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: 7 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: 7 articles Initial: 24,689 articles

The naming of Royal Air Force installations within infoboxes

I have come across multiple RAF articles with infoboxes with different variations of the name within such as "RAF name" or "Royal Air Force name" which is very inconsistent.

I normally call the installation using the prefix "RAF" within the infobox and start the lead with "Royal Air Force Station name or more simply RAF name".

What is the Military History Project view on naming of RAF article name in infoboxes? Gavbadger (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what we actually do but using the common name RAF Foo seems fine in the infobox with Royal Air Force Station Foo in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If in doubt, what do sources call it? bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well my books say "RAF name" or just the airfield name on it's own and most of the online references i used use "RAF name". But "Harrison49" is using "Royal Air Force name" as he is copying RAF Northolt and RAF Uxbridge naming styles as they are both featured articles. Gavbadger (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the style set in RAF Northolt and RAF Uxbridge for the reasons Gavbadger correctly states. There are several other articles which also already follow this style, such as RAF Bentley Priory, but I'll happily change it if there is a preferred style. Harrison49 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Milbourne One. However, an American Source (Fletcher, Harry R (1993). Air Force Bases , Vol. II, Air Bases Outside the United States of America (PDF). Washington, DC: Center for Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-53-6.) dealing with USAF stations seems to indicate "RAF Stn Foo" until the early '50s, "Foo RAF" until 18 December 1955, and "RAF Foo" since then, with the book's Glossary indicating that RAF and Stn should be read as if spelled out.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So what is the outcome of this? Do we use "Royal Air Force name" or "RAF name" within the infobox? Gavbadger (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the only two of us to comment both agree with your practice of RAF in the infobox and Royal Air Force in the lead.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to double check. 21:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Noisy subs" of the Soviet Union

"Noisy subs" of the Soviet Union, is being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meco#Article_about_a_weapons_manufacturerer_headquartered_in_Kongsberg in connection with improving an article about a weapons manufacturer that received negative sanctions from the US government in the 1980's. --Vistamesa (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Image identification

• 
• 

Hi, I took those two pictures yesterday but find it difficult to put them into the appropriate categories on commons or use them here. They show the shoulder patch and the badge of a member of the US Forces Europe Customs and Border Clearance Agency. Does anyone of you know in which article this unit might be mentioned and where one or both of the pictures might be used? And can you help improve the file description and/or categories on Commons? TIA --h-stt !? 13:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Should the article "Northern Ireland Security Guard Service" be part of this project? (The article is about a civilian armed guard service that provides security at Ministry of Defence establishments (including Army barracks) in Northern Ireland). --Thefrood ^talk 14:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As a civilian service, I'd tend to say not...but that raises questions about U.S. civilian ops on military bases. It also seems to raise questions of whether "security services" like Blackwater are "military". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:06 & 23:07, 2 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: 7 articles Initial: 24,689 articles

Cameroon Air Force

I have semi-protected Cameroon Air Force due to continual vandalism over a long period by probably one IP editor. As I reverted the last two changes to the article just looking for a sanity check for protecting the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So the edits by 193.175 are good, but the ones by 41.202 are bad? Hmm... seems like Wikipedia needs a mechanism to block editing per article by IP range. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a case where pending changes would be perfect. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• twitch*twitch* PC is something I...well, seriously dislike. Unfortunatly Sign In To Edit is something WMF says "in a pig's eye" about... - — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs)

There's a strong case to semi-protect all articles on the militaries of developing countries: they're regular vandal-magnets which aren't watched by many editors, and adding lists of fictional equipment like this pretty common and often goes undetected for lengthy periods. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I second your statement Nick? Where would I make a formal proposal for semi-protection of a significant number of African, Asian, and some S. American countries' root armed forces articles, to start with? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You could put together an RfC here, and point to it from one of the VP pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon. While this does follow the trend in the way WP has been developing, it's still a bit of a departure from the existing guidelines. Does anyone have any other comments before I start compiling the RfC? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection of some sort like this makes sense to me. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A forewarning: for any chance of the RfC to succeed, you're going to need to come up with an argument against the many people who will simply say "we don't preemptively protect." My thought is examples of serious, uncaught vandalism from a bunch of these sorts of articles, but you may have (a) better idea(s). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A little while ago I tried sampling several African countries' articles and found that lists of military hardware were in a really bad state. Today I cleaned out Myanmar Army - it was a disgrace. Basically, most of these lists of military equipment have been sitting around for years since somebody copied a list off some other site, and in the intervening time there's a steady stream of edits which fall into two broad categories; established editors make superficial changes (typo fixes, linkifying &c), and IPs adding extra cool new tanks and planes to glorify their mother country, maybe add an extra zero to one of the numbers, &c. Forget about sources, of course. I've watchlisted several of these articles and it makes pretty depressing viewing. Semiprotection would prevent most of the crap and perhaps allow a little more breathing space for more competent/experienced editors to trim down the lists so they reflect what sources say... this is supposed to be an encyclopædia but we have a collection of several hundred articles where the content simply cannot be trusted. I would welcome semiprotection, or any other response which could stop these articles filling up with outright fiction. There just isn't enough adult supervision. bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ed and Bobrayner. Bob, double thank you: I've noticed your efforts clearing out a number of the different articles over the past couple of months. Can I please call for volunteers to amass some diffs, in accordance with Ed's statement, please for various articles? - I'll be working on Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and some West African countries, plus probably Indonesia, but would appreciate some help as well. Ed, would you please take this to the coordinators, tell them that I plan to create an RfC, and request their thoughts? I will not proceed unless the coordinators think this is justified. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also the problem may be greatest with air forces; there are continual disagreements over Russian Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I had "African countries" and "Asian countries" on my to-do list but that may be overly ambitious! Could probably scale that down to just "African countries".

If we want to put together a coherent case for action which the rest of the community might find drastic (ie. wideranging semiprotection) that's a separate task from simply fixing these articles. To put together that case it would be a good idea to sample a bunch of articles over a defined period (say, the whole of 2011?) and look at what changes were good/bad. No? bobrayner (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on our common existing interest and find African diffs. Yes, this is not about fixing the articles - that will come later, with some added interest and attention. This is the first step of trying to prevent the damage becoming any worse. I'll look at Sudan (already have had some criticism for trying to protect Sudanese Armed Forces), Ivory Coast (National_Armed_Forces_of_Côte_d'Ivoire), Liberia, Guinea (Conakry), Nigeria, S/Sudan, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, and potentially others (Kazakhstan : [3]). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should just get the developers to add range-blocking-per-page. But then, I am editing from an IP address. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Bob R's last few edits, add Myanmar/Burma, Vietnam, Djibouti... Buckshot06 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember, the "serious" has to be in the eye of the beholder, ie non-Milhist people looking at the RfC. That said, removing a flag of NATO in early 2010 isn't going to be perceived as a major error by them, imho. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not really a milhist person; I just get vexed by articles where the content can't be trusted because people add made-up stuff. Deliberate insertion of false data surely counts as "serious" in the eyes of the wider community; this is supposed to be an encyclopædia. I think 70.24.251.208's proposal would be very helpful, but I doubt the developers are going to build it soon... bobrayner (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can provide evidence of an IP editor deliberately adding bollocks to articles on developing countries' militaries over much of last year and early this year - including in the articles Buckshot noted above. In several cases this material remained in the article for months, and it only ended when he tried the same thing to the article on the South African National Defence Force, which is actually watched by several editors. Bob's post is an excellent summary of these issues. Buckshot; have you started a draft of the RfC? Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Question from the peanut gallery. Given I am totally ignorant of the genuine TO&E, would simply watchlisting CamAF actually help? (I did, but I'm now thinking it may be a wash... :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisting would help. Lack of watchers enables this kind of damage. An editor who is not an SME might not recognise sneaky vandalism, but most of this damage is pretty blatant. If the article on the ArbitraryCountry Navy says they have 10 frigates (perhaps with some ref which may or may nor be readable right now), and then some transient editor changes the article to say 20 frigates (and there's no new source, of course) ... it doesn't take an expert to hit the revert button and remind the editor of WP:BURDEN. bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also: It might be a good idea to delay opening an RfC until there's a neat little pile of evidence. Starting an RfC and then introducing evidence in dribs & drabs, after other editors have been woken up and set up their defences, might not be an ideal military strategy. bobrayner (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Watchlisting would help." Thx, your reasoning makes it clear: any little bit helps. (Baby steps. ;p ) James Wilson, M.D. ^{sod off, Sherlock} 14:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2) A lot of the "more creative" additions to small African and Asian air forces are pretty obvious as they usually consist of adding completely unlikely aircraft (like 100s of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors being added to sub-Saharan African nations) and there are some decent souces readily available on the web, including Milaviapress.com and The Flightglobal World Air Forces directory. Ither items, such as smal arms and artillery may be more difficult to detect what is real and what is nonsense.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes things aren't so obvious though; "sneaky numbers vandalism" is one of the most insidious kinds of vandalism there is. Basically use a source, reference it, and then any change from the referenced data that isn't referenced itself should be nuked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that The ed17 may have misunderstood my first diff add from Kazakhstan. I do not intend to start an RfC until we have two hundred or so flagrant diffs lined up - and many of them will be able to come from Kazakhstan; that one is relatively minor. That was why I asked for people to help in amassing diffs here. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For example: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] etc, in Kazakhstan alone. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, [12] from Kenya, bogus number of 63,000 had gone uncorrected since at least Dec 2010 [13], Buckshot06 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I picked another African country at random; Botswana.

• Anonymous editor says Botswana "has sent its nuclear scientists abroad with possibility of producing nuclear weapons" and an army of over 100,000 (something of an upgrade over the 15000 which another anonymous editor hid further down in the article body)
• Janes says "Botswana does not have a nuclear weapons programme" and "current strength is approximately 8,700"

Which one would you believe? bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some IP addresses used by the editor I call the 'Israeli IP vandal' given that they always geolocate to somewhere in Israel and add nothing but nonsense: 79.182.170.8 (talk · contribs), 79.177.159.249 (talk · contribs), 79.182.211.102 (talk · contribs) and 109.66.199.199 (talk · contribs). The great majority of these many edits to the articles on developing militaries are vandalism, and these IPs are just the tip of the iceberg of this idiot's activities. As some tasters of the rubbish this guy has been adding, Papua New Guinea has a squadron-sized force of BDRM armoured cars [14], the Lebanese Ground Forces operates a large, and exotic, fleet of tanks and missiles: [15] [16], every soldier in the Royal Brunei Land Forces seem to have a different type of modern rifle [17], Botswana has an excellent air defence network [18] and an impressive, if exotic, range of equipment for its army [19], Suriname has a strong force of artillery [20], tanks [21] and other armoured fighting vehicles [22]. And so on. The stuff about Suriname is obviously in the outer reaches of fantasy, but was added to the article in May 2011 and remained there until I removed it in February this year. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Further examples from this guy (via 79.180.150.191 (talk · contribs)): Ethiopia has powerful fleets of tanks [23] and artillery [24] - this account added nonsense to the Ethiopian National Defense Force over several days in early February without anyone stopping them (the article gets about 140 page views per day). The same applies to rubbish this editor added to the Tunisian Armed Forces article from various IP addresses - obvious fiction added to this article in mid last year remained there until Bob and myself removed it in February (the article gets about 50 page views per day). The common thread is that the activities of this vandal illustrate that these important articles on national militaries aren't being effectively policed, and it's currently easy for people to add total fiction to them. Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the sisyphean task of systematically cleaning up every African list, line by line, using the SIPRI database as a baseline. I'm worried about the possibility of circular sourcing (ie. somebody adds made-up stuff to one of our articles, then another site copies our content, then somebody tries to cite that site, creating an unbreakable circle of fiction... anybody know if sites like [25] can be trusted? bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Trust nothing but SIPRI or the IISS, or specific sources from the country in question that you judge authentic. I happen to have an electronic copy of IISS 2009, which is perfectly adequate for WP citations - I'll send it to you. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help bobrayner (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up Military of Guinea, removing non-existent Mamba APCs, which conflict with the Military Balance 2012, and correcting a number of equipment figures. [26] Buckshot06 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I've filed a proposal for a per-page IP rangeblocking tool, see WP:Village_pump_(proposals)#Per_page_IP-rangeblocking -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideas for WWI-related events in the UK

Hi folks! As some of you might know, I spend many of my weekend doing things for Wikimedia UK. WMUK currently has a decent budget allocated to doing things in the run-up to the First World War centenary, and I am chatting to Chris Keating (User:The Land, who is a WMUK trustee, and is responsible for that budget). We held an editathon back on 16 June, which brought the UK government's JISC, the British Library, Wikipedians, and academics to work on articles related to WWI.

Chris is currently seeking ideas for the format and venue for future editathons, and I'd like to hear any ideas from MilHisters. I can only promise to liaise between MilHist and WMUK, and I'm not in a position to make firm commitments, but it would be great to hear ideas. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic. I have a lot of ideas but not a lot of time today, I'll do some brainstorming on your talk page this week. Thanks so much, Harry. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideas are great, and I'd love to hear them all—even the crazy ones! I'll do what I can to help turn them into reality. May I suggest we use this page, just so that others feel more able to take part and so that I can point other people to one link? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is in-scope or legally/logistically feasible, but the page for the initial editathon states that "We'll certainly have a digital copy of the British Official History of Operations in France and Belgium on a DVD". A project to place a verified copy of this source online in some form would be invaluable - while the official history is dated and flawed in many ways (see John Keegan's famous demolition job of its writing style in The Face of Battle), it remains a useful source, especially as the volumes contain good quality maps and reliable order of battles. Failing that, a project to upload the maps to Commons would be great. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses

Hi all

I have re-assessed the article against the B-class criteria due to a Start vs. C class issue (My notes and Objection to C class). The article was originally upgraded to C class by another editor (User:Tpbradbury).

It might be appropriate for others with more knowledge to check the article for accuracy. It does seem to be mostly summaries of other articles and I cannot see any real issues, though my personal knowledge of the time period is very limited.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on article improvement as now begun on the talk page. Any editor who can help out with strengthening of the military aspects of the article would be most welcome, as the main active editor has asked for support to provide referenced content in this aspect of the article. Monstrelet (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for extra eyes and fingers

On 7 July 2012 USS Iowa (BB-61) will officially open as a museum ship in LA. As of the last few weeks, we have seen increased editing for both the USS Iowa article and to a lesser extent the article Iowa-class battleship. As the articles in question currently rate as FA and GA class, respectively, I would like to ask if a few good editors could help out our quality content pages by making sure that the inevitable editing they see in the next week or two is A) information that we actually need in the article and B) added with all necessary citations and in accordance with all the current editing practices on the page (Ie: using "she" and "her" instead of it for the ship, not adding pop culture material, adding all necessary citation template info, etc). Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm stepping up to the line, ready as ever to keep the articles ship-shape. I got a chance to walk part of the Iowa during the little bit of prep work in Richmond, CA. Some day I'll return aboard to see the full museum ship. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone own 'The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War Part 2'?

Hi all,

There are a couple of points that need to be claified on the Rhino tank article, that have been sourced from : Fletcher, David (1993). The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War Part 2. Stationery Office Books. ISBN 978-0-11-290534-9.

If anyone owns this book, would they be able to take a look at the "Usage" section?

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got it; the book supports the article. I've rewritten things a little to clarify the points under question. The different types of Prongs were designed to fit different types of tanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much bud! Top stuff.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Defence Force photos on Flickr

The NZDF has recently uploaded a huge number of high-quality images onto its Flickr stream under a Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons-friendly license. These images cover most aspects of the NZDF's activities and most of its major equipment, though there doesn't appear to be any coverage of the NZ Special Air Service Regiment. Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New peer review: Huon Peninsula campaign

G'day all, I've requested a peer review for the Huon Peninsula campaign article. I expanded the article considerably last week and would like to take it to GAN shortly (and possibly to ACR and FAC eventually). The peer review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Huon Peninsula campaign/archive1. Please stop by if you get a chance. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

GA reassessment for American Civil War

The Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/2 is still ongoing. Comments would be appreciated. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional Eyes

After a significant Hiatus I am working towards getting Military history of Asian Americans elevated to GA status, and possibly higher. Presently there is a PR that is active. If anyone has time, I am requesting additional eyes on the article, to suggest/enact improvements towards the goal of elevation to at least GA. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Have left some comments on the PR page. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

References for Tactical Missile Squadron

The portion of the article on the 24th Tactical Missile Squadron that covers its history under that name during the 1950s is essentially without citation or support. At the end of the article is a reference to Mindling, George; Bolton, Robert (2009). U.S. Air Force Tactical Missiles, 1949-1969 The Pioneers. George Mindling & Robert Bolton. ISBN 978-0-557-00029-6, and presumably the information was taken from that work. I don't have the book, so I can't do it. It would be an improvement to the article if someone with the book could add some cites. I believe the information is accurate, based on non-encyclopedic sources (although I deleted a statement that the squadron's personnel were transferred to a group that inactivated the same day as the squadron). Lineagegeek (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

National military clean-up campaign now underway

As a reminder, the campaign to clean up and improve articles on national militaries (broadly construed) is now underway. Information about this important project is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/2012 Cleanup Campaign. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lancia IZM

Hi, I'm in the item Lancia IZM but I have some difficulty with the flags of some of the templates were not contemporaries, someone can check the item and place the flags to "operators". thank you very much --Pava (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I also made available an image: File:Ruo ita LanciaIZ.jpg, since it was devoid commons. But I can not add it to the template, if someone can do me a favor. thanks--Pava (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Done & done. Hopefully, the flagicons are right... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think the correct flag for the German Empire is this: File:Flag of the German Empire.svg --Pava (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed --Thefrood ^talk 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Result of the Soviet Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive

There is a disagreement about what the result in the infobox should be.[27] Can users here give their opinions? [28] -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for third A-class review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski is likely going to be failed for the second time, due to only getting two A-class support comments, again (no objection, just lack of interest). This is not the first article I've seen it happen to, and it makes me think that we need to rethink the A-class requirements. It's not fair for article to be failed because there's not enough reviewers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

On a volunteer project, we're always at the mercy of people's free time and level of interest. How would you suggest we alter the ACR requirements to cope with this? I wouldn't say the coordinators (me included) are coming down hard on the 28-day limit these days. In any case, let's see what comes of this notice -- and have you pinged reviewers of your other noms with neutrally worded requests? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the AFD model where not enough votes gets something relisted again, ad infinitum, till enough interested (votes) is generated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The AfD model has never worked for any level of article review, that I've noticed, probably because reviewing is harder. We do have enough reviewers, in general, at A-class. Have you tried reviewing other people's articles? It's not required, but it works. - Dank (push to talk) 11:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić A-Class review

Could someone please do another comprehensive review of the Pavle Đurišić article for the A-Class nomination? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried reviewing other people's articles? It's not required, but if you're lacking reviews, that's one way to fix the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification regarding Talk:Sino-Xiongnu War and whether "war" should be capitalized

You are invited to participate in the discussion happening over at Talk:Sino-Xiongnu War#Requested move. This discussion could have far-reaching effects with any article with "War" in the title. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kaylea Brunk article

Hi all. I stumbled across this wikipedia article (while doing some wikifying) which appears to be an orphan WW2 article - and at first reading makes little sense. Does anyone want to tackle it and put it in context? Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Page link- Kaylea Brunk. Is it an operational name? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That appears to be a work page or equivalent. I've just moved it to user space of the editor who created it (User:Docmur/Operation Totalize). Thanks for raising this! Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Death daggers"

Someone has been adding what look like crosses after names in battle infoboxes. I am told they are "death daggers" and indicate a commander who died in the battle, but I have never seen this usage in an English-language context and to me it seems unnecessary and easily interpreted as religious. Is there a consensus in this project or on a broader basis supporting this usage? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

IIRC we've discussed this before and, although most contributors didn't use this convention, there wasn't a consensus to purge them.Monstrelet (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well if there is no consensus to add them, I'll continue zapping them when I see them getting added. Because so far as I know it's not an English-language convention at all, and I can't see any reason to adopt it. I wondered if you people endorsed it as a tradition in battle summaries. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The most recent conversation is (I think) here, but the bulk of discussion has taken place at Template talk:KIA. If you remove them, don't be surprised if they just get re-added. A lot of editors are quite happy to use them and as Monstrelet says there was no consensus to purge them (this does not equate to "no consensus to add them" btw). The dagger as a symbol is quite common in heraldry (think of family trees) and I see them frequently in my line of work. Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So this issue is coming to a head at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest article. Yngvadottir removed the dagger from the article, without consensus, despite the fact the dagger has been on the article for nearly seven years. I would like to reach a consensus here, and whatever the result is should be binding on all battle articles. I think that is fair. Yngvadottir has been using the lack of consensus here to act unilaterally elsewhere.--Tataryn77 (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This sounds almost like the "ships as she" issue we had some years back, and there the solution was to allow editors the leeway to use she or it as they saw fit so long as the article was internally consistent. Drawing off that, might I suggest that if they are going to be used that they be used across all applicable pages for consistency? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen the daggers in offline sources, but if they're explained, I'd have no problem with them. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom, by all applicable pages, do you mean all articles with a military conflict infobox, or all the pages from a particular war or campaign? Just checking. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I would define this as a being applied to a given war or campaign, so as to allow the latitude among editors to discuss and reach consensus for the inclusion or exclusion of the dagger as it relates to the specific pages. I have seen this as a common practice in certain western military history publications, but as it does not appear to be a universal thing allowing autonomy for the inclusion or exclusion of the daggers would give some leeway to both parties as to whether or not they should be included in our conflict boxes. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The cross/dagger was apparently placed in the Teutoburger Wald article when its infobox was changed to the current version (in late 2005). I noticed it, had no idea what it was - at that small resolution and in the typeface I view Wikipedia in, it looks like a cross, and I have never seen thuis usage outside foreign-language designations of birth and death dates - in March 2011. I removed it and no one reinstated it until an editor added it to several infoboxes on battle pages a couple of days ago. Insofar as this is an incomprehensible symbol in an English-language context and likely to be misinterpreted as religious advocacy, I don't think there's any compelling reason to force its use across all articles. I had to have its meaning explained; I still don't see it as particularly useful to have "the commander died" indicated in the infobox, and nor apparently did anyone during the more than a year it was absent from the article. i.e., there is demonstrably no longer consensus to have the symbol in that particular article (which has 110 watchers). Since others apparently disagree on the usefulness of the data point in the infobox, I've inserted the word "died" in parentheses. Unlike the cross, that's unambiguous. If it's the inclusion of the info that matters, that should suffice. I think explaining it would be ludicrous - the whole point of a symbol is it's clear and short. If we linked to some statement somewhere, the link would be hard to see on something so small; and symbols that require explanation are not very useful as symbols. Judging by what I've been told here and at the article, in some fields it's current. And together with the asterisk for birthdate, I'm familiar with it in other languages. But it's just not used in English-language prose, especially isolated like that. It's just clutter to the vast majority of readers. (I had no idea what it meant in this context, and I'm pretty well educated.) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but all you've cited here is your own opinion, whilst the information at the article on these icons is sourced to reliable references. If you can source your statement that these are not used in English language prose or your repeated comments that they are in fact foreign, I might be more interested. But at the moment it's just your viewpoint (which is at odds with sources). Additionally, whilst you might be of the opinion that there is "demonstrably no longer consensus to have the symbol in that particular article", you're basing that on events of over a year ago, but here and today there is demonstrably consensus to include it in the article, based on the ever growing number of editors who are reverting you. It would also appear that only you are against the dagger's inclusion. Why are the events of a year ago valid and current events are not?

The situation on that article is now edit warring on your part (3RR) and I'd advise you to self revert and discuss before you continue. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I see someone here saying they've never seen the daggers in offline sources (I addressed their suggestion of an explanation in the infobox); an initial statement that no consensus was reached on the issue here at the project; and our article rightly says this is an occasional use and the primary use (in English) is to indicate a footnote. I also pointed out that its use in isolation here, and typographically appearing so like a cross, makes it hard to associate with the use with death dates. I'm not basing my claim of consensus against it in that article on the events of over a year ago but on the long gap before it was reintroduced, which to me shows a change in consensus there. However, I was indeed wrong about the 3RR rule; I believed changing from simply reverting to introducing an alternative option to satisfy the point raised by teh other editor(s) was an exception. Also, you are now discussing reaching a new consensus here at this project, which I am not a member of. So I've unwatched the article. I still think the symbol is unclear and misleading; in fact an example of entrenched bias, since the "cross" reading is the only obvious one; but the project is now deciding on a consistent policy, and that makes it no longer my business, so I'll leave the article to its other watchers. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that there are two issues here. First, whether it is important to show the deaths of commanders in the infobox, second, whether the dagger is the appropriate way to do that.

On the first issue, I believe it is important to show deaths in the infobox. Not only does it instantly inform the reader, but it is often a very important result in itself. A number of battles are more famous for the death of their commander (or someone else within the infobox) than the battle itself, and in many other instances, the death of the commander was important to the outcome. Quite often victorious sides lose heavily through the loss of a commander and many battles are so synonymous with the death of a commander that they are rarely mentioned without also mentioning that loss. In that sense, the infobox wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't also summarise the loss. Some battles to hint at what I'm getting at are here - this is just off the top of my head and I'm sure there are plenty of others; Battle of Goose Green, Battle of Trafalgar, Battle of Hastings, Battle of Bosworth Field, Incident at Honnō-ji, Battle of Thermopylae, Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, Battle of the Little Bighorn, Battle of the Alamo.

The second issue is whether the dagger is suitable to make this summary. I personally see no problem with it. The usual argument against it is that it looks like a cross; quite frankly its similarity to a religous symbol doesn't strike me as a reason to change it. So what if they're similar? This is a typograhic font with its own history and should be respected as such. In the past, KIA has been suggested as an alternative, but I don't believe that this is an appropriate term for anything pre-20th century.

I think Tom's idea above is an excellent one. Consistency across eras/wars/campaigns would be excellent and will enable like minded and better informed editors to make the decision. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of initialisation/abbreviation for "divisional reconnaissance battalion"

Hi all,

I am currently working on 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), and a copy editor has suggested that I abbreviate 'divisional reconnaissance battalion' (Aufklärungsabteilung), which appears numerous times in the article. I wanted to get a view on whether a made-up initialisation such as 'DRB' or a more military NATO-like abbreviation such as ' div recce bn' or 'div recon bn' would be considered appropriate, or whether I should just keep the full title. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered the first use being "Aufklärungsabteilung (Reconnaissance battalion)" and just having all further uses as "Reconnaissance battalion." People are often much happier reading jargon if the jargon is in their own language. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. What I have at the moment is the term 'divisional reconnaissance battalion' (in English), quite a few times in the article. I could just reduce it to 'the reconnaissance battalion', or further abbreviate it via an initialisation or abbreviation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Initialisms or novel contractions for a translated jargon term aren't the best in terms of readability. But neither are very long phrase names. Is "Recon" a commonly enough understood synonym or "Reconnaissance" here? Recon battalion is much shorter. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, coming from a military background, I consider recce or recon pretty accessible, but I'm interested in the wider non-military community view. I think 'recon battalion' is good, but maybe it is too much to abbreviate it at all, given this is an encyclopedia. We military-types like to abbreviate everything... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If the first use of Aufklärungsabteilung is bracketed with (recon battalion) with a link on recon battalion to the concept of operational military reconnaissance (or the nearest equivalent) that ought to work for most readers. It associates the funny German word with a short English phrase, and they can look the phrase up if they're confused? I'm not military background, but I'm a historian and have read too much military history to be a garden variety reader :\ . Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a plan. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Peacemaker, after you've established it's a recon bn, I'd say just "the batallion" would be plenty; if you've mentioned another, then the bn ID# til you're clearly taiking about it, & back to "the bn". (Can you tell I've read too much milhist? ;p ) Unless I've completely misunderstood your question... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Special project proposal

I was browsing through the page and saw that you have special projects for certain Eras or countries. Do we have one for India as well? And if not can we have one for India? Because many Indian military related articles are not sourced, and most don't exist at all. Anurag2k12 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We do have a task force that covers India: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/South Asian military history task force. Kirill ^[talk] 00:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. Anurag2k12 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution

There's a FAC open for the article May Revolution at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive5. All comments are welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)