that sake. But that is not the point here, those prisoners held by the Soviet Union for years after the war were no different from random people from the Baltic states or Poland deported to Soviet concentration camps as political prisoners. The general rule, for those Wehrmacht soldiers held by the civilized powers (US, UK, France), were that they were repatriated as required before their army was demobilized/disbanded. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A standard west European military dictatorship then; treating the USSR as "uncivilised" might come as a surprise to the Indians, Africans, Chinese and south Americans under the western yoke. My question was about the area of Germany not under western military occupation. Did it make any difference that there were two jurisdictions? Keith-264 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Rading this discussion, the Wehrmacht ceased to exist as a fighting force in 1945, and as a legal entity in 1946. The move was, therefore, correct. Mjroots (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up, a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion over this topic was spawned @ Talk:German Army (1935–46)#Requested move 24 January 2015 MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting comment on an Iraq 2 related article

Please comment at Talk:Battle of Abu Ghraib#Future for this article. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Double quotes in page names

I'm attempting to create a redirect page (16"/50 caliber Mark 3 gun) to redirect to 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 gun, as the two were almost the same and built concurrently. When I search on the page name it does not give me the option to create the page. It appears the double quote character is no longer allowed in page titles. Or maybe I need to install MediaWiki and modify my LocalSettings.php. Numerous US Navy gun pages use this character. Any help would be appreciated. RobDuch (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I did wonder whether this was a user rights restriction, but even I cannot create the page, and I have admin privileges. Is is something that a 'crat could deal with? Mjroots (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't it "16-inch/50 caliber Mark 3 gun"? Couldn't you use the DISPLAYTITLE template? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but would it solve the problem of what happens when you rnter the phrase into the search box (try it and see)? Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't an option, but a little URL manipulation and ... [3] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! At least now I know it's not an easy workaround. RobDuch (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Schlieffen Plan question

I've had another go at filling in "Citations needed" tags but can't find anything for Palmer and Cohn. Does anyone know who they are or where the cited passages come from please? Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably Hans Kohn. I'm thinking about which Palmer it would be. auntieruth (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the best bet may be to look in Keegan and see what he says about Palmer's theory. I've lent my copy of Keegan out and cannot do it for you. auntieruth (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't mention (Alan?) Palmer by name. Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

James C. Marshall

I have written an article on James C. Marshall but it has little on his career before or after the Manhattan District, of which he was the first District Engineer. Who has more information on him? Hugo999 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I do. I have upgraded the article with additional material about what he did before and afterwards, plus birth dates, death date and place, and burial location. I have sent the article on to DYK, with you as co-creator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Who won the Battle of Chawinda?

Could we have some eyes on WP:AN#Reviewing RfC closure : Battle of Chawinda please?—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please help evaluate a draft at AFC

Wanted: Naval/NATO specialists to help evaluate Draft:Centre of Excellence for Operations in Confined and Shallow Waters for acceptability into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone, someone, please... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The COEs I have assessed as effectively non-notable programme offices or suchlike, and are only listed briefly at Allied Command Transformation. I will collect up the key data and add a para to ACT, and then would recommend that this page is added but only as a redirect. Addend: Looking more closely, it's actually a doublehat for the German Navy's Flotilla 1 (de:Einsatzflottille 1) at Kiel, so will add the para to German Navy with a link at ACT. Anyone who's really willing to help (User: W. B. Wilson?) could do a little translation of the de article for Flotilla 1 and then the whole kit and caboodle would have a proper place. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carey Lohrenz

Dear military experts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I vote to keep as she has a book out about her experiences as one of the first female Tomcat pilots for the Navy. see: http://careylohrenz.com/book/

And there seems to be other press out there about her. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that TeriEmbrey has edited it, the draft's deletion is delayed by six months, which should be plenty of time to get it ready and into mainspace. Thanks to you both for taking time to look at it. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)#Propose merger

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)#Propose merger. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Texan schooner Invincible

Texan schooner Invincible, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't attempting to reword the offending paragraphs have been more constructive? As it stands this article is now complete rubbish. I get that some volunteers are trying to do the right thing in detecting and removing copyvios but there is no benefit to the encyclopedia here at all in just deleting whole paragraphs. Seems a fairly pointless exercise to me given that we are trying to improve our content not hack it to pieces... Anyway each to their own I guess. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to reword those paragraphs, please be my guest. Given Wikipedia policy, something had to be done, and most people don't have the time to assimilate the material and write it anew; hence the removal. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation: Editathon at Thinktank, Birmingham, on 7 March 2015

You are invited to an editathon at Thinktank, Birmingham, England, on 7 March 2015.

The focus will be on the museum's science and industry collection. We will have an exclusive preview of (and be able to photograph) exhibits recently acquired for the forthcoming new Spitfire (aircraft) Gallery, plus talks, and the opportunity to work with curators. Assistance will be available for new editors.

A light lunch and refreshments will be provided. Booking required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Is this or this really notable? A whole lot article about companies have been popping up and I am not seeing how they would not be just included into articles about their battalions. --Molestash (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The band may be notable, but Alpha Company 348th Brigade Support Battalion isn't. I'd suggest merging or redirecting the article on Alpha Company 348th Brigade Support Battalion into the 348th Brigade Support Battalion (United States) article Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding disambiguators used in military articles (mainly about people)

I recent ran across a few articles that had two different disambiguators, but referred to the same military branch at in the same country. To preface this complication, I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history to try to locate some specific information regarding disambiguators used in articles with military topics, but could not find what I was looking for. What I found was an article with the disambiguator "RAF officer" and another that used "Royal Air Force officer". Is there a standard that is documented regarding if a full name or an acronym should be used in disambiguators, and if not, should one be created and what should the standard say? Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Dormskirk since this editor just moved an article from a title that I just created due to not finding a documented standard. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for pinging me. If you look at Category:Royal Air Force air marshals I think you will find that this vast majority use the disambiguator "RAF officer". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: Thanks for providing the link for the related category. I'm then wondering if there should be some sort of blanket disambiguation guideline that states that an acronym should be in place of the branch's full name if a notable acronym exists, and that update/change would be in regards to all countries' military branches. I'm wondering since I also found an article with a disambiguator "RAAF officer" (short for "Royal Australian Air Force", I believe). Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I take the point but am not sure that it is a big issue because the disambiguator for the vast majority of RAF officers is "RAF officer" (I am not aware of any using the longer form) and the disambiguator for the vast majority of RAAF officers is "RAAF officer" as you have already observed. If anybody uses anything else it is easily amended for consistency. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Should the consistency extend to categories? Both the air marshals and officers categories spell out Royal Air Force, while the station crests category uses RAF (although the general crests category uses Royal Air Force). There are not always redirects between RAF and Royal Air Force for these categories, either. (By the way, I thought the correct term for the last two was "badges", not "crests".) --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Greenland in World War II

Had reason to look at this article today in search of info and found it a bit of a mess. I've done a little basic housekeeping but it really needs a more knowledgeable editor than myself. Someone with an interest in WWII ships could answer some of it but a general knowledge of the war in the Atlantic would be great. I've left a few ideas on the talk page. Monstrelet (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I tinkered with the article a bit, but reading that led me to the USS Callao (IX-205) article, which I've improved. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the several editors who have had a look at the article and done a bit of work. Reviewing it from my very limited knowledge, I'd say it is still rather weak on Greenland's role in aircraft ferrying and the actual activities of naval units based there (as opposed to naval and coastguard patroling of Greenland itself), if anyone can help on that? Monstrelet (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Would this person be notable?

Hello all. I think this person has been mentioned in the news. Are they notable? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not obviously hugely notable, though it might depend on how the story runs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They are notable as per WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Major General James Post (USAF officer) is very clearly notable, especially because he's the vice commander of Air Combat Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have included them at the James Post disambiguation page, but it's still a redlink for now. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Article alerts for this WikiProject?

An article which has this WikiProject banner on its talkpage has been nominated for deletion a few days ago, but no one is participating in the deletion discussion. I was surprised because this is a very active project, so came to investigate and was surprised that this project does not have an (obvious) alerts section. Is there sometihng I am missing? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the automated article alerts, our listing is located here; there is also a dedicated list of deletion nominations here. Both can be found under "Resources → Automated lists" in our project navigation template.

Having said that, I think we've always had relatively low levels of participation in deletion discussions relative to the overall activity in the project. Most military-related deletions tend to be uncontroversial, so I suspect many people here don't follow them unless something of particular interest to them comes up. Kirill ^[talk] 00:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Just curious to find out why there are 9 military-related articles nominated for deletion in alerts but none at all in Deletion sorting. Thanks for any speculation. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the difference is because the two lists are generated based on different tags. The article alerts are based directly on the project tags, while the deletion sorting listing seems to be based on some other tags that get put on the deletion discussion itself. Kirill ^[talk] 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Kit Carson

There appears to be an edit war at the GA nominee article. The nominator insists that the subject "had a brief and undistinguished military career" and so the primary infobox should be infobox person and military career should be a smaller addition beside the section on the subject's military career. Two editors have opposed this. Additional comments are needed since it's a GA nominee. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Distinguished historians and scholars such as Sides and Roberts have already pronounced on Carson's military career. We are taking our cue from their most recent materials. "Military fans" at WP should not be making decisions about infoboxes. Leave these decisions to the scholars. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Carson was associated with military officers (Fremont and Carleton) for a number of years. Scare quotes will not change that fact. Like many of the early trappers and scouts, Carson served in what we would now consider a contractor capacity on a number of occasions. Intothatdarkness 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Provisional Government of Republic of Korea

Today, a new user has started adding unreferenced content to the effect that the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea played a significant role on the Allied side in the Second World War. Anyone got any knowledge of whether or not this can be confirmed by reliable sources? Manxruler (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Highly doubtful - according to this book, the Korean Liberation Army only had about 40,000 men in arms by the end of the war, enough for 2 divisions. Parsecboy (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I figured. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Second level gallantry award for British Empire forces in WWI

Just looking for a Milhist community view on what constituted a second-level gallantry award in WWI (in the British Empire system), mainly for the purposes of WP:SOLDIER. The VC was obviously the highest, then, I assume the DSO (awarded for gallantry) for officers of the rank of Major and above (usually), and the DCM for soldiers. What about the MC? For officers of the rank of Captain and below, the DSO (for gallantry) was really only awarded as a way of signifying that the officer in question had just missed out on the VC. So, for example, would a Major who was awarded the DSO (for gallantry) and an MC meet the two awards at the second-level criteria? MC and Bar? MC and DCM? Just want to get a sense of where we stand on this issue. Obviously they need to meet WP:GNG. Just to give you a sense, 28 Australians were awarded the DCM and Bar in WWI, 41 the DSO and Bar (not all for gallantry I might add), 171 were awarded the MC and Bar, but only 5 the MC and two Bars. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What about the MM? I understand that they are directly equivalent save for the distinction of rank, even if there are other awards intervening in strict order of precedence. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The DCM would be second in order for soldiers (after the VC), the MM could only ever be third. Boiled down, my query really relates to whether an MC received by a Captain or lower qualifies as a second-level award. Therefore, whether a junior officer who was MC and Bar or DCM MC would qualify as having two second-level awards. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In a word, no. The MC was always a third-level award. In actual fact, it was pretty common for junior officers to be awarded the DSO for gallantry. Take a look. Yes, the majority of recipients are senior officers, but there's a fair sprinkling of junior officers in there too. Far too many for it just to be the received wisdom "just missed out on a VC". And most of them are postwar (gazetted in 1920). Far more would have been awarded in WWI itself. And it continued into WWII. For instance, every surviving officer pilot of the Dam Busters raid (including pilot officers and flying officers) was awarded the DSO (and the NCO pilots received the CGM). -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so DSO (for gallantry) DCM or DCM and Bar? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

DSO (for anything) and Bar, DCM and Bar, DSO DCM. I don't think we need to make separate rules for DSOs awarded specifically for gallantry or leadership, since many (or even most) were awarded for both (i.e. courageous leadership) and one can't be distinguished from the other. Personally I also consider three third-level awards (or two third-level and one second-level) to be notable, so MC**, DSO MC*, DCM MM*, etc. They're rare enough to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Allies of World War II

Hey history buffs, a few of you are needed, I think, at Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#Albania_is_missing_as_an_allied_state. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Kriegsmarine ships

I've added a section for weather ships to the list. Externsteine was identified as WBS 11 (Wetterbeobachtungschiff 11) and Sachsenwald as WBS 7, which leads me to think that there must be others which need adding to the list. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Gröner V (pp. 202-7), there were 12 WBS's. As they were renamed numerous times, it is a bit complicated to sort out by which name they went and when. Might be easier to list them as WBS 1-12, though. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

doi:10.1017/S0032247400021963 mentions Sachsen (trawler acting as weather ship, in Denmark Strait, 1940/41); renamed Hermann by 1942. No number given. A trawler Coburg is also mentioned as landing meteorological parties in Greenland but not clear if she was also a weather ship proper. doi:10.1017/S0032247400028333 notes that Coburg was lost in ice in 1943/44. K. J. Busch is also named in this as a trawler delivering weather parties in 1944.

doi:10.1017/S0032247400040596 is more detailed, and names Sachsen as WBS 1, and K.J. Busch as WBS 3. Coburg is mentioned with no number, as are Homan, Hessen, Kehdingen, Wuppertal, - and Externsteine. As we know she was a numbered WBS, it may be that the others were as well. Drop me an email if copies of these would be useful. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added those to the list, leaving 2 or 3 to add. Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I started researching August Wriedt (listed as August Wriendt on de:wiki) and I'm, getting conflicting info. Did the trawler August Wreidt built in 1930 become the Vorpostenboot V1101 Preußen or the Wetterbeobachtungschiff WBS 8 August Wriedt? Are these two different vessels, August Wriedt and August Wreindt? See User:Mjroots/German weather ship August Wriedt for what I've come up with so far.

Now sorted, see German trawler V 1101 Preußen and German weather ship WBS 8 August Wriedt). Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The 1930 August Wriedt was renamed Preussen in 1933, and V.1101 in 1939, being sunk in 1944. It was the 1929 August Wriedt that became WBS 8 (renamed Maria in 1942), surviving the war to be scrapped in 1951. There was also a 1923 August Wriedt which at some point was renamed Julius Wettering. The August Wreindt business appears to be a typo by the people at de:wiki. So it's the 1929 August Wriedt that was a weather ship. If you'd like, I could help out with the Miramar info on that vessel. Manxruler (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Turns out the 1929 August Wriedt was captured by the Brits in 1942, that's why there was a name change then. Interesting. Manxruler (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Thanks for that. So my proto-article is mostly about the vorpostenboot then. That's not a problem as we appear to be rather short of articles on individual vorpostenbooten. Just need to sort out the title and I'll get the article into mainspace. German trawler V 1101 Preußen or Vorpostenboot V 1101 Preußen? Which best fits the naming convention? Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the first is the correct one per the conventions. The name of the vessel needs to be spelled either Preußen or Preussen, though, seeing as ß is pretty much a double-s. So, convention-wise, either German trawler V 1101 Preußen or German trawler V 1101 Preussen should be good. That said, Miramar only uses V 1101 from 1939 onwards. Seems as the vessel lost its civilian name when she was put into Kriegsmarine service. So, German trawler V 1101 or perhaps rather German patrol boat V 1101 (the latter seems most suitable to me as the Vorpostenbooten weren't all trawlers)? Manxruler (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

She didn't lose her name, see ref #1. Article about the vorpostenboot now up and running. Will work on the weather ship later. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Name that ACW soldier

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.04717/ Fine photograph, not quite sure who it is. I suspect John W. Wagner, but want some evidence. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely, I think - according to the article Wagner was a corporal, and the image is labelled Colonel. Given the war ended a year later, it seems unlikely he'd have been promoted that far...

Possibly George D. Wagner or Louis Wagner? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thomas M. Wagner ? (Hohum ^@) 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not Thomas - he was a Reb and that's a Union uniform ;) Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Think I'll have to zoom in and match noses and ears. Are there any other options? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, I don't think it's George D. - the beard definitely doesn't match. Louis is a little more plausible but I can't find an 1860s photo. This gives all officers, but that seems to just mean the regulars; it doesn't mention Louis or George D. Wagner. A Lt-Col Clinton Wagner (surgeon, promoted 1865) is mentioned. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Aha - there's a list of "volunteer officers commissioned by the president" at the end (p. 825), including George D. Wagner and a Charles Wagner (who didn't make colonel). Andrew Gray (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Careful about judging by the beard: I certainly have seen people whose facial hair changes radically in the Victorian era. It doesn't take that long to grow one, nor that long to shave one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Here's Clinton Wagner: http://www.medicalantiques.com/civilwar/Armand_images/Civil_War_surgeon_images_7.htm - not a bad match, actually. (Also, that site might not be a bad source for filling in illustrations of ACW surgeons). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this webpage the name is Gustav Friedrich Wagner, commander of the 2nd New York Heavy Artillery Regiment. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that solves the puzzle. Although, given we don't mention him on the web page for the regiment, I'm not sure how much good me restoring the image will do. Maybe I should work on the other project I have. It's a slightly better known soldier, Thomas Jonathan Jackson. I know that's still a name most people don't know. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Afghan War merger discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)#Propose merger. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:US Air Force Installations in the Central Command

Template:US Air Force Installations in the Central Command, featured at List of United States Air Force installations#United States Air Forces Central, is a location map where the locations have largely been positioned to the west of their real-life locations, so that many of them have been placed in the wrong country. For example, Kandahar Airfield is shown as being in Iran instead of Afghanistan, and RAFO Thumrait is shown as being in Yemen instead of Oman. The four bases shown as being in Saudi Arabia should actually be placed in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates. I don't understand the problem well enough to know why the locations have been mis-positioned nor how to fix them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, User:John of Reading fixed it earlier today. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nudge - Texas Revolution

Mdennis (WMF), this is of interest to the Historical Channel "Texas Rising" project you mentioned in December. Karanacs has done an extensive reworking of Texas Revolution and has listed it for Peer review. The goal is to get it all the way through FA by the end of March. All help towards that end is appreciated. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

AfD Discussion

There is currently a discussion regarding an article that may be of interest to members of this project. It can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wilson (British Free Corps). -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting#Removal of verified content

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting#Removal of verified content. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Roy Francis

I've a feeling that Roy Francis (naval officer) probably wouldn't be notable enough for an article on MILHIST criteria alone, but the addition of the creation of two heritage railways in the UK should be enough to raise him above the threshold of notablity. I've made a start on the article, but as always, expansion and improvement is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Western Front pages

User:Italia2006 User:Rjensen User:Thomask0 have made edits recently and under the circumstances, I'm opting out of the consequences to articles until further notice. Thank you Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is encroaching on bizarre and stupid. There is a difference between independent nation states and states within a nation state. South Australia was a state within a nation state Australia in WWI, Baden (for example) was a state within a unified nation state German Empire. It would be ridiculous for me to insist on the South Australian flag in the infobox for the Battle of the Somme, so the Grand Duchy of Baden shouldn't be there either. It is also ridiculous. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, the same logic used in removing the various German states under the grouping German Empire should also apply to the various parts of the British Empire. But that may just be me. Intothatdarkness 16:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That is just you. It makes sense to me to include Dominions and OVERSEAS territories. If we include Baden and Bavaria then we must also include Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England. No difference. If a regiment of askaris from German East Africa served in the Battle of the Somme than we would put "German East Africa" separately under "German Empire" just as Australia and New Zealand are under "British Empire". Italia2006 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The UK was a unitary state in 1914, Germany wasn't. Stop playing games.Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, right? What's with the immaturity? "Stop playing games"? We're having an academic discussion here and the last thing we need are colloquialisms such as that. It's much easier to highlight contributions from Dominions and overseas territories than individual Continental areas of the German Empire. For example, while the German Army began the war in 1914 with highly indivualised units such as independent Prussian, Bavarian, Saxon, and Württemberger divisions, this did not last long beyond the start of the war once casualties made this individuality nigh impossible. Therefore there might very well have been Prussians and Saxons in a "Bavarian" division or regiment, while the Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and South African units were just that — Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and South African, even if it became necessary to reduce the number of battalions per division due to lack of manpower, to the end of the war. To conclude what is admittedly a long post, my opinion is that if we start to include separately "Prussia", "Bavaria" etc, then we must also include "Scotland", "Wales", "England" as well. And, of course, this is nothing short of ridiculous, to say the very least. Italia2006 (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The UK was a unitary state in 1914. Germany was not. The German Army, however, was a unified whole and the individual states' armies were a part of it. There is no use separating them. The, e.g., Canadian Army, however, was not part of the British Army. Srnec (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[4] Even after 1871 the peacetime armies of the four kingdoms remained relatively distinct. "German Army" was used in various legal documents such as the Military Penal Code,[6] but otherwise the Prussian, Bavarian, Saxon and Württemberg armies maintained distinct identities. Each kingdom had its own War Ministry. Bavaria and Saxony published their own rank and seniority lists for their officers and Württemberg's list was a separate chapter of the Prussian army rank lists. Württemberg and Saxon units were numbered according to the Prussian system, but Bavarian units maintained their own numbering system (thus, the 2nd Württemberg Infantry Regiment was Infantry Regiment No. 120 under the Prussian system). (The Bavarian Army even wrote its own Official History like the Dominions. This is elementary stuff)Keith-264 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is elementary, as is Art. 63 of the imperial constitution: "The total land force of the Empire shall form one army". See also Hermann Cron, Imperial German Army, 1914–18: Organisation, Structure, Orders of Battle. The Prussian General Staff became the General Staff of the Field Army on mobilization, whose chief had the authority to issue commands in the Kaiser's name. Neither Bavaria nor any other kingdom had any command autonomy beyond what was left them by the Kaiser, who was supreme commander. We might as well list all US states separately since the US was also a federation whose states maintained their own militaries. —Srnec (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The German Empire had a constitution and an elected parliament. I also note that states of the US maintain their own militias, which may be bought into federal service and Australian units were largely raised along state lines. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Australian infantry battalions were initially raised along state lines, but after the initial raising of the divisions, this quickly blurred, especially outside infantry battalions and in particular after the doubling of the AIF in March 1916. IMO national armies (ie German or British, or Australian, or Canadian) should be where the line is drawn. As often seem to happen, what goes in infoboxes ends up seeming more important to some editors than the content of the article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sour grapes? Die Bayern im Grossen Kriege 1914–1918. Auf Grund der Kriegsakten dargestellt. Herausgegeben vom Bayerischen Kriegsarchiv. Mit 11 Blatt Karten und Skizzen und 2 Beiheften in besonderem Umschlag (1923) see, just like a Dominion official history. There were four German national armies, oh and the German empire had several elected parliaments. Keith-264 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Who commanded the Dominion contingents in France and the Mediterranean?Keith-264 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It varied considerably between Dominions and across the years of the war, in both an operational and administrative sense, and I'm not sure it is relevant to this discussion. I thought this was a discussion regarding what constituted a national military, not command arrangements. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Only after it had been established a couple of years ago that the Dominions were not sovereign until after 1918.Keith-264 (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested, Keith, so I'm not engaging further. Apparently I'm not alone. Many editors detest infoboxes for exactly this reason, they become very pointy. Good luck with it, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sniping isn't engagement so I'm glad.Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

DU soapbox

Eyes on please: Special:Contributions/Pyrophor Association

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Now moved to Special:Contributions/FlorentPirot and making wilder and wilder allegations. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Originally at Special:Contributions/86.203.121.238 Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted the hoax-y nuclear test article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't like to use terms like "hoax" (and maybe they really believe this stuff) but there isn't a G-errant-nonsense and the idea put forward really was ludicrous. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

JF-17/FC-1 combat radius

I've started a discussion on Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder as I don't believe the current, unsourced, value for its combat radius. I find it hard to believe that a F-16/Gripen sized plane could have a combat radius of 840 miles when it has a ferry range less than F-16/Gripen. It's a number that has wide currency in non-specialist media but I suspect that what's happened is that someone has got km and miles mixed up - 840km with a light loadout like air-to-air might be plausible. Has anyone got a decent source for this, like a more recent copy of Janes than I have access to?? Le Deluge (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style question

• [5] the edit refers to grammar and tense correction per manual of style but I can't find an entry in the manual. Can someone point me to it please? Keith-264 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the MoS, but using present tense in this case is most certainly wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I found the use of judgemental terms like characterises, clarification and speculates dubious too, since they infer motive rather than describe behaviour. I found a discussion about the passive voice in the MoS but it wasn't all that relevant.Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of the present tense for an author (Wilmot) writing 60 years ago seems wrong. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The basic rule of thumb when discussing historiography is to treat the act of creation in the past tense (i.e., the author wrote) but to treat the work itself as a sort of timeless object. Which is to say "so-and-so wrote Book X, which argues Point Y". Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station / nuclear bunker

I've posted a question at Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Difference between this and Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker about the distinction between the Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker and the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station. Any clarification or input there is much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep active or deactivate: bygone WikiProject article drives

Operation Great War Centennial as read by the intent expressed in its page ended in 2014, and Bothers at War ended back in 2011. Despite these issues of historical definition, however, they are not marked historical, and are indeed given special prominence in the WikiProject's splash page. I don't see their existence as being necessarily forbidden per se, and Adam Cuerden seems to be actively updating both pages with his FP contributions. I've marked these pages historical and, seeing the edit history, undone that and brought it here for discussion.

In the keep column, if they are to remain it certainly seems necessary that their scope be redefined away from the anniversaries they were created for, now passed. In the archive column, neither of these projects ever really generated much movement in the first place, and they're not in any danger of doing so in the future.

So! Discuss! ResMar 04:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the anniversaries they were created for are ongoing, not past. The anniversaries of the ends of both wars have not yet been reached. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is a secondary definition at best. Certainly you would not celebrate the anniversary of the 100 Year's War lengthwise! Nonetheless they could be redefined in this way, but redefined they still would need to be—for instance: Operation Great War Centennial will identify core topics on World War I and aim to bring them all to top quality before the Centenary... (emphasis mine). ResMar 04:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Drives are exceptional so they ought to have a time limit.Keith-264 (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Mothballed special projects is going to be inevitable unless the scope is broad enough and the timeline extended enough to carry on through the years. In the case of the two above mentioned projects they seem to be little two narrow, and thus got suffocated or so it would seem. I suppose we could entertain the idea of enlarging the scope and time frame and see if they bounce back, but I would not be in any particular hurry to try that save but for it there was an increase in the editor pool. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would presume the idea is to organize the improvement of articles for the sub anniversaries. For the next three years we're going to have anniversaries of major World War I battles coming up, and for the next month or so, American Civil War. I would say that such long-scope projects are needed to coordinate such long timelines. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

World War I lasted over 4 years, and we're only 7 months in - it's entirely reasonable to assume that editors might still be working on articles for events that have not hit their centennial (I certainly am - my current FAC will ideally be through in time to run on 14 March - hint hint, go review it!). Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And there's hardly much point closing the American Civil War one when it'll naturally close in a couple months anyway. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know Parsecboy, how well is your timing on FACs? I always found that getting those over with in just a month is quite ambitious! ResMar 18:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Which, honestly, is how these projects become quite useful: Timelines warning of major events well in advance let you look ahead six months and get started. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Russian ground forces units

Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look at this article? It seems someone started it and just left it. Is it a duplicate of another article? Can we link to it? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks like an abortive attempt to spin a list out of Russian Ground Forces#Structure; I'm not sure whether it makes more sense to retain the list at this stage in the hope that someone will come along to work on it, or to just redirect it back to the main article. Kirill ^[talk] 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

USS Constitution is TFA,vandalism

The USS Constitution article is Today's Featured Article, and is being subjected to much IP vandalism. Could an admin look into this point, and see if the page can at least be semi-protected? Thanks . - BilCat (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put pending changes on it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anglo-Saxon Armour and Weaponry

Hello weaponry experts. I brought this to the group six months ago and a long discussion ensued about reliable sources. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 126#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anglo-Saxon Armour and Weaponry). Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. If you think it's of no value, please don't edit it, and it will fade away shortly. Just saying.... —Anne Delong (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Afghan War move discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (1978–present)#Requested move 21 February 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Lugansk People's Republic#RfC: Should we use "Luhansk" or "Lugansk"?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lugansk People's Republic#RfC: Should we use "Luhansk" or "Lugansk"?. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 05:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Asim Vokshi – Questionable

Re: Asim Vokshi

Apparently, he died in 1937. But somehow was active during World War II? Adamdaley (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering that Albanian Wikipedia has him dying during the Battle of the Ebro which ends before 1939 I would say this article is highly questionable. --Molestash (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The date of death seems uncontroversial, see this Worldcat entry [6]. It looks like the Wiki article's source may have been slightly mistranslated, from "Vokshi was like the heroes of the National Liberation War" (as in "he was equally remarkable") to "Vokshi was a hero of the National Liberation War". A native Albanian speaker would need to translate the whole source paragraph of ref #1 within its context for verification. Maybe the original contributor can clarify. GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed the dubious statement for now (it can't be OK, makes no sense to keep it) and moved the source to "Further reading". GermanJoe (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of {{cite map}} template conversion

There is a discussion about the {{cite map}} template ongoing at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite map. It is likely that the discussion will result in formatting changes (including some improvements and additional flexibility) to the template, which is used in about 18,000 articles. Your feedback, as frequent users of this template, will be welcome and needed if these changes are to be implemented with the least amount of negative side effects.

Please link to this discussion from Talk pages of other projects that use {{cite map}} frequently. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ISIL peer review

Hi all, I have requested a peer review for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and welcome all feedback. This article usually receives over 50,000 hits per day and has already been rated as meeting all B-class criteria by this WikiProject. I'd like to request an A-class review after the close of the peer review.

The article is quite long and the group is in the news frequently, so there may be a bit of a gap between when I close the peer review and request an A-class review. Nonetheless, improvements to this article will be of great benefit as this article receives a very high amount of traffic. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:ADCOR A-556 ELITE

Dear weaponry experts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a notable topic? Or is the information already covered somewhere else? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Article already appears to be in mainspace at the title Brown Enhanced Automatic Rifle. I have no opinion on its suitability or lack thereof for an article. -- saberwyn 21:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - it's gone now. The two titles are totally different. Would "Adcor A-556 Elete" be an appropriate redirect title? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Military operations in North Africa during World War I

How do I link the page above to Template:Campaignbox North African theater (World War I)? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Hamish59 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks muchly Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Military operations in North Africa during World War I the one here has run off the page....Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

New VC award to be made (UK Armed Forces)

Seen a couple of tweets to the effect that a new award of the Victoria Cross is to be made, possible announcement at midnight GMT, see eg this https://twitter.com/DanJarvisMP/status/570695837870911488 from Dan Jarvis. Worth keeping an eye on I think. David Underdown (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Binh Tai Massacre

I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Binh Tai Massacre. I would appreciate if you could help me there.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No. 254 Squadron RAF

Has been tagged as a copyvio from [7].Nigel Ish (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anschluss

I figure this as one of the only active projects will have folks who know about the topic. Content dispute there....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the reverts, but I'm not prepared to wade through them all without some sort of discussion on the talkpage that explains what people are trying to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of the Maya Good Topic nom

Hi all,

I have recently nominated Spanish conquest of the Maya for Good Topic, and would welcome any reviews or comments. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Statistics Bot?

I'm trying to find the statistics bot that updates the statistics tables. I unfortunately, had to format and only saved a few things. What would be the link to update it manually? Adamdaley (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I forget who it was that told me that this link existed, just can't remember who it was. Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

... Adamdaley (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Gday Adam - I think this thread might be discussing what you are asking about. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_48#Out_of_date_stats. Is this it? Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

German naval trawlers of WWII (Vorpostenboot)

OK, it seems that there were several hundred of these. Adding them all to the List of Kriegsmarine ships would dominate the list, so it would seem that a list would be a better way to deal with naming them. Question is, List of naval trawlers of Germany in WWII or List of Vorpostenboote in WWII? Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My instinct is the first one, as the more natural form for English language readers but as the Vorpostenboot article exists, the second is more of a fit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As not all Vorpostenboote were ex-trawlers, would it confuse matters to refer to them as such in the article heading? The word literally means an "outpost boat" but patrol boats might give a clearer idea if an English language name was prefered. Monstrelet (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Monstrelet makes a good point, they were not all trawlers, but they were all vorpostenboote. Looks like a case where WP:UE is overruled. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that the correct spelling is Vorpostenboote, with a capital V. Manxruler (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do, link amended. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, good. Manxruler (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Nelson Mandela (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

UK angle measurements with 600 "degrees"?

Looking at wartime photos, I keep coming across examples of circles being divided up into 600 "degrees". I am unfamiliar with any such unit, does anyone know what this is called? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a "mil" - a military measurement; if you take two spots at 100 mils apart on a compass, 1km distant from you, they are then 100m apart on the ground. Mils help coordinate artillery fire etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this is definitely the solution. Odd, I have come across the non-angular version of this measure countless times, but never the simple "600 to a circle" which is largely equivalent. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so it's NOT a mil. A mil is 6400 to a circle, which can't be reduced to 600 no matter how you mangle it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

1/600[0] is based on the Imperial Russian angular mil, not the French 'metric' 1/6400 used by the rest of the world. -- saberwyn 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any record of the UK using this system? It's definitely printed on the walls of the ROC posts, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Portal placement in a article

Could someone please cite the OFFICIAL chapter and verse on the placement of a portal or portal bar within an article? I have put portal bars in the "See also" section and have been told that that is wrong; I have put it at the very bottom of the article only to have someone ten minutes later move the portal bar to the "See also" section of the article. I honestly do not know the convention. Help... Cuprum17 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume it depends on the structure of the page but I usually put them at the bottom of the page and trust to luck. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The current incarnation of WP:MOS/Layout says internal links like portals belong in the see also section, although there would be some natural variance depending on the article's structure, and creating a section only for a template (portal or otherwise) appears to be discouraged. -- saberwyn 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It says portals are usually placed in the See Also section. There are some reasons for this. First, there is an important caveat: Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates.. So if there is no See Also section otherwise, you are not supposed to create one just to hold the portals. Secondly, a subject bar can be used to unify the portals and the Wikimedia sister projects links, but these are supposed to go into the External Links, which is the last section (Or the in the last section if there isn't one.) While it seems logical that the internal links should be in See Also, articles with multiple portals create a clutter of boxes, or a neat portal bar. The latter is my favourite, but it doesn't look the best if there are no more sections to follow, so like Keith, I prefer putting them down the bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I copied that usage from you, assuming that it was how it's done. ;O) I wondered why they sometimes found their way up the page for ages. Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

They go in the "See also" section, or at least, that's what I do and that's what the Manual of Style says. Putting them under EXTERNAL links makes no sense, considering that they link WITHIN Wikipedia. What I do is, if there's no bulleted articles in the "See also" section, I turn the portal link into a Portal Bar. When bulleted articles are added, I change the bar into a regular portal link. Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister 20:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Usually I don't edit in the military field (doing edits on the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte tank), and I want to know if the site Militaryfactory.com can even be considered as a reliable source. I'm not sure how this would stand in any standard article, but I have seen it frequently on articles, even when they have had their B-class criteria checked (while passing). So this is more of a question. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should be considered reliable. None of its articles are sourced, it's not associated with any organization of note, and I never heard of any of the article authors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good points there, your comment has saved me from sourcing it since the information given in the article has been incredibly hard to source. Thanks you. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions needed about a Draft about a Vietnam War air combat incident

Please see User:Zkhan khan/sandbox. Is the incident sufficiently notable to have a separate article? If yes, is this draft an acceptable description of the incident? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ask at WT:Air as well. There's far too much detail in that draft to dump into the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the sourcing, honestly. Intothatdarkness 19:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

GA nom of Adolf Hitler's adjutants

I am asking for a second opinion at the GA review. I believe this article to be a list and not an article. I would appreciate a second opinion on this matter. If other reviewers concur in my opnion the article fails the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, as Stand-alone lists cannot be a good article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Commented there - certainly looks like a list to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree - it is a list. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. The text is in prose and there are no tables or bulleted lists. So it is not clearly a list to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of lists are prose-heavy - certainly all of the lists I've written are. See for instance List of unprotected cruisers of Germany. There's no requirement for tables or bulleted lists in MOS:LIST. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK, but there are no embedded lists at all at Adolf Hitler's adjutants now. And MOS:SAL says stand-alone lists have one or more embedded lists. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What WP:EMBED actually says is "composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list" (my italics) - the section headings are the list items. The whole article is a list of people, with an associated paragraph of text. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking as an FLC delegate, I'd consider it a list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• I chose to fail the article at GA on the grounds that I consider it a list. The editor Jonas Vinther chose to resubmit the article, now renamed to "List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants", at WP:FLC. I have no issue with being overruled on this decision. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Not that experienced with MILHIST assessment, but it probably should be classed as "xL" class then as well for MILHIST, regardless of the current FLC outcome. GermanJoe (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Crisco, it is a list. I've noted at FLC that I'm surprised it didn't go for AL review first. It looks to me as if it would have benefited from a close look by Milhist reviewers before being nominated at FLC. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It is more akin to a list and certainly would benefit from "some work" by interested Milhist reviewers. Kierzek (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War GAR

Spanish Civil War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Robert LaRue Miller

Re: Robert LaRue Miller,

I've had my eye on this "article" or so-called page for a few weeks now. First it appears in "Biography (military) articles by quality and importance" as an Unassessed "NA" page. Secondly, is this page isolated by itself? What could be done so it doesn't show up in the above assessment table? Adamdaley (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the article in question? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This: Robert LaRue Miller. I know your probably thinking that there is no article at that link. But for some reason it does appear on my Biography statistics table even though I have purged the bot for this table many times and still it exists. Adamdaley (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

See Draft:Robert LaRue Miller :). Unfortunately the bot isn't clever enough to handle this "special" namespace correctly (Not sure why. Maybe wide-spread draft usage was implemented, after the bot was developed?). I always try to ignore those few cases. GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Last time I saw an article under the above name, I recall that it was going to be deleted for a reason I cannot remember. Adamdaley (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You could try asking at WP:WikiProject Biography or at Template:Wikiproject Biography to add a Draft categorization - "biography (military)" uses the biography project's main template, not the MILHIST template. That doesn't solve the whole problem, but would put those draft articles into a proper category. GermanJoe (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice for translation article

Hi Military history WikiProject,

I'm Ryan with WikiEdu. We have a student in a translation class who will be translating an article from French to English. His first choice to translate is fr:Vie en Belgique durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale (Life in Belgium during World War II). We don't have such an article, but our coverage of WW2 is thorough enough that I'm concerned the reason we don't have an article by that name is because there may be consensus the topic is sufficiently covered across the many other articles about Belgium and WW2 (e.g. those at Category:Belgium in World War II). I'm hoping you can provide some advice on the matter. Thanks very much! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid the article German occupation of Belgium during World War II covers that, except for the football part that is. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Brigade Piron might be interested, he's into Belgium. Keith-264 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I'll convey as much. Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ufology

Ok, this is going to seem like a weird one, so please bear with me here. I honestly think this is part of military history in a depressingly big way.

That article is awful. I've been trying to think about how I can fix it, to make it a better overview of the 'field' as a whole, and I keep running into pitfalls. Number 1 - what to do about the military response to UFOs. I have barely begun to write about the US military and government response to UFOs and I'm already only on a highly condensed version of 1947-1952 that barely covers anything. This is going to be long. There are articles on individual military projects, incidences, government reports - but nothing on how independent militaries have dealt with UFOs throughout the last 60-80 years.

Does anyone have tips on how best to cover something like this? Given the number of jets scrambled, military scientists/projects/technologies/man hours put into this, money spent - is this stuff worthy of its own article? How would you go about doing that? I write articles about paranormal stuff, military history is not my forte.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree altogether? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult topic to tackle. I haven't read these articles, but they might help:

• 1996. "On the Edge of Science: Coping With UFOlogy Scientifically". PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY. 7, no. 2: 136-139.

• Cross, Anne. 2004. "The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers". Qualitative Sociology. 27, no. 1: 3-34. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got all the skeptic and anthropologists and military historians lined up on my bookshelf, just doing an overview of the CIAs history online right now and what it's bringing up in terms of the air force and their involvement in the issue - and how it played a large part in the Cold War - is just monumental. Wait until I dive into those articles! I don't know whether to be happy or cry. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is my beginning draft of a new article, it focuses exclusively on the US government and military's overall response to UFOs - I really think you guys would be interested. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IP user making changes to Napoleonic articles

IP user 193.140.194.44 has been making changes to some of the battle articles...changing information in the box usually. IP user 129.178.88.85 says he/she is undoing them. One is Battle_of_Jena–Auerstedt. Anyone know something about this? auntieruth (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

now this one 213.106.227.129 is making random changes....auntieruth (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of A-Class review?

Can someone give me an example of the purpose of A-class, as opposed to FA?

Reading the FAQ and related documents on the process, it seems that some of the purpose of A-class is to prepare for FA. Those same documents state that A-class is deliberately similar to FA.

This being the case, what is the purpose of A? Why would anyone not post directly to FAC, and get a wider variety of eyeballs?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Because we're more likely to know your topic better than the average FAC reviewer and thus better equipped to catch factual mistakes and evaluate your sources? The latter are more likely to catch infelicities in prose, MOS compliance, etc. in my experience. You may not feel that it's worth your time, but that's your call.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

My question is more along the lines of "is there an article that will want to stop at A?" For instance, does A-class allow the use of fair use images? That would be a major advantage if it did. That's just one example though, there seem to be a number of cases that "outlaw" FA, but maybe not A-class. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there are articles that would necessarily need to stop there—the criteria are indeed quite similar, with FA of course tending to be more stringent on quality of prose—but there are certainly editors who might not be interested in submitting articles to the FAC process, for whatever reason. Since FAC only allows nominations from an article's principal authors, that necessarily excludes certain articles from consideration there. Kirill ^[talk] 01:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Before I became disillusioned with the whole high-quality hoopjumping process (so I'm probably an example of Kirill's point above), my personal stance was that articles that were on an 'ongoing' subject and liable to change significantly in the future (Collins-class submarine, an active submarine class, is my pet example) should stay at A or lower. There's a slightly lower quality standard expected of A-class articles, so maintaining an article on a changing subject would be easier. On the other hand, I never dragged HMAS Sydney (R17) (a 70s decommissioned ship, so a 'concluded' subject) any higher than A either, and can't really think of a particular reason why. -- saberwyn 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting example, precisely the sort of thing I'm wondering about. So have you personally found A to be eaiser/simpler/better than FA? And given that A means you'll never get a charm slot on the main, do you feel the A process is even worthwhile, compared to something like GA or (if it actually worked) PR?

There is a method to my madness here. If we have two processes that do basically the same thing, why have two processes? Why not have a single process that forks at the end? So if your article goes through the review successfully and meets all the FA criterion, it goes directly to FA. Alternately, the exact same article with a free use image that the author doesn't want to remove goes directly to A. If the difference is only in minor content related issues, then there is no need for two entirely different systems.

I bring this up because from what I can tell the A-class reviewers are the same people doing the FA. So why not devolve the process to a single step? I can't see any practical limitation. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a huge practical limitation that stops FAC dead.FAC is limited to one article at a time per editor, and takes a couple of months. So the most you can do is half a dozen per annum. Perhaps a couple more if you can file with a collaborator. So realistically, many of the articles I write can never go to FAC, because I cannot find a slot. Whereas you can nominate as many articles for A-class as you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There is also the problem at the FA level because of the paucity of readers. I read all (or most) of the FA applicants in the history/military history genre, just because there aren't enough readers. My last submission had one comment, on the image review, and I didn't understand it, but when I asked a question about it, there was never a response. Article came down for lack of reviews. auntieruth (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, good point, but that's precisely what I'm trying to solve. If the sub-groups could approve FA, this limitation could be imposed or removed as that sub-group wishes. auntieruth, true that, but I'm not sure it's very different in A-class? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A-class has suffered from a lack of reviewers too, causing a blowout in review times. It has advantages over FAC in this regard though. First, the nominators can nominate multiple articles at a time. Second, the format is more structured. Everybody knows that the A class requires three reviews, copyedit, source check and image check. So passers-by are in a better position to evaluate which nomination needs help, and what needs to be done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign

I felt quite smug at putting a big map into the Background section, until I noticed that it obscures the campaignbox when it drops down. Does anyone know of a cure short of moving the map please? Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

While I'm at it, does anyone know why the title for the campaignbox on Military operations in North Africa during World War I runs off the page? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign: perhaps put the map where the Italian tankettes picture is now (making it a bit smaller), and it should move down automatically if/when the campaignbox is expanded? As things stand, at least on my machine, we have a vast expanse of whitespace on the right of the map (or is this deliberate, perhaps, as a desert motif?).

Military operations in North Africa during World War I: It doesn't run off the page for me. Maybe it's your browser or something. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The campaignbox in Military operations in North Africa during World War I is broken for me using Firefox but not with Chrome or IE. All with Monobook.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm using Seamonkey, odd that it's only in this article.Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Seamonkey's based on the same code as Firefox so I am fairly sure your browser's the issue Keith, based on what Nigel's said above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Frietjes is using a Microsoft class that is not supported by Firefox. We need an admin to revert Template:Campaignbox back to the 5 May 2014 version. Frustrating not being able to do anything around here. Hawkeye7 (talk)

I moved the map.Keith-264 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 fixed it for us. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

• Template:POTD/2015-03-24 is going to be about WWI recruiting in the UK. Would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I had a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't spot any clangers content-wise, couldn't resist tweaking wording just a little.. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

I have been working on this article, and have just sourced and expanded the 'India and disbandment' section. However, I have limited sources and limited access to sources on the division's time in India and Burma. Does anyone have access to sources such as Defeat into Victory, the Official History (War Against Japan), or anything else that would be able to flesh out parts of that section and specifically the following:

• Anything the division did to help quell the civil unrest following the emergence of the Quit India movement.
• The 23rd Infantry Brigade were deployed to the Arakan in May 1943. I have seen mention that they were deployed to Taung Bazar to cover the retreat of Anglo-Indian forces following the Japanese counterattacks during the Arakan campaign. I have not been able to source this, can someone flesh out why the brigade was deployed there?
• The previous, unsourced, version stated that William Slim (in addition to Auchinleck) objected to the division being broken up for the Chindits. I was unable to source this, and no longer have a copy of Slim's book.

Any help is much appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got the OH, what dates interest you?Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Keith. Any mention of 70th Div (or its brigades) really. In particular, August 42 onwards for its role in policing India, and May 1943 for 23rd Infantry Brigade in Arakan. I also saw mention that the division may have helped with famine relief, does the OH verify this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Clinton Romesha#Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Clinton Romesha#Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Maletti Group

Maletti Group I added an infobox military unit for the first time here, have I missed anything? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Warfare

FYI, Warfare has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The main purpose of the proposal was actually to discuss the best target for the redirect now that its content has been merged with War following a talk page discussion (though deletion was being canvassed as an option). I've just closed this with a suggestion that a discussion take place on a central board such as this one first, especially as there seems no likelihood of the page being deleted. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

War vs Warfare (at Rfd)

Hello.

At [[8]] we've had a brief discussion of where Warfare should go. I suggested, as you can see from there, that "War" and "Warfare" have subtlely different meanings, and suggested the wrong places for it to go, but I did suggest that you experts at MILHIST would know better, and I imagine has been discussed here in the past.

Hence linking to you so that you can discuss it. The result of the discussion was speedy close, by an editor I have never seen before, and usually RfDs take longer than that while others put in their opinions. Our aim at RfD is always to get readers to get where they want: right or wrong, the clue is if someone searches for this, what would they want to find? We have to be a bit clairvoyant with that. Si Trew (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)_{Not the military historian who writes about the balkans etc, but it is my real name}

Check on article regarding foreign suppliers of Royal Brunei Armed Forces

Been seeing some anonymous IP posting in the infobox of the RBAF with good faith since defense articles do not mention the involvement of the Koreas in supplying military equipment. Can someone look into this and let me know? Ominae (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like test or minor vandalism to me. Adding both North and South Korea is uncited and shoold be very unlikely. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It just came back again. Me thinks it's best to lock it up since it's looking more of vandalism now. Ominae (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Tank articles and usage/user templates

Is there a guideline for placing (or not placing) user/usage templates in military vehicle articles? Currently there's a user insisting on having {{Turkish Army vehicles}} in Leopard 2 although it's not a Turkish-made vehicle. Discussing with him does not seem to help, see Talk:Leopard_2#Trukish_Army_vehicles. --Denniss (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article and editor?

Hey, I have a question: would anyone be willing to take User:Psirish and his draft article Draft:Jackal Stone under their wing? He's a new editor and his draft article looks like it could be about a notable topic, but it needs a bit of work for grammar and tone, as well as for sourcing. The article has some sources written by the US Military, but it also appears that they participate in the event so these would likely be considered primary sources. I do get the impression that there may be a language barrier here due to some of the grammar, but I don't know that for certain, so if he does confirm this then it'd be nice to get a native speaker to help out as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks good, and can be mainspaced as Exercise Jackal Stone pretty easily. It might benefit from some non-US media sources, but there often aren't many immediately as an exercise is begun. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Italian speakers?

Maletti Group are Italian terms like Raggruppamento capitalised? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Italian war time footage, advise needed

AnnalesSchool has added what appears to be an Italian war time propaganda film (what war time footage isn't propaganda!) to several articles: Greco-Italian War, Military history of Greece during World War II, and Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II.

His additions have been opposed by Hamish59 on the grounds they are not RS and has stopped short of the 3rr. Annales has reverted, and now appears to Wikilawyering to support his edits. I think further advise is needed from the community.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like this clarified. War footage by either side, should be permitted in External Links at least. Let the reader decide if they want to view it or not. I don't see the harm in it. Watching real war footage is very interesting and it isn't integral to the article (has not been referenced or used to support what is written). It is simply war adding a link to war footage that is already freely available on the internet. To me, it passes the Reliability Test. There is bias because any British or American or Axis war footage is obviously biased and created from a certain point of view. But there is nothing inherently wrong with that and the Wiki rules allow for it.

I found this regulation concerning censorship (Wiki has many!):

However, some articles may include images, text or links that are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal (or inclusion) of content.

I maintain that war time footage for either side, should be allowed in the External Links or Further Reading sections because they are not integral to the article itself, but simply a link for the reader to follow or not.

If there is a question of partiality, then by all means , let's have links to British and American wartime footage. AnnalesSchool (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it a feature film?Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AnnalesSchool that "wartime footage for either side, should be allowed in the External Links or Further Reading sections because they are not integral to the article itself, but simply a link for the reader to follow or not". I did not revert Hamish59 because an argument could be made that they are not germane to the Franco-Italian armistice. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Keith, the one I skipped through earlier this morning did not appear to be a feature film. It was footage of Italian troops in action in the desert with an Italian voice over track (no subtitles).

I don't really have an opinion on the subject. I have seen similar links removed from other articles. I would image it would be preferable to have such links with a full cite: location, date, filmmaker etc. However, the disagreement has spread over four pages (only just being made aware of the armistice article from the above).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

We also should not be linking to content that is possibly a copyvio. Videos on YouTube are notorious for not establishing copyright correctly so before any discussion on whether the link is relevant or not, the copyright status should be established. Nthep (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

At least AnnalesSchool is being honest about posting Italian propaganda here, which makes a nice change from their usual attempts to pretend that they've being objective. I note that they claimed in this edit summary that the propaganda film is a reliable source, which says it all really. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

War footage by its very nature, is propaganda, and therefore biased towards the side who obviously created it. I would give $500 to anyone who finds me a German Nazi newsreel which was actually sympathetic to the Allies! However, I take the view that the definition of "reliable source" is one where it is actually quoted or referenced in the article. As they are not and cannot be, they are simply what they are: very interesting footage of battles and movements taking place during the war. I read the rules on reliability and this is what I found:

"1. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

So one can add so-called "non-neutral sources" to an article to enhance it. Therefore, I was flabbergasted to read recently one wiki-editor who deleted a quote by Count Ciano because his reasoning went thus: Count Ciano was one of the instigators of the war so whatever he says, is unreliable! For historians, that would be a nonsensical argument. This means that anything Hitler or Goebbels uttered, would by definition be unreliable, and thus should not be used at all!!! A startling claim. An author like MacGregor Knox would be knocked out by this claim as his book titled "Mussolini Unleashed" is chocker-bloke full of quotes by Mussolini and Ciano!

But getting back to the point, I am happy to accept any consensus this forum may come to. I will bow to the greater collective wisdom. Perhaps a compromise can be reached. I do not wish to be charged with the grave offense of promoting Italian war propaganda so in the External Links section, can we agree to add one or two links to war footage, balanced by one or two links to war footage by the other side? AnnalesSchool (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A wonderful change in attitude, considering you have in the past declared Ciano to be unreliable and that he work should not be cited.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ciano's diaries have been compromised by British Intelligence. However, not everything. His diaries have to be used with some degree of reservation and caution. They are not totally reliable, but not totally unreliable either. However, it's interesting to note how often his diaries are used to express either an anti-Italian or anti-Mussolini stance. Diaries, especially written in hindsight and with one's neck twitching from the coming hangman's noose, always have to be taken with a pinch of salt and a healthy measure of skepticism. Usually what historians do is to find other corroborating evidence in support and not solely rely on personal records like diaries. The diaries are reliable to a certain extent, but there reliability has been diminished by the irresponsible actions of British Intelligence. AnnalesSchool (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It occurs that I've put the odd youtube link into External links such as the film, Battle of the Somme 1916 so perhaps I'm at fault?Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturally, I will follow the guidance / consensus reached here. Hamish59 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that adding links to propaganda videos violates criterion 2 of WP:ELNO given that this material is fundamentally misleading. In this specific case, even if our readers can't understand what's being said in an Italian-language propaganda film the visuals are misleading in their own right given that they provide a deliberately inaccurate portrayal of the Italian war effort. For this kind of link to be OK, it needs to meet criterion 3 of WP:ELYES or criterion 4 of WP:ELMAYBE and I don't think that's the case given that the videos are not reliable sources, and not neutral. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So this applies to all links to any war footage, including British and American, right? Or are you saying that only Italian war footage is deliberately misleading and inaccurate?AnnalesSchool (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want anyone to consider taking you seriously, you should retract that really offensive accusation of anti-Italian bias. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No accusation intended Nick. I am sorry you took it this way. But I need to ask: does it apply to all war footage? AnnalesSchool (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC submissions

Could you have a look at these? Draft:87th Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery, Draft:20th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment. Thank you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rickfive, can you help us with 87 A/Tk Regt RA? And where's the Confederate Legion of our ACW editors? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Redundant articles

I just discovered Armed Services and Military branch, both of which are unsourced stubs. Worse, Armed services (small "s") redirects to Military branch. Are there any other articles that better cover the same topic that these? Or should one of them be expanded? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I just made Armed services redirect to Armed Services, which seems to have more text content. I am not finding a better existing article that covers this topic. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Armed forces obviously. The two terms mean the same thing. I've redirected. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But that covers all military branches, not a single military branch or service. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The title, Armed Services, ought to redirect go to Armed forces, but the content isn't the same, as Fnlayson points out. We might copy some of the original content to Military branch, but neither is sourced, so we'd need to address that at some point. Also, is "Military branch" more of a US term? I don't really know. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well there's Infantry Branch (United States), and Field Artillery Branch (United States), but I think in UK a "branch" of the armed forces means one of army, navy or airforce. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Lists of Wars Update

As you may have noticed the Lists of Wars articles] remain incomplete, feel free to improve them.--Catlemur (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Affairs, actions, operations and battles

In the Battles nomenclature Committee report of 1919, Operation is a time and place where military events take place, Battle for engagements by forces of at least corps size (usually), tactical incidents are described as Action for engagements by forces from division to corps and Affairs used for lesser engagements. Where there are no labels in reliable sources or the term battle is used generically, can we use this model for a naming convention or will it be OR? A source has used the term Battle of Nezuet Ghirba which I've copied here Frontier Wire (Libya) but from its size and lack of coverage in other sources (a few lines in the OH) I think it might better be described as an Action or Affair or Engagement if at all. Any thoughts or wikiguidance? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It would indeed be OR, but to have 'affair' would be much better than some of the 'Battle of X' that involved platoon-sized forces that we get during the war on terror. Keith, this is an interesting idea, but if you want to apply it more widely than strictly British RSs for up to 1919, we'd probably have to amend the MILMOS. If we amended the MILMOS, we might end up creating Wiki-isms for events that might be imported instantly into common use. Not sure whether this would be a good idea. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, I altered the wording to engagement, since this is descriptive, without as many connotations of magnitude. Battle seems as vague as decimate these days, not that I'm bitter mind....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen, "action" and "affair" are rather antiquated terms now. Modern writers tend to mainly use "engagement", with "battle" generally being only applied to fairly large affairs. "Offensive" is also occasionally used. If anything, the norm for covering western militaries is to use whatever the code-name of the battle is, though there are problems around WP:NPOV with us always copying this. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Before rushing into this, my recollection is previously we have noted that we should be aware of what military actions have traditionally been called. Also that we should be wary of creating a different conventions for different periods. Monstrelet (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In general, I'd avoid using "Battle of X" unless there's clear indication that someone external has actually called it that. "Action/Engagement [at place] or [of date]" seems nicely generic and does not imply a formal name (we use it for minor naval engagements, for example, which don't have a name). I'd avoid "Affair" as sounding a bit archaic, and only use it if the sources do - eg Nery. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I like archaisms but they do tend to provoke wiki-ouanqueurs and Battle seems to have developed connotations with everything from a scuffle to Stalingrad. If there isn't a formal name, Engagement seems to be about right or just naming the place. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm always nervous about the battles that are are so-called only on the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikicoords

Is it possible to put two coordinates in an article {{Coord|31|57|N|25|00|E|type:event_region:LY|display=inline,title}}–{{Coord29|15|N|25|00|E|type:event_region:LY|display=inline,title}}? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright (Germany)

G'day, I have recently found the original blueprints for the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte. These same blueprints here are also found in the German Tank Museum, as shown in the documentary "Nazi Megastructures: Super Tanks". You can find the blueprints at 29 minutes, 4 seconds in the video.

What is the copyright of this?

It was published in 1942 and its original source is based on original German documents which appear in several sources given in the article. Original author is known to be Krupp. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Input requested

Please see: Talk:Cypress Hills massacre#RfC: Article title. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Piracy in Somalia

FYI, the article Piracy in Somalia has been proposed to be renamed, for the discussion, see talk:Piracy in Somalia -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Facsimile editions

If we use a facsimile source like this:

• Playfair, Major-General I. S. O.; with Flynn R.N., Captain F. C.; Molony, Brigadier C. J. C. & Toomer, Air Vice-Marshal S. E. (2004) [HMSO 1956]. Butler, J. R. M., ed. The Mediterranean and Middle East: The Germans come to the help of their Ally (1941). History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series II. Naval & Military Press. ISBN 1-84574-066-1.

should the footnote be <ref>Playfair, 2004, p. x</ref> or 1956?Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Playfair 2004, p. x (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). But if you describe it in the prose (WP:INTEXT), refer to it as a 1956 work. Hope this helps —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd been wondering about this as well - thanks for pointing out the guideline Cliftonian. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• No problem, pleasure to help —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with Cliftonian here IRT the short cite, makes sense. In addition you can also use the "origyear=1956" in the long citation as well (although "HMSO 1956" like you have above is also fairly clear to me at least). Anotherclown (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been pottering around the Western Desert pages and have noticed that some references for Playfair et al are facsmiles and others original publications and I realise that I've had it the wrong way round - orig year cites and reprint year references. Fort Capuzzo I've altered the cites here to 2004 a, b, c, d in the sfn's but it's going to be a bugger changing the rest. Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's a facsimile edition the page numbers are the same, so it's not such a big deal. One wishing to verify the information by checking the source material would still be correctly directed. Problems arise where the page numbers differ between editions. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Great Offensive"

Great Smyrna Offensive has been proposed to be renamed to "Great Offensive", see talk:Great Smyrna Offensive . The article could also do with some copyediting. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Article title problem with various pages about WW2-era submarines

Please see the discussion at WP:Help desk#Linking to or Translating Italian wiki page to English which has uncovered an unusual pattern of article titles about Italian submarines of WW2. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, yes they've solved it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not an article series on British POW camps?

After reading this article from the BBC about the last surviving WWII POW camps in the UK, I noticed that there is a noticeable lack of article on such places.

There is a list but it shows that almost none of them have an article about them: List of World War II prisoner-of-war camps in the United Kingdom

If obscure RAF and RNAS stations can have articles, it seems a shame that POW Camps have been overlooked. 81.132.175.187 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and start writing; we're happy to render assistance as needed, but you'll have to do the heavy lifting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Outpost Snipe

Should this article have this Template:Infobox military installation infobox? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Gday - my two cents: the article seems to be about the action that occurred there, not just the outpost itself (which would only have been occupied temporarily I assume any way). As such I think the Template:Infobox military conflict would be more appropriate as it would convey the required information better. Also I'd consider renaming it to something like Defence of Outpost Snipe (or some other alternative like "Action at" / "Engagement at" / "Battle of" etc) (depending on what is supported by the sources). Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't make my mind up. Keith-264 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to A-class list

When you edit an entry on the A-class review list, there is a widget at the top that says Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment. Neither of the links return you to the list. One returns you to the main page, the other to the article on the assessment process. Can someone add a link back to the list itself? My back button doesn't always get me there. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree - this is a good point. I've been quietly whinging to myself for years about this and never had the gumption (or any idea how) to do anything about it. Anotherclown (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no easy way to get the link to show up in the widget; those links are generated based on the subpage structure, and the individual A-Class review pages aren't actually subpages of the master list. However, I've added a manually-generated backlink to the preload template as well as the currently open reviews, so folks should be able to get back to the list using that. Kirill ^[talk] 03:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Works like a champ! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Bir Hakeim

I've been citing the article to justify removing the banner but there are three paragraphs containing material from French sources which I don't have. Are there any aficionados who can look it over and cite them please. I'm not entirely sure about the narrative of the siege either, the sources I have are rather contradictory about dates and I wonder if some passages have been duplicated. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles do not have to be 100% cited to remove article ref improve and similar tags. The article tag can be replaced with specific section tags and inline tags where needed at least. I'll get that started. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I found citations for the OOBKeith-264 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Adminship Notification

A member of this project, Buggie111 (talk · contribs), is currently a candidate for adminship. All interested editors are invited to weigh in on his RFA, which may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buggie111 2. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Buggie111 has withdrawn from the RFA. It has been closed. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox question

If a person had a long non-military career, but served in the military during a period of conflict, would it make sense to use the infobox relative to the career as the main box, and add the military person infobox to the section on their military service? Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. See James Whiteside McCay for an example. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - not quite what I had in mind, That example seems to have the two infoboxes merged together. Maybe I should have a play in the sandbox and see what I can come up with. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. I had a play and couldn't get it to work. Proto-article now at Peter Cazalet (racehorse trainer). Assistance in expanding it is sought. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on date format input requested

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military_date_format_in_biographical_articles directly relates to this project. Specifically, the editor challenged using military dates on Audie Murphy, and moved the discussion from that talk page to this one. — Maile (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See here. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Maintained template up for deletion

Hello, this is just a quick note to make you aware of the current deletion discussion for the {{Maintained}} talk page template which some of you may have used on some article's talk pages. Cheers! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Navy

FYI, several navy questions have been posted to WT:SHIPS -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 21#Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 21#Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–14). Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

MP 40 and referencing Military Factory website

Please visit the discussion here. The article has been nominated for GA-review, spawning a discussion whether the Military Factory website is a WP:RS. Opinions are welcome. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion this is site falls under WP:SELFPUBLISH and is thus not to be considered a reliable source. On the other hand, the site is quoted by published authors published by respected publishing houses (eg SAGE, Stackpole Books) so it must be somehow reliable. However, with the abundance of printed reliable sources, I would prefer them over a website anytime. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Stackpole books are not uniformly reliable. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither is Osprey, which includes a verbatim quote from the Wikipedia article in their book(let) on the firearm mentioned above without proper citations. It's getting curiouser and curiouser .... ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed for Spanish Civil War article currently going through GAR

Gday. The Spanish Civil War article is currently going through a Good Article Reassessment, here - Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Spanish Civil War/2 ‎. Although there are mostly other issues being discussed in the GAR the article does have one "citation needed" template on it. Unfortunately I cannot find a suitable reference though using Google Books. Just wondering if there is another editor that is able to take resolve this issue at least by digging up a citation. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe, for the moment, remove the final sentence? In Hugh Thomas The Spanish Civil War' 4th ed. 2001, O'Duffy is described thus: "General Eion O'Duffy headed an Irish fascist movement, the Blue Shirts. He doubtless hoped that the exploits of his six hundred man in Spain would bring him political eminence in his own country." No mention of Catholic solidarity. There is an O'Duffy book, Crusade in Spain 1938, which would probably be the best source for the assertion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

But, of course, he was supported by and made use of the Catholic church in Ireland. This site - spartacus-educational - notes: "On the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War O'Duffy began recruiting volunteers to go and fight in the war. Supported by the Catholic Church in Ireland and by right-wing national newspapers, O'Duffy and the first volunteers travelled from Dublin on 13th November, 1936. It has been argued that the men who went to Spain were mainly motivated by a desire to defend the Catholic Church in Spain." spartacus-educational may be an RS, if not perhaps in the first rank of RSs. Let me also throw in some Christie Moore: "The word came from Maynooth, “support the Nazis” / The men of cloth failed again / When the Bishops blessed the Blueshirts in Dun Laoghaire / As they sailed beneath the swastika to Spain" (Viva la Quinta Brigada) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Finally (perhaps) this might fit the bill: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hEd-U36Wv30C&pg=PA119 ... "The majority of survivors ... nominated religion as their major reason for enlistment." With some rewording of the final sentence, you may be home & dry. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Gday - good suggestions, thanks for your assistance. In the end I found a couple of sources on Google Books and reworded the text to fit what the sources supported. Of course I'm more than happy for others to reword / tweak if I got it wrong. I'm no expert on the topic, was just hoping to deal with a pesky citation needed tag. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My edit is here [9] if anyone is interested in checking / reviewing for accuracy. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Equiment identification needed

Which type of tank is this: File:OSCE_SMM_monitoring_the_movement_of_heavy_weaponry_in_eastern_Ukraine_(16544235410).jpg? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They're not tanks at all, but rather 152 mm 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled artillery.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove from review

I'd like to re-submit LIM-49 Nike Zeus to FA, is there a way to close the A-class review? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no MilHist banner on the talk page. Do I need to add one with A-class=fail for the bot to work properly?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretext or trigger event guidance

Hi all at WP:MIL, do you have any guidance essays on best practice for describing the triggers for a given conflict? At WP:IPCOLL, we have this issue on many articles, which often include weasel wording subtlety favouring one side's explanation over the other. For example:

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War: "On 15 May 1948 the ongoing civil war transformed, by definition due to the Israeli Declaration of Independence of the previous day, into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine - Jordan having declared privately to Yishuv emissaries on 2 May it would abide by a decision not to attack the Jewish state."
• Six-Day War: "...tensions became dangerously heightened. As a result, following the mobilisation of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields on June 5."
• Yom Kippur War: "The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied territories on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, which also occurred that year during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan."
• 2006 Lebanon War: "The conflict was precipitated by the Zar'it-Shtula incident, although it was reported afterwards that Ehud Olmert's government had been planning an attack on Hezbollah, months before this incident."

There is an active discussion on a related point at: Talk:Arab–Israeli_conflict#The_Arab_statements_bellicosity.

Any existing guidance would be helpful here, as these discussions can be tiresome and a "best practice" would help greatly.

Regards, Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I support Oncenawhile call. Ykantor (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read anything on Wikipedia about the zionist occupation that isn't biased against Palestinians and doesn't have edits not conforming to the bias reverted by return of post. I support any effort to be impartial but think it would take the censorship of every edit to achieve.Keith-264 (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

Could some air-minded editor please review this one at GA? It has been queued since the start of the year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert Vaughan Gorle

An editor is posting unsourced POV and OR statements on article Robert Vaughan Gorle. I've removed this once - editor is ignoring and replacing material. It seems he is a family friend of the recipients family and is insinuating theft allegations. The VC is in the Lord Ashcroft VC collection and was purchased privately so this is a serious allegation that is total OR. Can I have some third party input please. --Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Draft:The Royal Waggon Train seems like a good start. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Assistance need to prevent a flame war on Frederick Corbett

User 86.132.145.140 amended the biography of Frederick Corbett without citation to claim that his Victoria Cross forfeited in 1884 had been restored. I amended the article noting that no forfeited VC had been restored. I added the following explanation on the talk page. “I have deleted the words ‘the medal was never formally reinstated to Pvt Frederick Corbett, his name was restored to the Roll of Recipients. It is correct, therefore, that the award of VC should always be appended to his name’. The ‘Roll of Recipients’ refers to the 1953 War Office list of recipients which lists Pte Frederick Corbett and the seven other recipients. This roll is an ad hoc publication of the War Office in which Part 1 lists all recipients prior to the First World War in alphabetical order. At the end of the list is an endnote stating ‘the undermentioned whose names are included in the preceding list, forfeited the Victoria Cross under authority of the Royal Warrant quoted in each case’. The War Office list is not the ‘registry’ specified in the VC warrant. The names were not restored to the 1953 War Office list since all eight names were included in the previous alphabetical list issued by the War Office in 1920 with the identical endnote. Since special warrants on the dates specified in the 1920 and 1953 War Office lists were issued for the eight forfeited awards and the names were erased from the ‘registry’ specified in the VC warrant the proper procedure has been carried out. The only change other than grammatical errors in the 1920 revised warrant was to include the requirement for both exclusions and restorations to be gazetted. There has been no gazette notices indicating any award has been restored and no 'official' support for the writer’s opinion that the post nominal ‘VC should always be appended to his name’. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)” Assistance is requested on how to prevent this issue getting out of hand. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, Can you please add references to the article to that effect (to the extent that it's possible to cite a negative, so to speak)? I've reverted the stuff you mention as it appears to be WP:OR and added a reference to support the material about the forfeiture itself. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts but a flame war has broken out. I have included references and comments relating to the subject of forfeited VCs on the talk page for Frederick Corbett. They can be added to the article when things are calmer. Note that the flame war has spread to Valentine Bambrick. I think it is time for moderators to intervene and I am unsure who they are. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither of these men appear on the list of VC recipients buried in UK. See list of here. REgarding other "restorations" (not of graves but reversal of sovereign decision, see this example, re Edward S. John Daniel VC, and the refusal to restore the award concludes with this statement: "...the restoration of forfeited awards may only be made on a petition to the Sovereign from the former recipient himself. In Daniel’s [sic] case this is not possible. Furthermore, as your proposal relates to events so long ago it is considered inappropriate to reverse the decision made in 1861 by Queen Victoria". Perhaps the warrior involved in the flame war has mistaken the VC grave restoration project for a project to restore the award itself to men who had forfeited it for various reasons? auntieruth (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• • I just deleted something added by 31.49.64.55 at Valentine Bambrick because it had no reference and I thought it was probably just the opinion of the person that wrote it. Now I see this is being discussed here I hope I haven't done something incorrect. Mongoose Army (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is this material being inserted into an individual biography? I think it would be better as a section in the main VC article. Otherwise you'll need to cut and paste into all the relevant biographies. Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • In accordance with Kernel Saunters and in sticking to the main subject of the article, I have removed the non-Corbett information (the George V quote etc) from the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with that. just moved it from the main part of the bio, to get it out of the main text. auntieruth (talk)

Afghan War dead

So it has been often cited that WP:NOTMEMORIAL should apply to all servicemembers, except those who meet WP:SOLDIER and other notability criteria, if they died. This had lead to the deletion of list of dead, and biography articles, even if it could be argued WP:BIO1E, and WP:GNG. Then I came across this article: Siri Skare. Case for PROD, or a reevaluation of past consensus?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

She's likely to be notable for being both the first female Norwegian military pilot, and her death - both would have received significant coverage in the Norwegian media, I imagine. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Her death was all over the national news at the time, yes. There was also quite a bit of coverage in the media of other Scandinavian countries. A quick Google search also shows that there are also more recent news articles and television documentaries on her. That the article could be written better is not a reason for deletion.

The fact that she was the first female Norwegian military pilot should be enough by itself. I find that that she is mentioned in at least three books, in connection with her RNoAF career (including the fact that she was not allowed fighter aircraft training, due to her being a woman). Manxruler (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Overlooked the first female... fact. That being said it could be argued that many servicemembers who died in recent conflicts have received significant coverage (national) by multiple non-primary reliable sources, but whose article have been deleted. They don't even get a redirect per WP:BIO1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would this person's death be notable, compared to the killing of tens of thousands of Afghans? It seems spurious and undemocratic to me. Keith-264 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The stastic can be verified, but how many afghan individuals (not as a group) have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources? Very few I would imagine. Same cannot be said of the several thousand coalition service-members who have died, most receiving sufficient to pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that there's a moral dimension to this, I hope it's not ignored.Keith-264 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important that if this pilot were considered to pass the notability criteria, it would be primarily on the basis of her being the first female military aviator from her country, and not simply because she was someone who died in the conflict. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The morality isn't the issue here, Keith, it's whether this pilot meets notability criteria or not. This applies equally to anybody who died in any conflict on any side. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with others that her death probably doesn't make her notable but her status as Norway's first female military pilot certainly does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Still the original question stands, if a subject passes WP:GNG, but the subject is notable for their death (thus falls under WP:BIO1E), but the event which their death is associated with remains notable (such as the Battle of X? (for instance the Battle of Benghazi (2012))) should that subject's biography article be redirected to the event? Also if the subject is given in-depth coverage long after their death, even if the coverage is about the subject's death, is that person than notable beyond BIO1E given that the death meets WP:PERSISTENCE?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Two points for discussion

I'm interest in having a discussion with the project concerning the following two points:

• Some years back the consensus for the Iowa-class battleship articles was to merge all the pop culture material into the class page. Lately though, the consensus appears to have swung back the other way, so I'm putting this here for discussion on whether the current consensus should be altered to allow for pop culture references in the actual ship articles rather than in one collection on the class page, and

• Lately I've seen that some ship articles here that lack the ending id for the ship (ie CG-56, DDG-108, CVN-88, etc). According to WP:SHIPNAME, that is technically the correct way to name these ships since there is only one ship by that name, however in the interest of clarifying here I wanted to see if anyone else would be interested in adopting an all or nothing style approach so as to keep the names and the id letters/numbers in the articles so as to avoid confusing editors with what would be on first glance two different naming styles.

I'm open to input on either of these two points, but where I stand at the moment is that we can let the pop culture stuff back in the ship articles provided the material can be sourced, and that we should keep the name and letter/number combo for the ships here to avoid confusing the editors even if there is only one ship to have used a name. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

On point the first, I think that cited and notable pop culture appearances of specific ships would be best at the specific ship articles, while class articles would have stuff that is more general (with the proviso that really strong sourcing talking about the pop culture appearance(s) would be required). Happy to be overruled on this, as in most cases my approach to pop culture is "kill on sight".

Re point 2: I'm not entirely sure what you mean... do you have an example to show the class? -- saberwyn 07:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example: to get the article about the battleship Missouri, you need to type in USS Missouri (BB-63), because the "BB-63" tells the computer that you are looking for United States Battleship #63. Accordingly then, to get the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson, you should have to type in USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) to tell the computer to find United States Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier #70, but at the moment the article is not located at USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), its located at USS Carl Vinson. What I am suggesting is that in the interest of uniformity ships should be at (prefix) (name) (id letters/numbers) so that new editors don't get confused over which style to employ. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of USN ship articles that have been moved recently to titles without the hull classification numbers. I think it can be argued that USN hull classification numbers are so well-associated with the ship names that they should be included in the ship article titles in all cases per WPCOMMONNAME. I'd support moving the pages back to include the hull classifications. - BilCat (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

On the naming convention, I think you are right on using the Pref,Name,ID format. It seems on the face of it to be more scholarly and is technically correct, the best kind of correct. Ideally I think, if one types in Carl Vinson you should get the man, with a link to the ship or a disambig page if more than two things named that have articles. Typing in USS Carl Vinson should lead you to USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) through an automatic redirect. As in, move the current page to the page with the id, and redirect USS Carl Vinson to it.

On the pop culture issue...why not both? Why are they mutually exclusive? Right now I'm working on Historical examples of flanking maneuvers. Each battle certainly has it's own page, but someone interested in flanking generally rather than the Battle of Cannae in depth will still find the article useful as a primer. Couldn't both formats be useful, for someone interested on pop culture for a particular ship, and for someone else interested in pop culture regarding ships generally? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't strictly accurate. Scholars and academics, unless they are writing for a government, will almost always drop the IDs at the end. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but reference works always use them. I think that we're a bit closer to Jane's Fighting Ships than we are to popular histories, so the IDs are the better of two imperfect options. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Nick isn't strictly correct - Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships does not use hull numbers in section titles - see for instance any of the unique American designs (such as USS Ranger on page 102). It does list the hull number in the table (which is analogous to our infobox) but not in the header or in the text itself. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-disambiguation is always a bad idea, and it's contrary to policy. A number of the articles I moved did not have redirects coming from the primary location - as I think we can agree, the vast majority of our readers won't know what the hull number for some random Arleigh Burke destroyer, and will probably just type in USS [Name of the ship] - we ought not be making it harder for readers to find these articles. Ed has pointed out WP:PRECISE, which requires us to use as short a title as possible to identify the topic of the article - USS Nimitz (CVN-68) is no more precise than USS Nimitz, since there is only one ship by that name and there will be no confusion - (CVN-68) is useless fluff. Parsecboy (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Where disambiguation isn't required, I'd certainly agree with that. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I will comment below regarding hull/pennant numbers. On references in pop-culture, if there is a pop-culture reference to a specific ship in a class that is real, the reference can be included in the article specific to the ship. However, if there is a pop-culture reference to a fictional ship in the class, than IMHO, it should be in the article about the class.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. Currently, a pop culture item about the Iowa class is limited only to the class article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

On hull/pennant numbers

TLDR, as a general reader, what's easier: USS Nevada (BB-36) or USS Nevada (1914)?

@TomStar81: Why should a general reader with no knowledge about warships know that they would need to type in (CVN-70)? Unlike dates, this is useless gibberish for non-specialists. Worse, we only have the id letters/numbers with American and British/some Commonwealth ships. An argument for consistency falls flat when only a minority of countries use them. Now:

• With American hull classification symbols, it's a lot of unneeded fluff in the title, and WP:PRECISE forces us to drop it (unless another ship shared the same name, obviously).
• With British pennant numbers, they're reused. If you can honestly tell me what ship HMS Ark Royal (91) is without looking or guessing, I'll give you a cookie. Not a single person can argue that pennant numbers are helpful to a general reader when they type a ship name in the search bar.

So given that it's pretty apparent that we've been perpetuating a system that is completely useless to helping our readers, I'd actually like to turn this conversation into one about getting rid of these symbols entirely and, for consistency across Wikipedia, using launch dates as disambiguators. We already do this for ships that predate hull numbers, and such a system would be far easier to navigate for our readers, who (a) are why we are here and (b) again, typically have little to no specialist knowledge about ships. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Pennant numbers are ambiguous and often reassigned; USN hull classification numbers are generally unique within the USN, and rarely reused whole. They make a much better natural disambiguation than launch dates. If you can tell me the launch date for the USS Carl Vinson, without looking of course, I'll give you two cookies! :p - BilCat (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the likely readership for these articles on en.WP, now and in the future, is it a reasonable trade-off to accept the clutter? (I don't know, but that seems to be the question.) Tony (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BilCat: Pretending for a moment that there was more than one ship named for Carl Vinson, what do you think would be easier for a reader to understand in the search bar: USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), or USS Carl Vinson (1980)? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As I recall Ark Royal was an invicible class V/STOL carrier in the Royal Navy, misnamed from her two sisters for sentimental reasons. As for Carl Vinson, I'll wager 19... Damnit :/ I know Nimitz was 1975, and I know Lincoln is the carrier closest to my age, so I think Vinson is either late 70s/early 80s, or mid 90s. As for the greater issue here, yes I am open to discussing the entire matter, but I do want to remind everyone that regardless of what course we decide to take its gonna be a lot of work to rename or reclassify all the ship articles. Simply food for thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Amusingly, you've proved my point with Ark Royal and the uselessness of pennant numbers. :-) The article I linked to is on the WWII carrier. Like Vinson, a launch date in the title (for ships that need disambiguation) would be consistent across all navies and more comprehensible to our readers.

A lot of work isn't a problem; we have plenty of time to move them! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that this would be easier for our readers: the launch dates of ships is seriously obscure. I've had an interest in the Royal Australian Navy since I was about 9, and I don't think that I could name more than a handful of commissioning years. And the RAN isn't a very big or complex navy. Hull/pennant numbers are easier though, not least as they're painted in huge characters on the sides of the things and are visible in most photos ;) - and of course, that's what their purpose is. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Something to consider - the vast majority of our readers won't know to type in a hull/pennant number or a launch date into the search bar. They'll just type in "HMS Ark Royal", and either go straight to the index page, or they'll use the auto-fill to find possible matches. Which is more helpful to non-experts trying to find the WWII Ark Royal in the auto-fill drop down - a list of articles with (91), (R07), and (R09) as dabs, or a list of articles with (1937), (1950), and (1981) as dabs? Parsecboy (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Thank you. In addition, only a few navies in the world use hull numbers. To use them for only some ships in the world makes our titling system inconsistent Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I seem to have come very late to this rather lengthy discussion; however, from reading only the last bit that caught my eye I'm for pennant numbers. I say this because 1) I agree most people won't know the year the ship was launched but may well see the pennant number in a photo painted on the side of the ship; and 2) it is probably the closest to WP:COMMONNAME for most ships (although I guess that might well be a debatable interpretation). Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In lew of the fact that we are debating here I'd say that is an accurate interpretation :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem doing away with pennant and hull classification disambiguators in article titles when disambiguation is not required. But, when disambiguation is required and the navy to which the ship belongs has assigned a unique disambiguator then we should use that disambiguator; especially when that unique disambiguator can be found in referenced sources.

It would seem that WikiMedia would know that HMS Ark Royal, being a ship index article, should be listed first in the search box dropdown but as it is, the order when I type 'hms ark' is HMS Ark Royal (91), HMS Ark Royal (1914), HMS Ark Royal (R07), HMS Ark Royal, HMS Ark Royal (1608). At wikipedia.org the dropdown list order is different: HMS Ark Royal (91), HMS Ark Royal (1914), HMS Ark Royal (R09), HMS Ark Royal (R07).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No one should forget that U.S.N. hull numbers change. Take a reader, one knowing little about U.S.N. terminology looking for a ship, Valley Forge, granddad was on and another looking for dad's ship of the same neme. That "granddad" was WW II or Korea and the dad was Vietnam era. Granddad's notes and papers were about CV-45. The one searching for dad's Vietnam era ship is looking for LPH-8. Same ship, different eras, classifications (in between there was CVA-45) and "lives" involved. Either reader, typing in whatever era information they have, being directed to the article USS Valley Forge (1945) gets what they need.

Hull numbers in titles are probably not the best way to go. Making sure accurate index pages and redirects exist takes a bit more work but serves the reader better in my view. Any naval vessel may be in and out of commission—and my other pet peeve here is the idea every U.S.N. ship or floating thing is U.S.S. and tagging titles with that improperly—and have one or several classifications with associated hull numbers over an operational life span. Ships are launched only once. Where we have a launch date that is the fingerprint. All the rest can go into the article and is best indexed and redirected. As for "expert" arguments? DANFS, even if the NHHC digital site is an abysmal mess after the redesign, uses a numerical sequence rather than hull number in its titles, hard copy and soft. I'm looking at an old hard copy copy right now. Agate, that is all. Then "Originally classified AM-78, Atate became PYc-4 . . ." so the oft referenced naval authority itself does not use hull numbers in titles. A launch is a unique event. Classifications and resulting hull numbers are bureaucratic changes of how Navy sees the ship's function, done with a stroke of a pen and paint job. Names, appearance ("granddad's" Bon Homme Richard and "dad's Bon Homme Richard) and even tonnages have changed for similar reasons. The one constant is the date that hull met water the first time. Palmeira (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't given it much thought, but I must say from personal experience, that when looking for a particular ship I am usually looking for a ship of a given time period and I rarely find hull numbers useful in pinpointing a ship. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Often it takes a lot more than even name and hull and date to untangle a mess. One may have to throw in builder and builder's records. One I recently found: Two yachts named Columbia built for the same person that got turned into naval vessels and a DANFS error: USS Wasp (1893) (Not built 1898 when commissioned, but 1893) and HMCS Stadacona. Like J. P. Morgan later with his several Corsair yachts, Joseph Harvey Ladew, Sr. lost one to the Navy and immediately ordered another that got tangled with the first, even in DANFS. Palmeira (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of search, I suspect that the average reader would be looking for a ship associated with a period or conflict: eg looking for an HMS Triumph that took part in the First World War. In such a case they would tend to find the ship neither by its pennant nor year of launching in the article name but from the snippets shown in the search results for "HMS Triumph Second World War" or by reading the index list at HMS Triumph. And therefore the disambiguation use is - for readers - not an issue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is why good indices and redirects are critical for readers. For people editing, as noted above, considerable care in defining just which hull they are dealing with goes beyond grabbing a name and hull number. Palmeira (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GraemeLeggett:, sure, but this change isn't for the reader who types in "HMS Triumph Second World War," this is for the one who types "HMS Triumph" and is forced to go to the disambiguation page because they have no idea what (N18) means. Why should we make people go through a second page just to hold to an obscure naming system, especially when someone could much more easily recognize (1938) in the dropdown menu? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

While the year of launching probably isn't that useful to general readers, it does pin point the ship in time, so that a reader can tell if the ship participated in WW1, or whatever. Pennant numbers, like hull numbers, sometimes change over time; forex I think that the RN added a flag superior R to the pennant numbers of its WW2 carriers that previously used only a two digit pennant number during the war, so there was apparently an earlier naming dispute over the proper pennant number for use in the title of the article on HMS Illustrious (87). Hell, I am a specialist and I can't keep straight which HMS Daring is which using pennant numbers. So let's change over everything to launch year as the clearest disambiguator we can use. Although we should probably set up ship index pages for the pennant numbers for use in ship ID.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Tossing another spanner into the works. Suppose a ship was launched by Country A as Alpha, and had an entirely uninteresting carrier under that name. Then suppose that Alpha becomes the property of Country B, was renamed Beta, and then went on to have a notable carrier under that name. Further suppose that there are other ships named Alpha and Beta so disambiguation is required. Because our exemplar is notable as Beta, but didn't exist as Beta when the physical hull met the water for the first time, how should this ship be disambiguated?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What the actual title of the article in this case would be is a judgement call, but as long as there are redirects in place to allow readers to figure out what ship they want to look up, I'm not particularly concerned about article titles in the sense that you're talking about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There you have another advantage of launch year even if it is only to keep ourselves straight in the indices and redirects going to the right place. Whether named Phoenix or General Belgrano that hull never got "launched" again. So if we even had ten ships by each name the launch year is a good fingerprint. And that holds even more with vessels that may have mixed commercial, naval, other naval and commercial again histories. We can be sure many floated in and out of dry docks, got sold, rechristened, sold/loaned re commissioned in someone's navy and sold commercial and even rebuilt. It applies even if hull sections were added for drastic length/tonnage change. Assuming we do a good job of making sure a launch name/date does actually apply to a hull (there are a few cases where that can get crazy) that is as close to a single, permanent ID as we get. Palmeira (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

With warships I'm perhaps a fairly-well-informed-general reader. Faced with a drop-down, I find the pennant disambiguators next-to-useless (unless the letter prefix gives a useful clue) and almost always choose the List page, where the dates will usually send me in the right direction. Much better to have the initial year for starters (and avoid all the problems of multiple pennant/hull numbers for the same ship. Davidships (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about other countries, but I can tell you about Australia. As in most areas, there is an international agreement. The RAN allocates its pennant numbers from blocks allocated to Australia in Annex B of the Call Sign Book for Ships (ACP113). The RAN likes to give ships of the same name the same pennant number. So the new HMAS Hobart is going to have the same pennant number (39) as the old HMAS Hobart. Which pretty much makes the pennant numbers useless for disambiguation purposes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Also late to the discussion here. IMHO, if there is but one ship with a given name, per WP:COMMONNAME a pennant number, hull number, or commission year is not needed, and the article be named ship name (ship), as it is often named after a subject). However, if there are multiple ships with the same name a disambiguation page should exist, and then the pennant, hull number, commission date should be used. Now the question is which is more common, and which would be jargon? With disambiguation, COMMONNAME already doesn't apply fully, as for instance what is most commonly referred to as Enterprise is entirely specific to the context. Is it the USS Enterprise CV-6, CVN-65 (or in a more 1960's era CVAN-65), or the fictional NCC-1701 or NCC-1701E? Therefore, the question is what is the most common form of disambiguation? Should NCC-1701 be Enterprise (2245), while the Space Shuttle Enterprise than be Enterprise (1976), and CV-6 be Enterprise (1938), and the first HMS Enterprise be Enterprise (1705). This would standardize Enterprise across a wide range of nations and fictional and non-fictional.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is another disambiguator that could be used, IMO number. That is a constant whatever name/pennant number etc are used. Would only work with vessels in service from the mid 1960s onward though. Of course, redirects could be created in the form of IMO 1234567890 to ship articles, but that is probably a discussion for WT:SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really my bag but the other day I had occasion to look up some ships to wikilink and the only things that helped were the names and a disambiguation page. On reflection, anything technical and analogous to a code number, isbn or bar code is strictly for the aficionado. I doubt that anything different would be workable for a lay person like me so if that's the criterion, better information in disamb pages is the only thing that's going to be an improvement. Keith-264 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave the imaginary star ships out of this to play in whatever universe they live in and deal with this world now. For reasons stated above I definitely support the use of launch year, not hull or pennant numbers, to distinguish ship article titles. What we have to ensure is a target identifier for accurate linking from indices and redirects where additional information clearly distinguishes which ship of a commonly used name is which. Keith-264 is right on that. Disambiguation pages can contain sufficient detail for even naval novices to find the most likely ship of interest. For most users a mass of hull or pennant numbers is of little use. The idea that USN hull numbers are static and clearly identify a ship is simply not true as they do change for the same ship, sometimes both in classification alpha and in the number itself. So, which to use in the title gets us into that first or longest or most notable stuff. No ship is launched twice. That is closest to a clear target identifier, a "fingerprint" addition to name for a page title that the more detailed indices a non specialist can read to identify the correct ship article and be one click away.

Good disambiguation index pages are critical when we get into articles about auxiliaries, where names cross commercial and naval service and both commercial firms and military recycle names. Things can get very confusing particularly when some people mix up even whether the ship was USN or WSA or Army as I've run across multiple times here. A quick example is USS Monterey (some are worse) in which you have commercial and "Navy" names with USS being attached, even by news sources and particularly veteran "recollections" about their passage overseas, to ships that were never Navy at all. Untangling some of that will take indices with more detail than even date and hull number. When a reader uses that detail the click needs to take them to the right ship article page. That is the real issue. Palmeira (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

There is currently a huge backlog at the requests for B-class assessment page. Could someone pls clear this backlog soon, since I am pretty sure it is disrupting the contest.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is still here.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

April 1st TFA nomination

Hi all, I've nominated Toledo War to be this year's April 1st TFA. Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Toledo War. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Spam link/dead link/squatted link

http://www.rnsubmus.co.uk, which is linked to from 82 pages on military naval history seems to have become a broken site, to say the least. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC).

It looks like there is some legitimate content in the side bar on the left. Everything else seems to be spammed adds, which on some pages, seems to have broken the formatting of the page. May be hacked by malicious software. Maybe give it a little while to see if the web developer can fix the issue? Or it's possible that the site moved and someone has taken it over to exploit the number of linkages. http://www.submarine-museum.co.uk/ seems to be the actual site for the Royal Navy Sub Museum.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok I did some digging it looks like the site migrated, and for a while the site was a redirect to the current site. I'll see if I can resolve things further. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC).

Wayback machine shows a shift from the Submarine Museum to someone else's maritime history site around 2013. Suggest use archive.org links to pick up the broken referencing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Benghazi attack alternate name removal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2012 Benghazi attack#Removal of alternate name. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Draft:Krasukha EW System. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Recently expanded article - Ottoman entry into World War I

Gday. The Ottoman entry into World War I article has recently been significantly expanded by another editor. It all looks to have been done in good faith but I think it would be good if other editors with some knowledge of this period / region look it over if possible. I've given it a quick tidy but that's about all I'm qualified for. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Further to my last - the main contributor seems to have English as a second language so there are some issues with the prose that could use some improvement if others were willing to assist. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a look. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and made mostly grammatical and formatting corrections. Someone else may want to address more of the content of the article. Particularly:

• The last section, "Inevitability", doesn't read like a dictionary. It reads like a television documentary cliff hanger before a commercial break. However, the inevitability question is an important and often debated one, especially as is has implications for the ability of post-war institutions like the UN and the League to prevent this in the future. Was Ottoman involvement just the last domino falling from geopolitics after the Franco-Prussian War? Or, mightn't we still have a unified Islamic Empire today? Need good sources dealing with the Ottoman's specifically.
• The "Reactions" sections is, again, an important section that might substantially improve the article, but as it is it needs more content. What did other foreign or Ottoman leaders have to say about it? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Timothyjosephwood. Thanks again for your work here so far, there has been some definite improvements (likewise thank you ‎Srnec for your work too). Unfortunately there is still quite a lot of unreferenced material though from previous contributors so if others are looking for an area to assist this might be it. I'll have another look myself and see what I can do but am out of my depth for sure so probably can't do much else. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)