Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 113

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

→

Archive 120

Commander Coookson of HMS Peterel

Around 1877 Commander Coookson brought some turtles from the Galápagos Islands to London on the Royal Navy ship HMS Peterel(dab page). I'd be interested in finding out Commander Cookson's full name and wikilinking an article on him if possible. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer my own question. It's William Edgar De Crackenthorpe Cookson R.N.(http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowBiog.php?id=1491). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Page naming conventions: Nuclear Weapons

I found it very strange that we have the following naming convention for pages relating to states and their (actual or alleged) nuclear weapons programmes:

• Nuclear weapons and the United States

• Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom

• Force de Frappe - (Redirected from Nuclear weapons of France)

• Nuclear weapons and Israel

• Russia and weapons of mass destruction

• People's Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction

• North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

• Iran and weapons of mass destruction

• Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

• India and weapons of mass destruction

• South Africa and weapons of mass destruction

So when we feel allied towards the state, they are called "Nuclear Weapons" and when not, they are referred to as "Weapons of mass destruction" based on Wiki Search "Nuclear weapons [country name]" - rather odd. Farawayman (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That is vexing. However, the language we use should reflect what sources say, and we suffer from FUTON bias with added anglocentrism - the sources in these articles will use different terms to describe (say) American nuclear development versus Iranian nuclear development. Also, "weapons of mass destruction" covers more than just nuclear stuff - it's a bigger umbrella. With some of those countries it may be impractical to split up the content into viable separate articles on CBRN, but where there's more content it's practical (ie. we have Soviet biological weapons program). bobrayner (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Though... NBC weapons are "weapons of mass destruction", so it shouldn't solely be nukes... what of chemical and biological agents? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is splitting of subject in some case - the UK has Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom and Chemical weapons and the United Kingdom with a covering United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction to summarize both and include biological weapons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Military results

I have a question about the results in the infoboxes. For many battles, campaigns or offensives there probably are no reliable sources that directly state the result. So can sources be used indirectly for this? Like if a source states the strategic goals of an offensive for one side and then says that they were accomplished, is that enough to set the result to strategic victory for that side? -YMB29 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds to me like it would pass. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've done that in my own articles, see Battle of Osan. Oftentimes strategic and tactical goals and outcomes are different for two sides in a battle. —Ed!^(talk) 22:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both for the answers. -YMB29 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make sure. Do these passages[1] from reliable sources support that the offensive was a strategic victory? -YMB29 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You are making slight omissions by forgetting to mention that Soviet forces were unable to accomplish the predefined goals of operation. As stated in several sources and also verified by original STAVKA orders. And also again you are mixing the result of the offensive with that of the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you are the one mixing things up. You are talking about tactical or operational goals, not strategic ones. This was pointed out to you many times, but you ignore it.

Anyway, I asked a specific question, and it was not addressed to you since I am looking for a third opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want a non-biased answer that others can accept without complaints from the said third person you need to actually present the question in a non-biased way. Also once again for clarification, the article in question is about the operation, not about the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Like I told you before, the sources speak for themselves. Let others comment here. -YMB29 (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you are representing sources you selected even with your knowledge of the several of opposing sources. It is called bias. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources more reliable that contradict these ones. The question is about these sources. If you have sources that contradict them, you can bring them up later and we can compare which ones are more reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ribbon bars identification | General William Slim

Dear all,

I'm currently identifying the ribbon badges on then General William Slim's uniform: Commons:File:TNA INF3-5 General William Slim 1939-1946.jpg. Unfortunately the article does not feature an exhaustive list of his awards and honours. Thanks a lot in advance for any helpful suggestions.

Please apply changes directly via the "Add note" on the Commons or answer on my talk page.

Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond here otherwise you'll have people going all over the place and duplicating the work. It's a bit of a difficult to be sure what the ribbons are because the artist has blurred some of them and the colours are a bit faded.

Top row: Order of the Bath, Order of the British Empire, Distinguished Service Order

Middle row: Military Cross, 1914-15 Star, British War Medal, Victory Medal

Bottom row: 1939-45 Star, Africa Star, (Cannot identify), (Cannot identify, but ought to be a Mention in Despatches)

The image shows him sometime before Jan 46 (going on the order of the first two ribbons and the lack of higher orders which he picked up later) and presumably some time just after the war had finished since he is shown wearing the 39-45 star. Without knowing the date it is not possible to say exactly what level of each order he held at the time. I've cheated slightly in that I have a book with a clear picture of his uniform ribbons on the cover, albeit at an earlier date hence difficulty identifying the later WWII medals. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Wiki-Ed. I failed to identify the British War Medal and those blurry two at the bottom right. Maybe something like Honours of Winston Churchill#List of honours should be added to William Slim's article - yet without proper sources about the date of presentation this might be quite some work. Do you know how his appointment as Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE) in January 1946 would have effected the manner of representation on his uniform? Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a look at his article you'll see a list of titles and post nominals near the bottom. The order of the post nominals shown there indicates the order of wear. So, for example, a GBE is higher than a KCB, so it would come first in 1946. But then in 1950 the KCB was made up to a GCB, and the Order of the Bath is senior to the Order of the British Empire, so the position would change again. Ignore the "KstJ" - that's irrelevant - but all the other letters correspond to the placement of the ribbons. The medals are trickier because they are not recorded in the title - you have to work out the pattern and the order and compare it with a chart. Fortunately Wikipedia has those charts so not too difficult. Obviously he would have got the Burma Star whenever it was issued, but I cannot tell from the image. A colour photo from later in his career should clarify what the fuzzy ones are.Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. As I've mentioned on the talk page of the image, its source seems to be this photography from the National Army Museum. As for colour images/paintings: see #1, #2 or #3. Although they are from different ages, they might feature a hint on the yet unidentified ribbon bars. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bottom row 3rd from left is definitely the Burma Star, fourth from left is indistinct and cannot reliably be identified from the painting. However, based on painting from 1952 and 1961 painting set in WW2, it is most likely the ribbon of the War Medal 1939-45, although it may be that of Chief Commander of the Legion of Merit which appears not to have been conferred until 1948. Notwithstanding, he still has not been awarded the Defence Medal which in theory should have been issued at the same time as the War Medal 1939-45 but as the 1961 painting shows, he clearly had both of these before he had received the Defence Medal - so the question becomes when did he get the War Medal 1939-45? AusTerrapin (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Having just checked Peter's suggestions, it all becomes clear - B&W Photo and #2 quite clearly show Slim wearing the MiD insignia on cloth of same colour of the uniform (at that point there was no campaign medal approved for it to be attached to, so it goes either directly on the uniform (if no other ribbons) or on a ribbon matched to the colour of the uniform (first time I have actually seen a photo/painting of this occurring but it is covered in various instructions relating to wear). This eliminates the Legion of Merit from the picture. The last ribbon is either the MiD worn on a ribbon the colour of the uniform (most likely given the absence of any red or blue in that section of the painting) or the MiD worn on the ribbon of the War Medal 1939-45. However given the painting appears to be based on B&W Photo and the last ribbon in that photo doesn't appear to contain any of the white that is present in the War Medal ribbon, it seems fairly certain that it would be the MiD worn on a khaki ribbon rather than on the War Medal 1939-45 ribbon. AusTerrapin (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very detailed information. As written in his article, Slim was mentioned in dispatches twice in 1941. I didn't manage to find out, when the War Medal 1939-45 was awarded. A database of awarded medals or his biography could help to identify the exact date of presentation. Be encouraged to add any of Slim's honours to this list. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bed-making

I've just rescued a rather feeble stub which referred to military personnel having to make beds to bounce-a-coin tightness (and I remember a friend saying that her RAF officer trainee son at one point slept on his floor before inspections so as not to disturb his precisely-made bed!). Not exactly "military history", but I thought someone round here might be able to contribute sourced info about standards, techniques, etc in military life. I found a youtube video on "bedmaking in basic training" but nothing WP:RS. PamD 16:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added a couple of references, one of the covers-off on coin-dropping as aa test for adequate tightness. Still needs details for preparation techniques. I've have also added the project Banner and stub-tags; I notice that we don't seem to have a task force for military culture and thus this one slips through the cracks of our task forces as it is too generic to pick up under one of the national task forces. AusTerrapin (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Decapitalize the word "war" in non-proper noun titles

Concerning the following articles: Sino-Xiongnu War, Gojoseon–Han War, Goguryeo–Wei War, Goguryeo–Sui War, Goguryeo–Tang War, Silla–Tang War, Ming–Kotte War, Ming–Hồ War, Mongol–Jin War, Gaya–Silla War, Goguryeo–Yamato War, Goryeo–Khitan War.

The move request is at [2]. --Cold Season (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article titles for military operations

Hi all, I'm repeating my question from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page where I got redirected here.

I've read WP:TITLE but could not find why military operations are titled [Operation Something] instead of [Something], e.g. [Operation Market Garden] instead of [Market Garden]. Is there a specific title rule in place or it's just a tradition? --Petar Petrov (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why that convention might exist, but I think the "Operation" looks like a helpful natural disambiguator. Otherwise we have the problem that there are thousands of operations named after completely different things which already have their own article and which already satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we renamed "Operation Market Garden" to "Market Garden", we'd have to find somewhere else to put the horticultural article already at that title; if we renamed "Operation Sledgehammer" to "Sledgehammer" then the article about the tool would have to move to some other unnatural name; and so on.

Think of it this way: We don't normally use middle names in the titles of BLP articles. But if several people have the same common name (ie. John Smith), then including a middle name in the title could be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also what the sources call them. Not to mention, per the above, it provides context to what is being talked about. Outside the circle of those intrested, who would know Market Garden was a miltiary operation and not some kind of market or whatnot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.86.206 (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also like the titles as they are now. But correct me if I'm wrong, according to WP:TITLE they should be "Barbarosa (operation)" instead of "Operation Barbarosa". The name is Barbarosa, otherwise it would be incorrect to call it "Plan Barbarosa". I'm asking why the military operation titles are exception from WP:TITLE. --Petar Petrov (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In that example, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Operation Barbarossa". All the reliable sources refer to it as such in English, therefore it is at that title at the English Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And none refer to it as "Plan Barbarossa"? What if some operation is referred to as "Operation X" and "Plan X"? --Petar Petrov (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The rider in Bushranger's comment is "in English." The proper translation might be Plan or Case, but normally it's rendered in this context as Operation. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In English indeed. Translation is irrelevant as there are enough sources in English. I assume for "Plan ..." and "Operation ..." the most popular has to be chosen. Thanks for the answers to all. --Petar Petrov (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we translate "Panzer"?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I was looking at the articles of {{German heavy tank battalions of World War II}}, and I noticed that while for the Army, the "Panzer" is translated as "Tank", for the SS, it remains "Panzer". The relevant category is also named German Heavy Panzer Detachments, which retains "Panzer" and also translates "Abteilung" as "Detachment", while the main articles use "battalion" instead. From what I can see about other German armoured units, "Panzer" is favoured, but there should be consistency. Constantine ✍ 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've overwhelmingly seen reliable sources refer to German armored units as Panzer divisions. They've got an article, Panzer division, which covers a little bit about what makes them different. It's the same concept as German Jäger units, which institutionally are considered light infantry in other militaries. —Ed!^(talk) 13:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, the literature I've come across does the same and the word is practically part of the English language by now, but what's the rule here (if there is one)? Should the "Heavy Tank Battalions" be moved to "Heavy Panzer Battalions"? Constantine ✍ 14:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, no: if it's been written in English it should stay written in English (per ENGVAR, if nothing else) but I also wouldn't be in a hurry to change Panzer to "Tank", or "Armoured", either (though if there is to be any movement, that's the direction it should go in). Xyl 54 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: As far as Abteilung goes, if "Detachment" or "Battalion" are confusing, it would be reasonable to put an instance of the German term in somewhere to clarify it: eg. Tank Battalion (Panzer Abteilung); or Panzer Abteilung (Tank Battalion) and use "Tank Battalion" thereafter. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

All right. I'll move the SS Panzer battalions at least, since it is weird to use one term for the Army units and another for the Waffen-SS. Constantine ✍ 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think panzer is thoroughly anglicized as the word for a German tank, I'd prefer to use it, and other anglicized terms. It has some advantages when concisely differentiating between Allied and German units without distracting the flow of narrative. (Hohum ^@) 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an ENGVAR issue, to be honest (unless UK style uses one and US style uses another, which might be the case...); as the term is so commonly used in English, it would make sense to me to use Panzer throughout - articles at X Panzer Division, X Panzer Battalion, etc. (I agree with translating the administrative part as "Battalion") Andrew Gray (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to favor "panzer" as it is so thoroughly understood as German tank as to be common English usage. A quick check of Google ngrams shows "German [P|p]anzer" (upper or lower for Panzer) about on par with "German Tank" (caps), "German tank" brings up the rear, no pun intended. I don't see any impetus for immediate changes, any "standardization" is likely to generate as many anomalies as compared to how these units are referred to in military scholarship as issues that complete standardization may solve. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A Panzer is a German tank from WWII. A "German tank" would be a broader term, including modern German equipment. Atleast that's my interpretation of what I've seen the uses of panzer and German tanks. (ie. Cold War East German tanks, and not panzers) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Panzer means "armour" in German, in all the senses that we use "armour" in English. (A tank is a panzerkampfwagen.) There is no ENGVAR issue (although there is with "armour".). It is so commonly used in English language accounts of World War II that it should be used. I would use it for the present-day Bundeswehr units as well (and indeed we do). Remember, the idea is always to make it as easy as possible for the reader to find things in this haystack of an encyclopedia. And that is the form that the reader will find in books. It is also why the use of German terms is sometimes inconsistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what it means in German, since this is English Wikipedia, it only matters what it means in English. And in English, Panzer is generally only WWII German tanks, and not German tanks in general. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that 'Panzer', 'panzer grenadier', etc, should be used for the names of these German units given that they're almost universally used in other English-language works, there's nothing unique about German 'Panzer' units. The structure and missions assigned to the German Army's panzer units has been pretty much the same as that of other countries, though the Germans did get in first with applying the concept of massing amoured formations during large operations. Moreover, the term has something of a mystique to it which can obscure the reality - most late-WW2 German panzer units actually had very few tanks, and all of the western Allies infantry divisions tended to have the same kind of firepower as the vaunted German panzer grenadier divisions (for instance, US Army units normally had tank, tank destroyer and SP artillery battalions attached when they were in combat). Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

All right, "Panzer" it is. However, in the spirit of being pedantic, should it be "501st Heavy Panzer Battalion" or "Heavy Panzer Battalion 501" as with the SS articles? And BTW, now that I remember it, all the Italian Army WW2-era divisions are in the form "3 XXX Division" rather than "3rd XXX Division". Should they be renamed as well? Constantine ✍ 12:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to all: It was me that brought up ENGVAR.

I’ve no particular problem with finding the word Panzer used as a shorthand for "German tank", as it is common enough in sources, and common enough in English. What I would have a problem with is someone going through articles and substituting Panzer for German tank.

What I meant by mentioning ENGVAR was that it is there to stop us squabbling over what is "correct" in English; and the principle involved is that if it’s written in English, leave it as you find it. If someone has written “German tank” in perfectly good English I don’t see that it is OK for someone else to come along and change it to "Panzer" because that’s the term they prefer. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would disagree with Hawkeye; panzer when used in English doesn’t mean "armour" it means "German tank", specifically one from WWII: So using it for Bundeswehr tanks would be wrong. And as far as "our readers" are concerned, they are hardly going to be confused by the term "German tank", are they? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a line between educating and dumbing down. I don't think using Panzer will cause confusion. Regarding numbering - I'd suggest "501st Heavy Panzer Battalion" since putting the number first makes it easier to realise the identity while reading. (Hohum ^@) 17:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dumbing down?? So using the right words is “dumbing down”, but using the wrong word in the wrong way is “educating”?

If we’ve reached the stage of trading insults now, maybe I should put it to you that this penchant for using German words when English ones will do is an affectation that is more in keeping with some Third Reich fan site than here. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did those articles had to be translated at all? Why not using the original name? Is this "501st Heavy Panzer Battalion" even used in the english/american literature when it comes to those units? StoneProphet (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The World War II era German military seems to use "Panzer" exclusively, while the post-war military uses a combination of "Panzer" and "Armored" designation for units. —Ed!^(talk) 11:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because “This Wikipedia is written in English”; and “Foreign words should be used sparingly”? Just a thought...Xyl 54 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Xyl 54. If any terms are to be moved, it should be from the German to the English. When I knew alot less about WWII, I found it pretty annoying to find German words in a context that assumed I knew the word, and I would have to go look it up somehow. Even now I have that problem sometimes, as there are articles that use German words for military ranks when the English term will do just as well.

My suggestion: If the German term (Panzer, etc) is preferred, every article should have a simple gloss in parentheses or a foot note, as in "Panzer (tank or armored vehicle)..."

Boneyard90 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Panzer is fully anglicized, so *is* an English word as has already been mentioned. It means "german tank" and is routinely used in English books about them. (Hohum ^@) 21:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Panzer is a loan word that means German tank of the Second World War. There are a number of German loan words - eg Blitzkrieg, flak - that are common enough to either not need explanation, or that sufficient explanation comes from context. Then there are words common in writings about the period - eg Pak - that need but a brief explanation. And there are other words that need explanation - and a lot of the time we can link to the explanation in some other article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also agree, panzer is a commonplace. If the issue is the formation (panzerdivsion, say), a link out would solve the issue. Other terms might need translating for non-specialists, but they'd also need explaining anyhow (so we may know PAK=AT gun, but many non-specialists won't).

Would it be out of line to not translate & see if it draws complaints or questions? Pick a very high-traffic page & test it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Noone's mentioned it, but surely WP:COMMONNAME is the rule to apply here? 82.31.13.50 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My statement was not about translating in general to which I am not opposed if its reasonable, I just wanted to say that it might be reasonable to look how english/american literature name those units (e.g. books which deal with topics in which those units have participated etc.). Because i dont think its very meaningful if we invent new unit names while books keep using other names. E.g. if they still use the German name it could be confusing for the reader. StoneProphet (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My experience has been that there is a singular lack of standardisation in unit names in sources. As long as we choose a reasonable one and have a sensible variety of redirects we should be good. (Hohum ^@) 11:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hyman G. Rickover

Does anyone have a list of his service assignments with exact dates? Through the very best of motives, a mention of the '19th Fleet' has been added to his wikipedia bio and I believe this is incorrect. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Through reference to official U.S. Navy documents via http://www.history.navy.mil, it appears that our article on DANFS is the misleading source; the 16th and 19th Fleets were apparently the preceeding designations of the Atlantic Reserve Fleet and the Pacific Reserve Fleet. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Highland and Lowland Brigade articles

Hi, since the Union has yet to be split up, surely the below two articles should be renamed in line with the rest of the articles on the British Army, i.e. have (United Kingdom) after the unit name.

• Highland Brigade (Scottish)
• Lowland Brigade (Scottish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.86.206 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorted this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hydrogen bomb

Greetings,

I don't know if this is a right place, but I and another editor was engaging in an edit war as to whether hydrogen bomb should be a redirect or not. We are in a deadlock and we can use more feedbacks. -- Taku (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a bad idea to have a second, separate article on a synonym; I think a redirect would be much more appropriate. It would be better to cover everything (neutrally) in a single article. bobrayner (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If "Teller–Ulam design" and "hydrogen bomb" are 100% synonyms (that is the design of the bomb is always a variation of the former), then a redirect is the appropriate solution. In that case, I would prefer the more visible term "hydrogen bomb" as the main title and "Teller–Ulam design" to be a redirect page.--Dipa1965 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for feedbacks. I started the requested move at Teller–Ulam design; feedbacks are very welcome. -- Taku (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Artist renderings of future USN ships

If anyone can be bothered to add them to articles (and if you don't think they're too "PR-y"), the USN now seem to be releasing "official" artist impressions of unbuilt ships, eg SSN-790. See here for what seems to be the full selection - at present many of the future ship articles either have no pic or just a generic class pic.82.31.13.50 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, these seem to be pretty generic themselves, the only difference between the photos I can see is the name on bottom. Still, the photos of future installations might be useful. —Ed!^(talk) 16:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Globalization

Hello, WikiProject Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. We would like to make a special invitation to WikiProject Military history members to join this effort in strengthening articles related to global security, world war and other global military history topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Thank you, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Denys Rayner

I wasn't sure where to post this
There is a dispute brewing here, which turns on the use of an item in WP:IMOS. The other guy seems to be suggesting WP:DERRY is a blank cheque for changing spellings (principally “Londonderry” to “Derry”) wherever and whenever they occur, regardless of context, history or article subject.
I had thought (following the Gdansk/Danzig row) that we had come to a different conclusion. Are IMOS and PLACE contradicting each other? Can anyone enlighten me? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

USMC M16A2

The M16 rifle page says the Marines have retired the M16A2 for the A4 variant. The List of weapons of the United States Marine Corps page says it's still being phased out. Is the A2 retired in the Marines or still in limited service? (America789 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar
100% complete Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Goal: 0 articles Current: 6 articles Initial: 24,689 articles

Incredible article you have to see for yourself!

The First Motion Picture Unit has more full length watchable film videos embedded than any other article in Wikipedia. It is really cool to be able to watch so many movies in one place! It is now at WP:PR (and T:TDYK). Check it out here: Wikipedia:Peer review/First Motion Picture Unit/archive1. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work with this article - it looks really interesting. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New Infobox for Chief of the Defence Staff

General Richards has recently gained a different infobox.

Pros:

• It shows all his appointments at the top of the article
• It shows who, for instance, was CDS when he was CGS

Cons:

• It's huge
• It doesn't appear to have been discussed
• There's no indication of which officers should have this new infobox
• It refers to the Secretary of State as "Secretary" and CDS as "Chief", although C-in-C Land becomes "Supreme Commander of the Land Forces"!

Antrim Kate (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, I really don't see the point of another infobox for defence chiefs, especially one that appears to be based on the political infobox that, for some reason, is a good deal thinner than the military one and hence involves more wrapping of information onto new lines. Plus the predecessors/successor info is redundant since we include it at the end of the article, where I think it works far better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a new editor - commendably - being bold. I've just invited them to join this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would advocate reverting to the military infobox. We need consistency among military personnel. Dormskirk (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not swayed by arguments of inter-article consistency (something which occupies many editors but is scarcely noticed by readers) but I am concerned that the infobox is filling up much of the article. I think an infobox should summarise the most important points rather than present half the content. bobrayner (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division

Hi all, Over the last few days i have started editing this article. It appears most of it, which is not currently sourced, has been copied from various websites. I am currently working through the Second World War section of the article, rewording, expanding, and referencing where i can. However the rest of the article, lays in areas outside of my field of expertise and could really do with some work. So if anyone can help, it would be much appreicated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thermonuclear weapon

Greetings again,

I started a requested move of Teller–Ulam design to Thermonuclear weapon (instead of hydrogen bomb). Feedbacks are very welcome. -- Taku (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

One of our articles is on the Main Page!

This article, along with a watchable 20 minute full length military cartoon video, is on the main page right now!!! What is a military cartoon? Go check it out.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fantastic - congratulations. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

FAR nom of Iwo Jima flag raising

I have nominated Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Click on [show] for progress bar
100% complete Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Goal: 0 articles Current: 6 articles Initial: 24,689 articles