Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 115

Archive 110

←

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

→

Archive 120

U-26 - the numbers

there seems to be some discrepancy in U-26's sinkings, the sources don't agree, in some cases they're nowhere near, both in tonnage and numbers of ships sunk. e.g. U-Boat.net: 48,645 GRT
U-bootwaffe.net:36,101 (only arrived-at by adding individual ship displacements); a total of 14 ships
U-bootarchiv.de: 39,854 GRT
Article: 48,645 GRT; eleven ships, but 'U-Boat.net' also gives 14.

I don't want to be vague, putting some rubbish like "U-26 sank a lot of ships", but I'm at a bit of a loss on how to proceed with this article - anyone got any ideas?

RASAM (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

One possible explanation: sources not accounting for damaged ships. 10,000 tons damage isn't outrageous high. As for the numbers sunk, IDK; records can disagree, & missing 3 isn't outrageous, either. It appears Uboat.net is pretty good (tho I've never independently checked it); it's used often here. If this is any help... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that GRT and displacement are two different measurement. GRT is a measure of useable cargo volume, while displacement is how much water the ship displaces. Most merchant ship data that I've seen uses GRT or one of the other related measures.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

39854 Tons (8 ships) according to Blair Volume 1 (Appendix 2) - this does not include losses to mines laid by U-26, which may be a cause of the difference.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

An example of Wikipedia countering dumbness

A few days ago the tabloid News Limited newspapers in Australia all appear to have run variants of this ridiculous story which claimed that leading Australian military historian David Horner had insulted veterans of the Kokoda Campaign by stating (entirely correctly) that the Japanese didn't intend to invade Australia - for some bizarre reason it was on page 1 of the Daily Telegraph in Sydney. This lead to modest spike in the number of page views of the Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II article which sets the record straight ([1]) and may have also contributed to a jump in the number of recent page views to the Military history of Australia during World War II article which does the same ([2]). The total numbers of extra page views are far from huge, but every little bit helps. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - nice job Nick! Are you going to take that article to GA anytime soon? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work. It does get trotted out a fair bit doesn't it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it's pretty tedious. Patrick Lindsay's claim that his research shows that Japan intended to invade Australia as 17 Japanese veterans told him that's what they thought the goal of the Kokoda Campaign was shows how shallow the kind of support for this nonsense is, and the poor quality of much of the writing on this campaign. Ed; that's a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Another sign of amateurs who can't keep the logistics straight... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here familiar with nautical terms?

Right now I'm working on the biography of Admiral Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma. I'm having some difficult translating one of the nautical terms. There was a type of ship called "brigue-barca", which literaly means "barque-brig". The problem is that there is no such name for a type of vessel in English. According to a website, it was a type of brig with a third mast. This third mast was a "mizzen-mast". Something tells me that this "barque-brig" was a type of ship that fell between the brig (two masts) and the barque (three or more masts). Does anyone knows if there is a precise term in English for this kind of ship? Lecen (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Depending on exactly how she was was rigged and her size, the ship might be termed a ship sloop in English.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that barca in Spanish and Portuguese mostly just means a ship, or small ship, not necessarily a barque. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a three-masted barque to me. Might be worth asking at WT:SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots, since the Spanish Wikipedia article Bricbarca links with the French Trois-mâts barque. The French sailing ship Belem is described as a three-masted barque in English Wikipedia; this Spanish Navy site classifies her as a bricbarca (p. 369).--Darius (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not expert in sail by any means, but it could be ref to her rig: a brig-rigged barque? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. I'm going to call it "barque-brig" and add a wikilink to "barque" per Mjroots and DagosNavy. --Lecen (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have another similar question. There is one ship classified as "brigue-escuna" (schooner-brig). According to the dictionary, it is "a vessel whose foremast is armed in [as?] brig [square rigged mast, perhaps?]and is larger than the schooner". Again, it seems a kind of ship that falls between two categories. Anyone knows what would be called in English? --Lecen (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a barquentine: square-rigged foremast, fore-&-aft-rigged main & mizzen.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Stacking info boxes

Good morning (JST). I'm currently working on an article in which the person spent about equal amounts of their career in the military, as a university chancellor, and as a corporate president. So, I wanted to use all three infoboxes (military person, university chancellor, CEO). How do you get the infoboxes to seamlessly stack? Do you just include all the different infobox fields in the same "Infobox person" template, and the template automatically recognizes them and places the correct subheadings within the box? Cla68 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, take a look at how it's done for Duke of Wellington as he was a military general and prime minster. Or Lawrence Chamberlain an army officer and then a politician, then a college president. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine–Seljuq Wars

Byzantine–Seljuq Wars, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment requested - NZLAV

Should NZLAV merge to LAV III? Please comment at Talk:NZLAV Ego White Tray (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Whoops, look like there was already consensus, but no one ever did it. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

NZLAV was previously merged based on consensus at Talk:LAV III. But an IPer reverted NZLAV back to an article after it was a redirect from Jan. to Sept 2012. I just reverted it back. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Identify that uniform - 8th Duke of Northumberland circa 1900-1913

Which uniform?

What is Alan Percy, 8th Duke of Northumberland wearing, some time in the 1900-1913 period? He seems to have been affiliated with the Grenadier Guards and probably with the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That’s certainly a grenadier’s badge on the cap: a grenade emitting five flames. But the device is fairly widely used, and I don’t have any specific knowledge of uniforms to draw a conclusion.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

looks like a Grenadier Guards uniform circa Sudan campaign (early 1880's) to me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The copyright status is unclear, by the way; life+80 (not sure where this comes from) is insufficient for the US; also if it's via the NPG it may be best at least to use a PD-art tag (if they photographed it). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added a US copyright tag. Life+80 is based on the date of death of the photographer. NPG claim copyright on the image, but they're flat-out lying and get no respect for that. They had nothing to do with the commission or the taking of the image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

He was commissioned into the Grenadier Guards in January 1900 (from 2nd Volunteer Battalion, the Queens (Royal West Surrey) Regt). Looking at his left sleeve, is that a mourning band? If so I wonder if this dates from the period of court mounring following Queen Victoria's death. He would be about 21 at the time which looks to fit with the picture (1910 and the death of Edward VII is more unlikely IMO). NtheP (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is Prince Philip, Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, wearing the same tunic [3], and here is a poster print of the same [4]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I can work out, the tunic was introduced in the 1880's or thereabouts, but it is still in use in some form (witness Lucky Phil wearing it). Also the partly obscured belt buckle is a Grenadier Guards one. Hope that helps. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think he has enough ties? -OberRanks (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Iron Cross recipients

We have a lot of bios in Category:Recipients of the Iron Cross (something line 5 THOUSAND!; for comparison the Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor has under 2 thousands entries) of individuals like Karl-Friedrich von der Meden whose bios are stubs, with the only claim of notability being the Iron Cross award (often without any context). I have two concerns here. First, somebody is commonly assessing those articles as start, when they are stubs. Second, are those individuals (like Meden) really notable? Do we have, at least, a list of significant military awards whose recipients are automatically notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The automatic notability is for a nation's highest medal for valor, like the US Medal of Honor or the British Victoria Cross, IIRC. Strictly speaking the Nazi Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross is their highest medal, but it comes in a variety of grades that are roughly equivalent to other nation's lesser medals if you compare them by numbers awarded. Just being awarded the Knight's Cross is a big deal in Germany with several series of books devoted to winners, even of the base award; unlike the situation in the US or UK where books are usually only written about MoH or VC winners. However, I will note that because these guys are well documented in German-language sources they may well be notable on that basis. I'd not quibble about differing assessments between stub and start unless you want to downrate them yourself. Personally, I'd rather be working on content, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at Karl-Friedrich von der Meden and reassessed it as C class. It has structure, supporting materials (the infobox) and references. The point about assumed notability is that such people are usually well-documented. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Hawkeye and Sturmvogel. Firstly, they are Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients, not lower levels of the Iron Cross. I have been doing a lot of the recent assessments of these Knight's Cross articles as they are created (off the open task list), and at the same time I've been allocating task force coverage. They are mostly Start class to begin with (IMO, and per Hawkeye) but feel free to change them if you feel I've got it wrong. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the consensus, many of those received who received the Knights Cross of the Iron cross did so for successful military leadership. They would thus also be significant in the way like a general or admiral in any other country would be. Secondly although many medals were given out during the Second World War, to try and determine who was awarded medals for actual heroism and deserve a Wikipedia article would open a slippery slope where we are using our original research and opinions to discredit history. --MOLEY (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The story of the Knight's Cross is a little bit more complex. The original enactment of 1939 stated that it could be awarded for individual bravery and for leadership in battle. It thus served the purpose similar to the Victoria Cross but it also had similarities to the Distinguished Service Order. In early 1945 Hitler ordered that the Knight's Cross could no longer be awarded for leadership purposes alone unless the individual also showed individual bravery. You will find evidence of this in a number of rejections made by Major Joachim Domaschk, who was serving in the staff of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (Heerespersonalamt) at that time. Generally speaking, the lower the rank of the recipient the more personal bravery was involved in the act for which the Knight's Cross was awarded. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

British Admiralty promoting retired personnel: what was that about?

From the ODNB, about William Henry Smyth: "In 1846 Smyth was retired and in due course was advanced, on the retired list, to rear-admiral on 28 May 1853, vice-admiral on 13 February 1858, and admiral on 14 November 1863." What was that all about? Why promote retired personnel? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice. Captains remained on the Navy List and when they reached the top, were promoted to rear admiral as the next vacancy arose, same for rear to vice and vice to full admiral. You might have retired from duty but you didn't retire from the Navy. NtheP (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Though it may sound like it, I'm not arguing your assertion in asking the next question. The DNB says "In 1846 Smyth accepted the naval retirement" (and goes on to talk about the various promotions). However it also says "on 7 Feb. 1824, Smyth was promoted to post rank...It was the end of his service at sea, his tastes leading him to a life of literary and scientific industry". (Previously he'd been promoted to Commander.) What then was his status between 1824, when he bunked off to play with various Royal Societies, and 1846 when he retired (to the extent one can from the Navy). And what does "post rank" mean. (Ah. I notice Post-captain.) thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

{[ec}}When first promoted to captain you became a post captain when you were given command of your first rated ship. After that assuming you didn't disgrace yourself or get killed promotion was by seniority hence the above promotions eventually to Admiral. So presumably Smyth got a command for a while, then wandered off to the shore life but remained a captain, slowly working his way up the seniority list of captains as others above him were promoted, died or dismissed. NtheP (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Was he on half pay whilst he wandered, do you think? And (assuming it is not a time of national emergency) were post captains able to elect whether to serve or to wander? (And thanks, btw, for the input.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Half pay as no command = less money. They could decide to an extent as the command only lasted until the end of the commission so after that you had a choice, back to the Admiralty to see about getting another command or find something else to do. So much depended on patronage that many captains were "on the beach" because they lacked influence. the other way to get a command was through reputation so if you were lacking in friends in high places you had to make up for it by action. NtheP (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep. Much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Smyth was actually placed on the Retired List, having taken advantage of a scheme whereby the Admiralty sought to clear the Active List of two hundred Captains by offering them a special rate of half pay and retiring them. See the notice for his retirement here and the rules of the scheme under which he retired here. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 00:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll work that into the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This appears akin to the USN practise up to about 1950 (IIRC) of tombstone promotion, allowing officers to retire at their next-highest rank (so many Captains retired at Admiral). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Article duplication

Hi,

I have just stumbled across the following article, Middle East Theatre of World War II, which largely duplicates the information at Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II. Surely the former should be merged into the latter?12.139.45.129 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cadet Corps Badge.JPG

File:Cadet Corps Badge.JPG has been nominated for deletion. Is this badge protected? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

2 odd categories

I discovered Category:Doolittle Raiders in the list of uncategorised categories, and looked for somewhere to categorise it. The best I could find was Category:Americans who served in the Pacific theatre of World War II.

Both these categories seem odd. Category:Military personnel of World War II appears to haves no other by-theatre categories of military personnel, and I couldn't find any other other military personnel-by-theatre-or-by-operation categories in Category:Theaters and campaigns of World War II.

If kept, Category:Doolittle Raiders should be renamed to Category:Doolittle Raid, because its scope is not limited to personnel. But should both of these categs be deleted? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Other than renaming the category to Doolittle Raid, I can't comment. But having looked at some of the articles in the category, I wonder why there is an article on The Ruptured Duck (B-25) rather than any of the other 15 aircraft on the raid. I don't see the appropiate claim to notability.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about DYK

Hi all. I've been doing some work on List of Irish American Medal of Honor recipients and I was curious if it could be submitted to DYK. I was browsing through the guide and saw that it could be nominated provided the article was significantly expanded. I'm still editing the article but does anyone know if its reached that point yet? Thanks. 72.74.218.147 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

going by the article size (bytewise) in the history you've expanded it by about 50%. I think DYK requirement is five-fold. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Lists of WWII operations

Can the proposal to merge List of Axis named operations in the European Theatre be evaluated? It is somewhat stale. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC).

Go ahead and be WP:BOLD and move it as you see fit if there's very little interest. 203.97.106.191 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bounty

Does the Bounty replicas fall under the war films task force? One was debannered, while the other was rated. They're supposed to be faithful replicas (one scaled larger, the other same sized). Bounty (1960 ship) and Bounty (1978 ship) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I rated the 1978 article recently on the basis that it falls into the war films TF, not sure why the 1960 one was debannered. One in both in I would think (or vice versa). Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Bounty 1960 article because I don't see how it falls into Military History. It is a well made prop for a film but to my knowledge it wasn't a comissioned ship for the United States Navy or served in any military action. I was under the impression war films task force just covered movies alone but am open to disagreement.--MOLEY (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A slight nitpick; traditionally, ships are not commissioned into the United States Navy when they aren't from the United States. The Bounty is (or I suppose now was) British.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the 1960 Bounty was always an American merchant vessel. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Signpost article and a question

Congratulations on the nice article: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-29/WikiProject report

Question: The article mentions the "B-Class assessment backlog – the project's attempt to assess all start-class articles against our B-class criteria" and I wonder how I can participate. I have started an article about Dalton Pritchard which has been rated start class in this wikiproject, and would very much like to inprove it, but have no idea how to go about it. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the B-class criteria are explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting intersections of the two topics of Military history and Freedom of speech at these articles:

1. Westmoreland v. CBS
2. The Uncounted Enemy
3. New York Times Co. v. United States

Just some ideas for possible future collaboration cross-projects. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Free speech in the media during the Libyan civil war — here's another one that is an interesting intersection between Military history and WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles on the censorship of the media during wartime, and the deliberate manipulation of the media by militaries for deception purposes are would also be in scope, I presume. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Good points. — Cirt (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Failure in the Saddle: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joseph Wheeler, and the Confederate Cavalry in the Chickamauga Campaign

I just came across this article, and I'm not sure that it meets the notablility guidlelines. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure the Richard Harwell Award is a major literary award so I'm not seeing how this article meets. WP:NBOOK, more of a promo piece than anything. NtheP (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Air Division" to "Flying Division"

User:Mystia Lorelei, acting in good faith, has been bold and moved the titles of a number of articles pertaining to the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service. For example, 7th Air Division (Japan) was moved to 7th Flying Division (Japan), based on a literal translation of 第七飛行師団. However, such sweeping change should probably be discussed first. I'll open discussion by proposing that they be moved back, as standard English-nomenclature for that level of unit is Air division, as reflected in Military organization#Air forces. I do not believe there is any loss of interpretation or derived significance in the original designation "air division". Furthermore, the referenced online source refers to it as "air division". (I have placed the same comment in WP:Japan's Talk page. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Second your view Boneyard90. This should be at 'air division'; *not* a literal translation in this case. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Third [5] (see page 64, this is a document written in Japanese and English, by a Japanese, and it refers to the 6th Air Division). Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree Although for the sake of discussion, I note that the infobox for this unit lists two "air armies", which in English would probably be "air forces" and among subordinate "Sentai" is transliterated, not translated, so I'm not entirely comfortable with the consistency of English rendition of Japanese aviation unit levels.--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

'Air Army' is the term commonly applied to these Japanese Army Air Force commands (for instance, the 6th Air Army was the main IJAAF force in the Home Islands for much of the war). The IJAAF also had 'Air Brigades' and 'Air Regiments'. The Imperial Japanese Navy had a small number of 'Air Fleets' as well. Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any other source than the crappy Axishistory stuff saying Air Division or Flying Division? --Bomzibar (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

All the sources I consulted when writing the Air raids on Japan article which noted these units called them 'air divisions'. These include the reports written by Japanese military officers in the 1940s and 1950s for the US military, and subsequent works by Japanese authors. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case pro Air Division. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty strong consensus here. I'll let it ride until this weekend, in case there are other dissenting opinions. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D here, Lineagegeek. The article I linked also uses "Air Army" and "Air Brigade". It does use "Sentai" for what I assume are the regiments, though. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice too meet you. I will explain a little for Japanese Army flying division (飛行師団, Hiko Shidan) and air division (航空師団, Koku Shidan). On 20 February 1945, Koku Shidan was established by the revised law of the Japanese Army. Thereby, three Koku Shidans were organized. Dai 51 Koku Shidan (第五十一航空師団, ex-Dai 4 Kyōiku Hikōdan, 4th Educational Flying Brigade), Dai 52 Koku Shidan (第五十二航空師団, ex-Dai 3 Kyōiku Hikōdan, 3rd Educational Flying Brigade) and Dai 53 Koku Shidan (第五十三航空師団, newly organized.). The Koku Shidan differs from Hiko Shidan, Koku Shidan was a educational air unit. Their lower units were Renshū Hikōtai (Training Squadron), Rensei Hikotai (Learning Squadron) and Kyoiku Hikotai (Educational Squadron), almost. They did not have Hiko Sentai. Japanese Army used as a translation of the 'Hiko' to 'Flying', it is clear from their air unit abbreviations. (example; Hiko Shidan is FD (Flying Division), Koku Shidan is KD (Koku Division), Hikodan is FB (Flying Brigade), Hiko Sentai (ex-Hiko Rentai, FR (Flying Regiment), and more.) I cannot talk a lot of the English language. However, I think that should be distinguished for proper names. Please see List of Imperial Japanese Army air-to-surface special attack units and List of Imperial Japanese Navy air-to-surface special attack units.
I want to ask everyone. When I create an Dai 51 Koku Shidan article in the future, what should I name to this article ? Thanks. Mystia Lorelei (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mystia Lorelei, did you have a look at the article I linked above? It is from the Australia-Japan Research Project, which is a joint enterprise between the Japanese Embassy in Canberra and the Australian War Memorial. It has text in both Japanese and English, and it seems to translate them into "Air X" rather than "Flying X". Do you see what I mean? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Kokushidan are not fighting in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. You should show the book which both 飛行師団 and 航空師団 was mentioned in at the same time. (probably, they may have been written in this book. Japanese Army Air Force Aces 1937-1945 (Osprey Aircraft of the Aces No 13)) Therefore, I described it based on Japanese official document (Senshi Sosho). I wrote only two things. The IJA used abbreviation code; the Hiko Shidan was 'FD', and the Koku Shidan was 'KD'. See also; ja:陸軍飛行戦隊#飛行師団, ja:航空師団. Mystia Lorelei (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any Japanese at all. Are you saying that there were three "air divisions" created on 20 Feb 45, "51st Air Division", "52nd Air Division" and "53rd Air Division", and that the first two were created from existing Flying Brigades that had an education/training/learning purpose? If so, perhaps the 51st-53rd should actually be translated as "51st Air Training Division" etc? What were these three divisions established to do? Did they fly combat missions or did they only do training? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing my view on this. This source [6] appears to use "Flying Division", not "Air Division", as does this [7], and this [8], and this [9]. But in answer to Mystia Lorelei's specific question, this source [10] uses the translation "51st Training Flying Division", although it appears to be the only source that mentions that particular formation (in that way at least). Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I am sorry, I made ​​a wrong description. 51st Koku Shidan; '1st Flying Corps' => re-organised to '51st Kyoiku Hiko Shidan' (第51教育飛行師団) on 15 April 1942 => renamed '51st Koku Shidan' (第51航空師団) on 20 February 1945. 52nd Koku Shidan; 'Kumagaya Army Flying School' => re-organised to '52nd Koku Shidan' on 20 February 1945. 53rd Koku Shidan; formed on 20 February 1945. About education/training/learning; I use the following Japanese. Renshu = Training, Kyoiku = Education, Rensei = Learn. They were used the next airplanes almost. Renshu Hikotai (Training Squadron); Tachikawa Ki-9. Kyoiku Hikotai (Educational Squadron); Nakajima Ki-27, Nakajima Ki-43, Kawasaki Ki-61, Tachikawa Ki-55. Rensei Hikotai (Learning Squadron); Kawasaki Ki-61, Nakajima Ki-84. I write organization of the Dai 51 Koku Shidan in August 1945 (air unit only); 6th Rensei Hikotai, 10th Rensei Hikotai, 11th Rensei Hikotai, 1st Kyoiku Hikotai, 10th Kyoiku Hikotai, 40th Kyoiku Hikotai, 7th Renshu Hikotai, 8th Renshu Hikotai. Little amount of Ki-84 of Rensei Hikotai was intercept the B-29 Super Fortress. A lot of training aircrafts were take off for suicide attacks (KAMIKAZE). However, they did not sortie for dogfight, bombing and reconnaissance. Mystia Lorelei (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't know Japanese, Kyoiku = "education". Renshu = "training". Hiko can be literally translated as "flying", but this isn't always done. More like, almost never done. For example, a hikoki translates to "airplane" in English, though the literal translation would be "flying machine", and nobody says that, ever. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You are changing the direction of the discussion. This discussion was not a problem that translate English into Japanese. By the way, "Hikoki" was translated from "aéroplane" by French, this Kanji compound was thought and put out by Mori Ōgai on March 1, 1901 (book Kokura Nikki). I do not intend to hold a Japanese language courses at this location. Mystia Lorelei (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the origin of the initial translation, we are talking about how to translate Japanese into English. I was making a point that many compound words in one language, have a common usage term in another language. For example, the Japanese word 海軍 can be translated as "sea-military" or even "sea-army", but we don't say that, we use the word "navy", which of course means the military force at sea. I am only looking for most common and accepted translations.Boneyard90 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Belgian Military History

Hello, At the moment, Belgium has no military history page. Military history of Belgium just redirects straight to History of Belgium - whether they're trying to make some sort of a comment I am not quite sure. It's true that it ain't the biggest martial state ever, but there should definately be an article about its participation, including 1830, Mexican Intervention, WW1, WW2, Korea, Congo & Rwanda, Kossovo, Afghanistan &c. Would anyone be interested in working on it? I'd be happy to chip in from the sidelines. --Brigade Piron (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea. There are already several Belgian military history articles relating to specific units (Force Publique, Belgian Legion etc). Once such articles are created they seem to attract input from indigenous editors with direct access to detailed sources. Buistr (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been expanding the main Military of Belgium page with translations from the counterpart French-language page; please, by all means, add some more directly to that page, with references ! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to expand the section on the establishment and early history of the Belgian Army (even though it was the "Army that did nothing" until 1914) Buistr (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I want to raise a pet peeve about Military of Belgium. Some French speakers, translating Armee belge, have moved it to 'Belgian Army'. This is not the correct English translation of 'Armee', which is Armed Forces. 'Army' is 'Armee de terre', as per the French and Canadians. I would like to move the page back to the standard English translation of 'Belgian Armed Forces' - thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I really like that, great job! I do still think that it should be moved to a new Military History of Belgium article. By the way, if you're in the know, could you add to the History of Belgium#Belgian military intervention since 1990 section? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions over Korean soldier in WWII who fought on Germany's side

On the Russian Wikipedia editors are trying to verify details about "Kyoungjong Yang" who is identified in a Daily Mail article as a Korean soldier who was captured and held by the Russians, then the Germans, before being captured by American soldiers. The users at ru:Обсуждение:Ян Кёнджон need your help in determining the historical veracity of the accounts. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I presume that you're referring to this article about Yang Kyoungjong? Its author, the historian Anthony Beevor, can be assumed to know his stuff. Given that few editors here can read Russian and Google Translate doesn't do a great job on that page, it would be helpful if you could provide more detail on what input you're seeking. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I contacted them to give detail on this page. Also see Talk:Yang Kyoungjong WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello from ru-wiki,

I have doubts, if Kyoungjong Yang really existed. As for 2012, only Beevor identifies the soldier on the foto as Kyoungjong Yang. It seems that Beevor's information relies on this forum thread, which author later apologized: "What I posted about the Korean POW at the start of this thread is based on information that was not confirmed. Even though I've seen just the first part of the documentary, it seems that the Korean POW's name is not Yang, Kyongjong. I'm sorry for having provided a rash information to you". Moreover, Korean journalists in their 2005 SBS movie failed to identify the soldier on the foto. So, I wonder if there are some other reliable sources that confirm that Kyoungjong Yang is the soldier on the foto. Or, may be some reliable sources state that it's a fictional character? (as korean wiki describes)--Fastboy (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, do you have any conclusive evidence to affirm that Beevor obtained his information from forums as you have implied? I think you're making assumptions based on a hunch here. Second of all, it has already been pointed out to you that the Korean Wikipedia article is not reliable, due to lack of citations. I'm less likely to believe that this is a fictional character, purely because I have not seen any reliable sources that state that Yang Kyoungjong is a fictional person. The Korean Wikipedia article does not support its claims with reliable sources at all, which is why there is uncertainty and doubt on its contents. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

1) "do you have any conclusive evidence to affirm that Beevor obtained his information from forums" - no, I don't. But I can read and compare :) And I only suppose that, since Beevor's information is very close to that forum thread, however with lesser details. 2) Yes, ko-wiki article is an original research, without any sources. I've already marked their article with the Original research tag (but with no effect). That's why I'm asking here. --Fastboy (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'm completely out with my findings. All I was able to find on the subject you can read here: ru:Обсуждение:Ян Кёнджон#В сухом остатке--Fastboy (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

See if you can e-mail Beever and ask for more information. Check his books and see if there are more sources mentioned in the footnotes WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. Someone should send Beevor an email and ask him to clarify things a bit. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 20:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

For contacting http://www.antonybeevor.com/index.php/contact/ has a physical address and refers to Andrew Nurnberg Associates http://www.andrewnurnberg.com/ - Which has an e-mail here: http://www.andrewnurnberg.com/contact-us/ WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Beevor doesn't provide a source for his description of Yang Kyoungjong in his recent book The Second World War (where his story introduces the book). I believe that some editors have received responses to questions emailed to Beevor in the past, so that would be a good approach. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've followed your suggestion and sent email to Antony Beevor @ Andrew Nurnberg Associates (provided all the backlinks to this discussion, en-wiki and ru-wiki articles and analysis). So, looking forward...--Fastboy (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sudirman

There is a current FAC for Sudirman (national hero of Indonesia) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sudirman/archive1. It is already an A-Class article, it has two support reviews and no opposes, but it is getting dangerously near the end of the list. I'm one of the reviewers, not the nominator, and I don't think it would be good if the nomination failed simply by lack of reviews. Is there someone around here willing to make the third review needed? Most of the article talks about the Indonesian National Revolution, a conflict in Southeast Asia in the aftermath of World War II. Cambalachero (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

German 1st Panzer Brigade (1st Panzer Division)

I came across this article and thought that the formatting looks a bit strange. Is this article "set up" correctly? (WWII is not my strong point). Wild Wolf (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The "official roster" section should probably be deleted. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This notice has been up for nine days without anyone doing anything about it, so I went ahead and did something. 76.7.235.118 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the roster is incredibly helpful tool for WWII researchers. It is not easy to find this information and I believe that it will serve those who are conducting further research into the various elements of the German armored troops. Thank you.Jauernig2011 (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything in Wikipedia policy that unit histories must include official rosters. 76.7.235.118 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It does not say that it MUST INCLUDE - you right about that. However, I think that this type of information can be very useful to researchers and students of military history. This is very difficult to find info and I found it very important in my research over the summer. Perhaps, it could a sub-page of the existing entry, but it should not be deleted. Jauernig2011 (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is. That and the roster only provides a snapshot of the unit's leadership as it existed in 1939. Intothatdarkness 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It is maybe a snapshot, but at pretty important time in the history - e.g. start of WWII!!Jauernig2011 (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What about the roster when the unit was formed? After its first campaign? The question is more is this article's format correct or proper when compared to other unit articles? I'd say, on the whole, no. Such rosters could possibly go in articles of their own (as they can be useful, and not just for WW2 articles), but they may not belong in actual unit history articles. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would keep the roster it is really usfull to have when I am reseachering WWII. Plese keep it thanks. Nhog (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Intothatdarkness. This brigade must have had hundreds, if not thousands, of members. Bwsides, I'm not sure that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be that detailed. Seems like rosters belong in actual books, not encyclopedia articles. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would call it excessive detail - put into sharp relief by the lack of any other information about the brigade - and not really notable content. And that if someone wanted that level of information they would be best placed by looking it up in the source itself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that you can't add more details about the unit. I tend not to agree with you. I think it is a very useful tool for researchers. I do not own all the sources provided and love the fact that this roster was published here in Wiki! Also, as I suggested you can move the roster into a subsection of the article. Also, I think that the roster at the start of WWII gives an amazing snapshot of the officer cadre. Some of the individuals there formed many of the core panzer units of the German Wehrmacht in later years. Again, it is detailed, but awesome. I wish that all other similar articles included official rosters! Thanks!Jauernig2011 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the roster provides way too much detail for an encyclopaedia article. I don't agree it is awesome, if the officers listed are notable, their service in this unit should be noted here and in their article. Peacemaker67 (send, over) 21:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, given the way the Germans (like other armies) broke up existing units to provide cadre for newly-formed units, is there any guarantee that any of these men were with the brigade for more than a few weeks or months? And simply finding such a list on Wiki is NO guarantee that it's accurate. You'd still have to verify it in the original source if you wanted to use it for serious, scholarly research. Intothatdarkness 17:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What it needs is more info the roster moved to a subsection and pictures. But mainly more info.Nhog (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Wikipidiea just buged out the header for the section is no longer the header i cant figure out how to fix it wthout almost deleting everyting. Nhog (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and used the information present in the article to replace the roster with a list of notable officers and an order of battle. It will now be easier to add notes to the officers to say what happened to them in the war with respect to the unit and parent unit.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets leave the rooster alone for now and keep the changes you made it makes it much better than before. But we still need to add more detail to the artical where they where deployed what happened to them, etc, etc. I dont have time to do it to much school work. Nhog (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagging castles with milhist template

Since my comment here led to no action (Tom has also not replied to my comment on his talk page), I am going to manually tag all Polish castles. For the rest of the world - I don't have will, time or interest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not all castles are castles. Hadlow Castle falls outside the scope of this WP. No doubt there are quite a few others. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you'd "task force" them to Fortifications and Polish as well as assess them? I thought I had the task force allocation and assesment backlogs under control until yesterday... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I've got it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There are some badly named articles (I've noticed a trend when articles on Polish castles started by German users will in fact be about palaces). That said, those are exceptions. If it's in a Category:Castles it's either milhist or miscategorized. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that some of them are about the site of a fortified house or castle later converted into a palace or something similar, or even a park, but if they were a fortification of some sort at one time, I've put them in the fortifications task force. Of course, some of them should probably also be in the German task force as well as the Polish, but I'm not going there... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate to add them to a German taskforce if you think it's appropriate, shared history is not a problem. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Look out Luxembourg

Interesting new book out listing all the countries Britain (or England) has ever invaded. Apparently about 90% of the countries of world have been invaded by the British at some point. Review here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html NtheP (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think "invaded" is a bit misleading if you read the article is includes any military involvement including those not acutally part of the British military. It also goes back before a concept of Britain existed, but the article is to help sell books so why worry about the title. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Britain has ever been at war with Belgium either? For some reason it is marked... --Brigade Piron (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they liberated/invaded Belgium once or twice. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

From when it was a Spanish possession, perhaps? Much of modern Belgium was also Austrian for a while, then French, before becoming independent.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The British-led liberation of Belgium in 1944 was also an invasion of the country (albeit one which was enthusiastically welcomed by its population and rightful government). The news article also notes that "The research lists countries based on their current national boundaries and names. Many of the invasions took place when these did not apply.", which makes the basis of the claim rather dubious (by the same logic, the ancient Romans also invaded Belgium!). Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That can't be it. Luxembourg was occupied, and "invaded" by the British in 1944/5 also, yet it isn't counted... I think it might well be using the Roman example. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourg was not entered by British troops in 1944/45 (at least not in significant numbers) - it was well inside the American sector of the front. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Australian military operations
List of military operations involving Australia

Because there are so many of them, and because I can never remember which is which, I started a List of Australian military operations. Any thoughts, comments, contributions, etc. would be appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This may be getting a bit too pedantic, but will this be a list of every operation that included Australian participation (regardless of whether there is a specific operational name for the Australian contribution), or only those operations that were defined specifically by the Australian military? In the former case, it might make sense to rename the list to "List of military operations involving Australia" or something of that sort; for example, Operation Overlord clearly "involves" Australia, but I'm not sure that I'd call it an "Australian" operation. Kirill ^[talk] 03:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good question. My original intention was to provide a quick reference table for questions like "When/where was Op Tanager?" and "What was the name of the operation in Somalia that Kelly was involved in?". I'll give it more thought. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My original thought was that this would be a "List of Australian military operations", but many of the operations that Australia is involved in are, in fact, UN operations. (Not to mention the US & UK operations.) So (pedantic or otherwise), it would indeed seem that classing those operation as "Australian military operations" is incorrect.

Should the page be renamed: "List of military operations involving Australia", or "List of military operations involving Australians"?

Pdfpdf (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest "Australia" over "Australians"; the latter would potentially need to include Australians serving as volunteers/mercenaries/etc. in other nations' armed forces, which probably isn't what a reader of the list would really be looking for. Kirill ^[talk] 02:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

New WWI digitised sources - India Office papers

Hi all,

I've mentioned some of the Europeana 1914-1918 material here before, and I'm delighted to say that the first tranche from the British Library has just been published. There's 68 items, all printed reports or books, from the India Office papers collection; most material thus focuses on the Indian expeditionary forces and their campaigns, with a chunk of political/intelligence reports about the Middle East, including papers from the 1919 peace conference.

Some examples of official publications:

• Report from Gen Sir John Eccles, Nixon, Commanding I.E.F. 'D', on the battle of Kut-al-Amarah 28th September 1915
• Report by Gen Sir John Eccles Nixon, Commanding Indian Expeditionary Force 'D', on the operations in Mesopotamia for the period from the beginning of October 1915 to the date he relinquished command of the force, 19th January 1916
• Report from Lt-Gen Sir Percy Henry Noel Lake, Commanding I.E.F. 'D', on the defence of Kut-al-Amarah under Maj-Gen Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend 3rd December 1915-29th April 1916
• Despatches on operations in Mesopotamia with recommendations for rewards during Lieutenant General Sir P. Lake's tenure of command.
• India's contribution to the Great War

There's also a rare example of a WWI Indian unit history:

• History of the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade during the Great War 1914-1918

The best part is the official censor's reports (Vol 1), which are a remarkable sample of letters set by Indian troops in France and elsewhere, but these are sadly less use for articles!

The next tranche (date unclear) will hopefully involve part of the "general" printed collection - a lot of scanned histories, etc. I'll let you know once they're available. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent - thanks a lot for posting those links. India's contribution to the Great War appears to be one of the volumes of the official history, and should be very useful. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

US Marine Corps Photo Gallery Upload

There are 60,000+ images that could be upload from the US Marine Corps Photo Gallery that were downloaded by commons:User:Slick. A commons batch request was filed at commons:Commons:Batch uploading/U.S. Marines Corps, but it seems the website has changed removing a lot of the images. Should the images still be uploaded? Could someone get in touch with the marine social media people? Smallman12q (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as it can be proven that the images are works by the USMC, they should be uploaded to Commons as they're all public domain. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

HMS Prize

Is the HMS Prize page serving any useful purpose? It purports to be a shipindex page but lists only one ship. IMHO, it should either be deleted (per WP:REDLINK) or converted to a proper shipindex page with more than one ship listed, in which case the Q-ship mentioned would be HMS Prize (1901)). Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any record of any other British ship named Prize; all three volumes of Conway's between 1860 and 1945 have no entries, and the only references to a "HMS Prize" I can find in google books are for the Q-ship. Are there actually any other Prizes that served in the Royal Navy? If not, then re-purpose the page for the Q-ship. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Colledge and Wardlow, Ships of the Royal Navy, don't mention any ships named HMS Prize, not even the Q-ship, which would lead me to believe that that ship was not formally commissioned into the RN, but was rather some sort of auxiliary. So I'd change the ship index page to redirect to the Q-ship once you figure out its exact legal status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, all Q-ships were manned by RN personnel. Not sure re the "HMS" status, but would think that they would count as commissioned warships rather than civilian (government) ships. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The source I've got lists the ship as HMS Prize. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Useful, but not definitive. Remember that the RN had all sorts of various statuses for ships like Royal Fleet Auxiliary, etc. Colledge and Wardlow are pretty well regarded as definitive, but do not cover trawlers and the like. Given the size of Prize, she may have been classified as a HMT (His Majesty's Trawler) rather than HMS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that we need a book/website on Q-ships during WWI then. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Prize is listed in Colledge "Ship of the Royal Navy, Vol 2 (1970)" with similar details as given elsewhere - noting "Hired as decoy ship (Q.21)". Surviving logs of other Q-ships (obviously not including Prize) held in TNA are almost all titled with just their Q number. Nothing there to justify HMS. However support for "HMS" does come from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission where all the crew are listed as "HMS Prize" (if I counted correctly, 28 names - other sources give crew as 27)(difficult to take issue with CWGC on this day). There's probably enough in the identified sources, and William Edward Sanders for a starter article using HMS Prize. Davidships (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a reviewer for DYK

I nominated Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice several weeks ago for a Did You Know? slot, with the intention of having it appear on Remembrance Day this Sunday, but unfortunately the reviewing process hasn't yet been completed. Could someone please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice and sign it off if they're happy with it? Prioryman (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Same OB?

It looks like Pakistani order of battle for Operation Searchlight in 1971 and Pakistan Army Order of Battle December 1971 cover the same military operation. Should they be merged, and if so, which title should be used? Wild Wolf (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As the article appears to only cover the units in East Pakistan (modern Bangladesh), I'd suggest that Pakistani order of battle for Operation Searchlight in 1971 should be the only article on this topic. The folks at WP:Pakistan might have some better suggestions though. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Remembrance Day

As we approach the 11th hour, of the 11th day, on this 11th month of 2012 GMT, may we remember all those lives lost in all known conflicts. This project covers the entire range of military history, with great amounts of passion. Perhaps the only thing greater than creating respectful historical articles with accuracy, is remembering those who fell on countless battlefields, and honouring their sacrifice to whatever cause they served, and continue to serve. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite right MB. In the memory of our grandfathers, our fathers, our brothers, our comrades and our friends (and countless men just like them). Lest We Forget. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Three column infobox

Can you explain me if any general standard exists for usage of three column infoboxes? Does it mean belligerents from each column fought against other two columns, or alternative interpretations are possible?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's not clear to even an experienced editor, it's unlikely to be clear to an average reader who doesn't know our internal norms at all, so I would suggest that three-column infoboxes should be avoided! bobrayner (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Most wars include two sides. If there's a third party, See if you can put it on one side, but separate that side's main belligerent with a separation line. Or if the conflict is really complicated, remove the third party completely and add a note in the infobox that redirects to the appropriate section in the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of... wait for it... Balkans WWII articles that use three columns due to the byzantine complexity of the situation. An example is Operation Trio, which was 1. Germans/Italians/Ustase, 2. Chetniks, 3. Partisans. They all fought each other. Granted, it's not tidy but in rare cases I believe it is warranted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Consolidating complex multiparty conflicts into two columns could be equally problematic. Look at the gigantic infobox in Kosovo War - it gives readers the impression that NATO and UÇK and individual NATO countries and FARK all fought in concert, as part of some grand alliance against "FR Yugoslavia" forces (reliable sources say "Serb" but we all know that would be reverted). bobrayner (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In the later case, horizontal lines imply that, although different belligerents were not the allies, all of them fought against Serbia, and not against each other. At least, that is how I understand that infobox. However, what can yon say about this infobox? Is it clear from it who fought against whom?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

file:U352-B.jpg

image:U352-B.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

US National Guard Generals -Notability?

Two questions (which may have the same answer). Is someone who has achieved Brigadier General in a US State National Guard considered notable enough for an article? Is someone who has achieved Brigadier General in the US State National Guard considered notable to be listed in a list of Alumni for a College/University or Fraternity/Sorority? (It appears the answer would be yes for the US Army, but I'm not sure for the NG.Naraht (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:MILPEOPLE: In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:... Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer So they are considered notable enough for an article. You still have to find enough material to create an article though. Usually the lists of Alumni/Alumnae contained in articles about a college/university or fraternity/sorority only list the most famous ones, but a list class article will contain all the notable ones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The article in question is a list class article.Naraht (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Portal:European military history

I've nominated Portal:European military history for featured status at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:European military history. Comments and suggestions are appreciated.--xanchester (t) 06:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Norman Dike

I have been working on the Norman Dike page. Dike was the "lieutenant who failed" during the Battle of the Bulge with Easy Company or the 506th PIR. It would seem that at one time the page was based on the mini-series on HBO, but that's no longer true. When I started this "project," I was uncertain that Norman Dike and Norman Staunton Dike were the same person, but I now think they were. I am concerned about:

• Lack of references: The refs are either from people who knew him and did not like him during WW II or from other sources that are basically neutral. Much of the post WW II information is based on the obituary in his prep school "annual."
• Reliability: The information about Dike's grave site is from an entry on findagrave.com by someone named Joe. The list of graves for cemetery itself [11] does not include anyone named Dike. I am not sure that the photographed headstone goes with the photographed cemetery sign. (I do have the reference for the grave but have remarked it out because my call to webcite returned an error I could not figure out.)
• Notability: I sure there were thousands of soldiers who performed marginally in World War II but did well in later life. Norman Dike has a page because he was represented on a TV show. I think there are several people listed in Template:Band of Brothers (miniseries) who are non-notable. Thomas Meehan III, sadly, is a good example; he died on D-Day and we will never know how good he could have been. Dike's page may be a candidate for deletion.

If one or more folks could look a Dike's page and critique it for me, to include addressing notability and that webcite error, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your doubts over Dike and Thomas Meehan III, I'm not getting a notability vibe off the articles. Also, the memorial section listing the crew of the C-47 and the paratroopers aboard the plane that were killed alongside Meehan is not the sort of content I would expect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto both seem to fail notability. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree on Lack of Notability Why don't you tag Dike's page with a lack of notablility banner like Meehan's and nominate them for deletion.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Meehan has been tagged for non-notability (thanks, Graeme); I did a proposed deletion on Dike 'cause it seemed like the right path at the time. If I've over-complicated the process, let me know and I'll revisit. Thanks, --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Two different IP editors (working in concert?) have removed the deletion tag from Dyke. I put it back once, which I guess I really wasn't supposed to do. I still think Dyke is non-notable, but I don't know where to go from here.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it really two different editors? I understand AOL users have a different IP address each time they sign in. One gives no reason, the other basically says he was notable because he was on a TV show. I've been on a TV show, but I'm not notable (except to my family). Lineagegeek (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The two IPs are pretty well separated, one being in the UK. If I put the delete tag back on, it begins to look like I'm edit warring, even though the IP editor(s) have not been communicative. There's still that prohibition about re-inserting the tag. I think someone else will have to go active.<sigh>Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You had no right to reinsert the proposed deletion tag after the first IP removed it. See Talk:Norman Dike#Edit War.

The appropriate avenue now is WP:Articles for deletion. That will entail a week long discussion.

Offhand, I believe Dike clearly fails WP:SOLDIER. Without BoB, he would not have an article. (The only BoB character satisfying SOLDIER is probably Winters due to his DSC.) Dike is either a minor or a major character in BoB. If a major character, then he probably deserves his own article. Minor characters in fictional works probably do not deserve their own article, but the twist here is BoB is not fictional. Glrx (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, absent "Band of Brothers", we'd never have heard of either of these guys. Delete 'em both. Give me a sec, I'll put the tag back in. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

While Band of Brothers the book is a history, the miniseries is a dramatic adaptation of the book. That said, Dike's article only draws on 5 pages from the book (and futher 3 from the other memoir). Best to sort this out through AfD.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please keep - two episodes of the show and I am here now trying to find out more information. If nothing else he was a high ranking officer later in life and warrants indexing in US military history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.254.246 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the delete tag. It was inappropriate to add it back in. AfD is the correct route. Next, this discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. That said, would Dike be notable if it hadn't been for BoB? No. But BoB makes all the difference. The only reason I visited this article was because of BoB. I wanted to know more about the man and his history, and Wikipedia served that purpose very well. And that is what Wikipedia is for. Rklawton (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments on notability. When we consider notability, we are basically asking ourselves as editors the following: "do we have a reasonable expectation that enough readers will care about the subject of this article that they would come here to learn more about it?" Given Dike's prominence in BoB, the answer to that question is clearly "yes". And so it is sufficiently notable. This is not a credit to this individual's worthiness. It is merely a commentary about our reader's interests. The fact that there interests were aroused by accident of a mini-series is irrelevant. Their interest is aroused, and we have the means to satisfy their curiosity in an encyclopedic manner. Rklawton (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. People don't become notable just for being in a TV series. That's the "Survivor" theory of fame. People who are notable appear in TV series. Neither of these two would have a page except for a miniseries--& neither of them is even really significant in it, let alone IRL. Delete. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their assistance. My "final" effort will be to say something intelligent about the location of Dike's grave. I'm not convinced that the grave marker pictured at findagrave.com is really where the website says it is.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

At 20,000 articles, it may require some coordinated action... (drive?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Piotr, there is currently an open thread here. Perhaps it could be included there for discussion? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposals for a drive like this have come up many times in the past, as I recall. And nothing was ever done with them. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with AL class improvements

I am trying to get Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861 and its sister lists up to AL class and need some help. Some of the reviewers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review#Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861 suggested reformatting the article as a table instead of a list and I would like to know what others think of this suggestion. Also, Nick-D has raised a question regarding the casualty figures used in the articles, which I'm not sure how to respond to. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you're on your own here, no help coming. Sorry. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

General of the Cavalry (Germany)

I reverted a change to General of the Cavalry (Germany) by IIIraute (sorry, I cannot do the "here is is the differences" thing) and then opened a discussion at User_talk:IIIraute#General of the Cavalry (Germany). It is my contention that the rank of General der Kavallerie in the Imperial German Army / Reichswehr / Wehrmacht was equivalent to Lieutenant general (United States); IIIraute says it was equivalent to General (United States). Can someone point to a source that explicitly states this, one way or another? Hamish59 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Here you go [12], and this one [13] explains how the Bundeswehr ranks changed to align with NATO standards. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, Peacemaker. Hamish59 (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"General of the Cavalry was a General officer rank in the Imperial Army, the intewar Reichswehr, and the Wehrmacht." The rank system was a different one and had been that way since the Middle Ages. NATO & Bundeswehr were founded after the Wehrmacht/Imperial Army ceased to exist - therefore this alignment is not relevant. see also → [14], [15]. --IIIraute (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Better to keep it in one place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee election

As a note, nominations for the 2012 Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election are open via this page. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Need project tag fixed

G'day all, what exactly is the problem with the project tags of articles that fall into this category? I've looked at a few but it isn't jumping out at me. Can someone throw me a bone? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of problems that could cause an article to be placed in that category—some of them quite unusual—but the vast majority of cases occurs when an article is renamed and the corresponding review pages (e.g. A-Class reviews, old project peer reviews, etc.) aren't. This leaves red links in the project tag, and the templates detects that and automatically places the article in this category. Kirill ^[talk] 05:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. That gives me a clue, I'll see how I go. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OBs categories

Currently there is a Category:Military organizational structures, with Category:Structure of contemporary armies‎ as its subcategory. Should these two categories be merged? Wild Wolf (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so - we have quite a few articles on the structures of armies, and a smallish grab-bag of structures of air forces and navies, so the current category structure seems OK Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I established the Mil Org Strs cat specifically because there were a bunch of contemporary structures of armed forces articles that weren't armies. There may even be now a case for a Cat:Structures of contemporary air forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up because the comtemporary armies category included one for the Soviet Union. Should the comtemporary category include only present day structure articles? Wild Wolf (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the military org stucts cat is so large that another cat for contemporary armies is needed. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Wolf and 198, both cats should be merged as overcat. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Do any of you read the category guidelines? Anything over three articles can be considered for a category, and, also, following the work of User:Nick-D, this category is *growing*; see Structure of the New Zealand Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

German language for article titles (about general ranks)

G'day all, Just looking for some views on the various German general rank articles such as General der Panzertruppe, General der Gebirgstruppe, General der Pioniere, General der Flieger, General der Fallschirmtruppe, General der Flakartillerie and General der Nachrichtentruppe. All of those articles are titled using German. The three articles that relate to ranks that existed in the Imperial Army and Reichswehr use the English translation as the title instead. These are General of the Cavalry (Germany), General of the Infantry (Germany) and General of the Artillery (Germany). It seems to me that we should have a consistent approach. Views? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree we should be consistent; probably in view of WP:UE we should use English. However, if we are to use English, make sure we find *referenced* translations from *reputable* sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot - it appears to be straightforward to translate these ranks into English. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Most primary and secondary sources use the German names.--IIIraute (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the most comprehensive and authoritative texts on Germany in WWII is "Germany and the Second World War" which is in five or six volumes. This link [16] is to the abbreviations page of one of the volumes. It lists:

• General der Infanterie - Infantry General
• General der Artillerie - Artillery General
• General der Kavallerie - Cavalry General
• General der Flieger - General of Flying Troops
• General der Gebirgstruppe - General of Mountain Troops
• General der Pioniere und Festungen - Engineers and Fortifications General
• General der Panzertruppe - Armoured Forces General

Unfortunately not consistently presented, but I propose re-naming them per this source. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really my subject area but is General of Flying Troops really a common English expression? Wouldn't Airforce General be more appropriate?Monstrelet (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree to Peacemakers proposal as the translations are out of the official german history of WWII. General of Flying Troops is correct as Airforce Generals would be General der Luftwaffe which is a different meaning. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Also concur with Peacemaker67's position, but I want to echo Monstrelet's concern. What are "Flying Troops"? Aviators & crew? Paratroopers? Boneyard90 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe organized their troops into Luftflotten (Air fleets). The next unit below was a Corps such as a Flakkorps (Anti-Air Corps) or Fliegerkorps. A General der Flieger was the commander of such a Fliegerkorps in the Luftwaffe. Other such ranks in the Luftwaffe were General der Flaktruppe, General der Fallschirmtruppe and General der Luftnachrichtentruppe. --Bomzibar (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick google suggests Flying troops = aircrew. There was a specific General der Jagdflieger (fighter crews), maybe of bomber crews too? German wikipedia provides a list of other Luftwaffe generals : General der Flieger, Flakartillerie, Fallschirmtruppe, Luftnachrichtentruppe. Although I withdraw my previous suggestion of Airforce General as it is clear it could confuse, I feel General of Flying Troops is neither common English nor clearly indicates who these men commanded. I too would have guessed paratroops would be "flying troops" but clearly they aren't. Monstrelet (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Flieger is also a little bit unspecific in German language. Traditionally Flieger were pilots and other flying personnel. Other meanings which arent meant here are planes itself. Otherwise, General of Flying Troops is the official translation of the German rank. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME does certainly not support those translations as articles names. Most primary and secondary sources use the German names. --IIIraute (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with the list Peacekeeper has proposed. Because it is inconsistent, how does one use it to cover titles not in the list? For example, is a General der Luftnachrichtentruppe an Air Communications Troop General or a General of Air Communications Troops? I also see the translation of General der Pioniere und Festungen clumsy -- since Pioneers and Engineers aren't exactly identical (I think Combat Engineers in American practice is usually a closer translation) if translated, I would prefer a simple "of Engineers." I'm neutral on the translation issue, but strongly for consistency in whether the titles are translated, and if they are that the translations be consistent.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to echo Illraute's concern re the language sources use. Whilst I probably don't have the number of sources some people have, my books on Germany in the war tend to use German instead of English titles. Looking a the source above, the list seems to be of abbreviations for German titles used in the text (with an English translation), rather than English abbreviations (for instance, Gen.d.Art is obviously an abbreviation for the German title rather than the English). If we do use English titles, we should probably have an authoritative list of references evidencing that this is the more common approach. There have been similar discussions for all manner of German hardware and suchlike in WWII. I recall some about Panzer divisions... Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Use German ranks. It seems prudent to just leave them be rather than risk error or further confusion. Glrx (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

But they are not in English. It does not seem prudent to use foreign language terms when English translations will be reasonably accurate and much more accessible to readers. I am perplexed by the degree to which specialists of German/WWII history believe that German-language ranks & military terms are somehow "common usage" in the English-speaking world. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright help request

As I'm sure many of you know, copyright is an increasing problem on the site, especially with all the mirrors one has to manuever around and so many articles to double-check. Rather than just going around telling people to help, I'm finding a copyright investigation for wikiprojects to help out with depending on the project. There are quite a few large ones for MILHIST participants, but one I want to see help with is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Razzsic. There are about 200 articles left to check, mostly on Pakistani military articles, and this is one of the ten oldest CCIs; it was started in March 2010. How to participate is noted on the page; any other questions let me know. Even if only a few articles are looked at, that helps a great deal. Wizardman 00:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Article titles for Waffen-SS divisions

There has been some discussion in the FAC review of 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) regarding the titling of the article. All Waffen-SS divisions were numbered and had a description, but many also had a divisional name and a number also had an ethnic designator. In the case of the article in question, "Waffen Mountain Division of the SS" is the description, "Handschar" is the divisional name, and "(1st Croatian)" is the ethnic designator. For a list of the Waffen-SS divisions see List_of_Waffen-SS_units#Waffen_SS_Divisions where you will see what I am talking about. I'm interested in the views of the community as to whether the current titling arrangements (pretty much using the official name as the article title) is accepted, or whether we should be looking to re-title these articles in a simpler way? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Simplest way to title them IMO is to use what the sources call them. The Germanic divisions pose no problems its the ethnic division like the 13th above where I can see problems. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying, Jim. What aspect of the ethnic divisions poses problems? The ethnic designator? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to drop the ethnic designator from all the titles of the divisions that had one (about half of the 38 divisions had an ethnic designator in its official title. It is not unnecessary in order to identify what division is being referred to, and it does cause confusion regarding the way WP used disambiguation in parentheses. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is necessary, because there are some divisions for which the ethnic designator is the only disambiguation eg. 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Italian) and 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS RONA (1st Russian). I suggest leaving things the way they are, which seems to be a reasonable scheme. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Could they just be 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS and 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS RONA or are you saying they would just be too similar? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On this particular (29th) division, the RONA division never actually existed. Propose backmerger into originator brigade that actually did exist (Kaminski Brigade, I think), which would remove the double 29th designation problem. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

the 29th is the only one with this issue, so that could work and also allow the removal of the ethnic designators in all the other titles.

I don't feel strongly about it, but the title seems to be giving three different names that the unit was called, depending on who was talking about the unit. It's possible that's the best way to go with this title, but it looks very un-Wikipedian; we don't generally squeeze every possible thing you could call something into the page title. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that the ethnic designator is an important part of the unit's name and the article title. The fact that they were foreign legions is half their notability in my opinion. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. That designator is an important part of their identity. Intothatdarkness 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Two questions - what do the reliable sources call them? How do the "official titles" compare to what they are commonly called in sources? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

With most Waffen-SS divisions you tend to see a mix. I've seen the 13th referred to in the same publication by both its division number and name (Handschar), although typically the full name and number is used first (much like the "Germanic" divisions coming as 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich" and later Das Reich). I see nothing wrong with using the full name in the title and then abbreviated versions later on. Intothatdarkness 22:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The various publications about Knight's Cross recipients also use a mix. As an example, Karl Liecke, according to Fellgiebel he received the award as commander of Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment 27 der SS, in Scherzer's publication the unit is referred to as Waffen-Gebirgsjäger-Regiment der SS 27 (kroat. Nr. 1). MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Help at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Lyon (U. S. Admiral) (first SEAL admiral ever, 1974)

Found an interesting bio at WP:AFC; apparently this man is the first SEAL admiral, and the name appears to check out with some quick GoogleBooks search. The only problem is the originator is using Lyon's political campaign bio for every footnote, so not WP:RS. I've indicated such to him, but if someone good at Naval or GO bios wouldn't mind dropping by to help advise the originator, that'd be appreciated. I'm pretty surprised we're missing this article, as he certainly seems Notable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

UDT isn't the same thing as SEAL, although both are special warfare. From what I'm seeing, the claim is based on UDT and not SEAL (which didn't exist until the early 1960s...when Lyon seems to have been in the reserves). Intothatdarkness 22:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

{{WPMILHIST Announcements}}

I have a question about the template. When you hit the edit button it reads at the top

<!-- VISIBLE FIELDS; PLEASE ADD NEW ITEMS AT THE FRONT OF EACH LIST -->

Having read this, I would think that I add a new entry at the very beginning of every subsection, right next to the = equal sign (next to "|good_article_nominees=" as an example). I assume this to be correct. Recently someone changed the order of the good_article_nominees section and my submission ended up in the back of the list. What is the correct process here? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

With FAC and A-class, we've been consistently putting new articles at the front of the list. Peer Reviews get turned around sometimes, but I generally fix the order when I notice. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Gilligan

This is at FAC ... and feel free to review it, of course ... but I've just removed the Milhist tag, I'm not seeing a Milhist connection, other than a 1-sentence mention that he fought as a captain in WWI. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Kirill ^[talk] 12:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Intelligence

recently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was redirected to the IntelTF, however, there exists a WP:WikiProject Espionage, so I've added hatnotes to point to it, from the talk page for the talk page redirect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intelligence (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs), and the TF page for the WPP redirect. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has left long un responded to comments at intelligence and expionage project talk pages I am concerned that this looks like the way ships project has in the past related to neighbouring subjects - just walk over and take over and ignore cross-scope issues.

I strongly suspect that neither project - espionage or intelligence - should have been left open the way they were - and that a combined project separate from military history should have been considered/tried. Now that milhist has appropriated part of the larger subject - I do hope that an intelligent discussion about scope and why and how the appropriation might be any better served under the wings of milhist...

The fate of the 2 separate projects over time suggested that for whatever reason - there simply were not editors or the energy to go beyond setting up. If this current arrangement continues, one hopes there is sufficient impetus to develop the subject and scope to actually develop the relevant articles and categories - wikipedia is very very sadly lacking a whole range of historical and contemporary articles on the subjects/topics relative to the projects, and any editors to actually go beyond signing up. SatuSuro 12:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we've "appropriated" anything; there's been no discussion here about any possible merge, and the redirection of WikiProject Intelligence to one of our task forces comes as something of a surprise to us.

More generally, I don't think that the broader category of intelligence-related topics—particularly insofar as they fall into the spectrum of non-military espionage rather than military planning and similar areas—is necessarily something that we're planning to focus on for the foreseeable future. So, as a practical matter, if you'd prefer to have WikiProject Intelligence absorbed into WikiProject Espionage rather than simply redirected here, I'd have no objections to doing so. Kirill ^[talk] 12:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Kirill - thanks for your response, I have misjudged the situation - apologies for casting aspersions where there was no actual intent. I feel that the Intelligence and Espionage merge should actually include both names and somehow re-jig, but various off wiki discussions that I have had with a few interested editors have suggested that both projects dormancy seems somewhat terminal ... I am somewhat short of the time I used to have to try boot the projects (either separate or merged) and am not sure how such a subject area might be re-invigorated if no-one seems to last at the subject area...SatuSuro 12:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you're thinking of having something like "WikiProject Espionage and intelligence" (or "WikiProject Intelligence and espionage"), which would cover the entire spectrum of related topics? That seems like a reasonable approach to me, although, as you point out, the lack of active participants will make it difficult to make any real progress. Perhaps we might create a combined project along those lines (and have it serve as the second parent project for our own military intelligence TF), and simply have it focus on recruiting interested editors, at least for the time being? Kirill ^[talk] 12:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have got what I think is the only solution to the subject - make it broader in scope and maybe there will be more likely a possibly of some editor who will last the duration... it is a pity as the original intentions of the two projects were great - there are simply no active participants left to even to reply to my year old comments at the talk pages saying there should be something happening. If there were even four or five editors with at least one admin it could possibly be done... a merged project would need to have the critical mass to get beyond what the two previous projects never got SatuSuro 13:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. If there are no objections here in the next day or two, I'll change the WikiProject Intelligence redirect target over to WikiProject Espionage and change the name of the resulting group to "Espionage and intelligence". Once that's done, we can work on cleaning up the associated infrastructure (templates, categories, etc.) and finding some active members to keep the combined project running in the future. Kirill ^[talk] 13:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, if you are able to do that, I would be pleased to help, just wont be the edit rate of some years ago unfortubnately, but if the process has your patronage/assistance/guidance - I'd be only too pleased to put some time in... SatuSuro 13:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence: Imperial War Museum

Hi folks, some exciting news! The Imperial War Museum are exploring the possibility of a Wikipedian in Residence as part of the various projects being undertaken for the World War I centenary in 2014. I'll paste (with his permission) his email tho the Wikimediauk-l mailing list below. For those who don't know, Richard is User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Wikimedia UK's office manager and Andrew is User:Andrew Gray, who is Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library.

All,

Andrew Gray and I met with the Imperial War Museum in London earlier this week. They're the lead organisation for marking the 2014 WWI anniversary in the UK, and they're very interested in cooperating with Wikimedia UK as part of the program.

The main part of the discussion was their plans for a Wikipedian in Residence - we're still working out the details (funding, reporting, management etc), but they're planning to employ a Wikipedian in Residence during 2013 or 2014, probably full-time for six months. They are keen to treat it as an interpretative role - rather than focusing on working with the collections, they really want to have someone content-oriented who'll spend the time looking at WWI content on Wikipedia, seeing where it lacks, and trying to organise ways to improve it, fill in gaps and draw together duplicated topics. The post will hopefully also involve outreach to the various (academic and non-academic) communities researching the war, helping them collaborate with Wikipedia, and working to support the existing community by providing sources, supporting material, etc. for articles.

On the whole, it's a promising project - in many ways, almost a "historian in residence on Wikipedia". As I say, the details are a bit fluid (notably dates) but me and Andrew will try and keep you all informed of what's happening as it goes forward. If you've any comments or suggestions, do let me know!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Very exciting news! Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, very exciting; hopefully we can build some synergy between this and our existing centenary-related activities (which, incidentally, will need more attention as we move closer to 2014). Kirill ^[talk] 17:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this - it's wonderful news. Nick-D (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Photos up for deletion

a pair of Iron Range base photos are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 November 23 -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

also File:APA-33 and LSM-59.jpg -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice project page guys/gals

Nice work. I am active with Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and I have been improving/would like to further improve that project page. I hope to move it towards the style adopted here. Who might I be able to contact if I am running into issues? Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have; alternately, if I'm not around, any of the project coordinators would probably be good points of contact as well. Kirill ^[talk] 04:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No images at U.S. Camel Corps

I noticed this article has no image, and seems like it'd be much more gripping with a few. Anyone good at tracking down quality images from the mid-19th C? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion citations

There is an edit war over "Boxer Rebellion" and its citations. Please comment here. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 05:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Battle Monument

I was wondering if this should be the primary topic, given the number of battle monument articles/sections we have across wikipedia. It could be called Baltimore Battle Monument or Battle Monument (Baltimore) (such as similar articles Trenton Battle Monument or Battle Monument (West Point)) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ACW books

I ran across the following articles:

• Gettysburg's Unknown Soldier
• Failure in the Saddle: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joseph Wheeler, and the Confederate Cavalry in the Chickamauga Campaign
• The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery
• Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862-1872

I'm not sure any of these books meet the notability guidelines. (There is a category for ACW books here.) Wild Wolf (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As a Pullitzer Prize winner, The Fiery Trial would seem to qualify, and Beyond Equality is by a notable author. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the first, Gettysburg's Unknown Soldier, should be merged (and redirected) to Amos Humiston.. given that they are about the same person, and both very short articles, why maintain two stubs? That would also solve the question of notability a little better, imo. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Failure in the Saddle would depend, I think, on its use in other areas (as in academic journals and the like). Savas is a smaller publishing house specializing in ACW stuff, so that makes it hard to gauge. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

List classes categories

I've checked the assessment statistics table on a couple of task forces, and they lack categories for CL, BL, and AL classes. Anyone know how to fix this? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

They're not broken to fix, they were never added to any TF tables to begin with, whilst the List classes were being introduced and propagated. Kirill has mentioned adding them to the tables on the Coords discussion page, though it may take some time as there are [too] many task forces to update. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As Marcus says, the task force categories were not created when the new classes were introduced, since the intent was to validate the assessment logic on a single set of categories first. Adding the needed infrastructure to propagate these assessments to task forces isn't difficult, but it will take a bit of time to implement; I expect that all of the task forces will be updated in the next week or two. 18:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinion needed

There is a dispute between two editors about two long lists in the Samuel Eliot Morison page. One editor wants to have the lists (one for books written and one for awards, etc) fully displayed while another editor feels they are too long to be fully displayed in a biography and feels they should be placed in a nav-box. Currently the page has the lists fully displayed. This is what the sections in question look like with lists placed in their own nav-box. located near bottom of page. Please leave opinions on the Samuel Eliot Morison talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

10th Armored Division (United States)

The above artile has a long excerpt from a pamphlet. Should this section be removed? Wild Wolf (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say so, especially since it's not properly cited. Intothatdarkness 17:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If by "proper citation" you mean Wiki-format, that can be easily fixed, but it is cited, as "Ray Moore’s 'Terrify and Destroy'". Therefore, the matter of citation should not be an issue. However, I also question whether the content needs to be in a block-quote in an encyclopedia article. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean academic proper citation, which it clearly isn't. But the block quote doesn't really belong there, no matter how it's cited. Intothatdarkness 17:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Infobox on Thomas Edson should be incorporated into the article better, imo. He's only mentioned in the Infobox in the "Stone of Bastogne" section. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

SNCF WWII

Earlier in the fall I posted a message here asking for input on the article about the French train company SNCF, where I am an outside consultant. The question I raised was about the appropriate weight and content of the article's treatment of the company's role during World War II. The section at the time, and I am afraid still, represents inaccurate and hostile sentiments left over from an edit war in January 2012. I received some useful feedback from editors, and prepared a new section based on it. But discussion has been slow and the problems I raised initially have not been fixed. I would like to invite anyone reading this to comment on this thread if you are interested in helping out. Thanks in advance, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you also tried for input from WP:FRANCE ? -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we a book club?

Do we really need Bibliography sections? Surely any book that makes a substantial contribution to a subject can show this by an inline reference supporting some point the article makes. Hcobb (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this? Citing sources in historical research is very important. Inline referencing doesn't always get the full extent of a source across. Bibliographies are an essential means to providing readers with titles and authors to read off-wiki, as we're hardly the definitive source of history for most readers. It isn't about being a book club, it's about being informative. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

On top of that, for a significant chunk of the world we're interested in (writers, publishers, academia, people working at or into GLAMs ... and people who like to read), the influential books and authors are important in their own right. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the way in which footnotes and the bibliography are separated, I (and I think most of the academic world) prefer this approach, especially when dozens of footnotes may come from one book. It's neater and also easier to consult the main sources used in a document. If however you're referring to the numerous articles with a bibliography full of books that aren't used in the article, I agree. The bibliography should only refer to books used in the footnotes section. If there is a book that is particularly pertinent to the article that isn't in the footnotes (perhaps because it's out of print or way too expensive) that could be included in a 'further reading' section. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with what Steve says. In practical terms, someone writing an article may have, say, 10–20 books at hand on a particular topic, but may only cite from 3 or 4 of them, in order to keep things simple and focussed. However, in order to show to readers that there is more material available covering a topic, and to sort of reduce any bias that the cited sources may suggest, a Further reading section offers readers a chance to access more, if they need to. I find it very useful when books contain a good bibliography that allows for "general reading" and "extended reading", as determined by the author, as it lets you decide what level of reading, or research, you need and helps you focus on areas better, rather than cherry-picking from the shelf. Whilst wiki does not go that far into detail, the split between actually cited material and optional material does raise the status of an article, imo, to a more professional level. Readers should not feel tied down to just the books used by editors, and offering a few extra is good in some ways. Adding far too many trivial titles would perhaps be "book clubish" and would need trimming to maintain a sensible selection. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

List of battleships of Greece is listed as a "Good Article"

How can this be? According to WP:GANO? lists cannot be a good article. Was this an error or is the article borderline article/list MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

They wouldn't accept the article as a list at FLC, so the only alternative was GA. Yes, I know, it's stupid. Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So why not rename Battleships of Greece. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

^That looks dobable. The article has a fair bit of prose with the tables. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it's still a list, regardless of how the FLC people want to characterize it. It has no more prose than List of battleships of Germany or any other equivalent list (and it probably has less prose per section, actually). Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems awkward to me! The intent is evident, it is a list even if the number of entries is only four, it is still a list. Maybe I missed it but I couldn't find anything on number of entries required at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria nor at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. The reviewers at FLC had rejected this list on the grounds of criteria 3B, length alone. Too me this is a case of someone interpreting the guidelines too strictly. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit ignorance on most FLC matters, but I'm not comfortable painting them as the bad guys until we've made an effort to see things from their point of view. They have an awful lot of people nominating awful lists, and they've evolved understandings to help them deal with the workload they've got. Since Milhist lists tend to be quite different from lists of TV episodes, it doesn't surprise me that procedures that work well in one setting don't work well in a different setting. I do think it's perfectly reasonable for us to ask them to clarify their requirements, because it could waste a lot of time if someone tried to make an article conform to Wikipedians' ideas about lists (or non-lists), only to find out after months of work that it's not a list (or non-list) after all, at least at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to paint anybody as the bad guys, but I am frustrated by their basic refusal to define their own standards (which is in part why I basically have not participated in FLC since). I repeatedly tried to get "them" (being the FLC regulars who opposed the nomination on 3b grounds) to clarify their standards, and they would not do so (mostly occurred here). Sturmvogel and I tried some time later here, and all we got was basically "there's no consensus, so deal with it." That's no way to run a rodeo, in my opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Could we post a few descriptions of lists they might consider borderline at WT:FLC and ask for opinions? - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What I am criticizing is the process here and not anyone in particular. Parsecboy is working on a larger concept or call it compilation of many articles and lists. His concept of ship articles, class articles, and lists seems well thought of and many of these articles are already of high quality. What happened here is that this single article/list was reviewed as if the larger concept was not there; it was reviewed out of context. Now, that may be perfectly okay according to the review guidelines but I think this has room for improvement. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It was reviewed in context though—I pointed out Parsec's other articles several times, to no avail. I suppose they could have skipped over what I wrote, though, because the last support proposed changing the title to Battleships of Greece, which would obviously be far out of context and completely inconsistent with every other battleship list on Wikipedia. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also I'll note that the topic has been raised several times since, such as here, where the issue was dodged again with comments like "we'll have to rely on closers to see through such attempts to abuse the criterion" ... even though if we take this to be an example, that clearly doesn't happen. We could always start an RfC on the FL talk page regarding criterion 3b... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You guys seem determined, and as always, I'll help if I can. Just point me to the discussion when there is one. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying to track down two journal articles

Hi folks, does anyone here have access to one or both of the following? If so, could you email it to me—hjmitchell at ymail dot com?

• Richards, David; "Operation Palliser", Journal of the Royal Artillery, vol. CXXVII, no. 2, October 2000
• Richards, David; "Expeditionary Operations: Sierra Leone – Lessons for the Future", World Defence Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, July 2001

Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure either is online. I can try and get photocopies in the post to you, if all else fails... Andrew Gray (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

AFC review request: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soldiers returning home from the First World War

Thanks for your input; if you have "AFC Helper" script enabled in your Tools/Preferences (requires no download), you can do a review in a matter of seconds by just clicking a dropdown menu. Thanks for your time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Separation line in military infoboxes

There is currently a dispute here concerning the use of a line to separate two parties on the same column of an infobox. Is there a policy for this? The two parties are fighting the same enemy, but they're not exactly allies. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (2nd nomination) Leaving a notification here as it is of interest to this project. Safiel (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

AFC review request: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Defense_Officer_Personnel_Management_Act

Hello all! I'm new to Wikipedia and gave a crack at my first article. Would appreciate any feedback at the above. Thank you to all the military history contributors out there, I look forward to any advice on how I can get more involved. Ramos37 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Ramos37

I didn't see any glaring problems. There was a typo on "Roosovelt" which I took the liberty of correcting.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"however"

Just a quick copyediting note: we got objections to a couple of articles at FAC today over the word "however". Some say it should never start a sentence, and others say it should rarely be used. I note that WP:MOS uses the word 17 times, not counting the subsection on "however", and often starting a sentence. (It's not always fair to compare prose in guidelines with prose in an encyclopedia, but this underlines for me that "however" is one of those words that people always permit for their own use but not always for others.) However (to misuse the word), most style guides are pretty negative on it these days, because it's overused and misused so often. It's a heavy word. If it starts a sentence, it suggests that what came before is forcefully negated or overruled in some sense by what follows. And this isn't just a FAC thing ... note that "however" is a word to watch. So, watch it. Bottom line: if there are two ways to write a sentence, and one way uses "however", the other way is often clearer and less ponderous. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The removal of "however" definitely improved the prose on one of the articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got to say that I'm finding this increasing aversion to the use of a normal English word on Wikipedia quite bizarre. 'However' isn't a dirty word. 'Crevice' is a dirty word, 'however' isn't. (Sorry, probably only makes sense to Brits). I've seen an ever increasing number of editors wholesale deleting the word from articles, even using scripts that identify every instance of however and removing them all in one edit (often with terrible results on the prose). Wikipedia will be a very weird place if we keep deleting common everyday words to pander to such absurdities and I for one will be of the approach that a complaining editor will need to provide me with some very very authoritative sources to say why the word can't be used in whatever way they're complaining about. I'm guided by a more obvious source; books, famous authors - even the bible has passages opening with however! No offence to you two, or any editors who do correct it's mistaken use, but I just find the whole thing ridiculous. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Steve here.. "however" is a very common word, and has its place. However, it should also be used sparingly to avoid creating a negative tone, as it can come across as a strong "but" as it often precedes an excuse, but it shouldn't be eliminated from usage altogether as it may also be used to lead into a sentence that provides a NPOV clause. People using scripts to remove chosen words are bloody stupid, and the process is akin to censoring a specific word and needs to be discouraged, especially where these editors are damaging content and not previewing the changes. The whole thing amounts to childishness, imo, and unless this eradication has been community sanctioned, I see no alternative but to revert such changes and request the editor prove that the usage of "however" in each case is harmful. We don't arbitrarily remove non-vulgar common-English words from Wiki, and we should condone it before this cretinous behaviour spreads and evolves into other words, potentially leaving editors incapable of producing quality articles with ease. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A very useful word in the right place. Was it really whole-hearted aversion under the rules of English grammar (a sometimes nebulous construction given the way the word order of English can be played with) rather than the selective removal when a contradictory sense was not required? Given the number of unexpected (and sudden) reversals in the fortunes of war, or the cancellations of military aviation projects just as they were coming to fruition, I would think its appearance should be expected in Milhist area articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also agreeing with Ranger Steve, but I think Peacemaker makes a good point: "If it starts a sentence, it suggests that what came before is forcefully negated or overruled in some sense by what follows." Recently, I read an article in which "however" began two sentences in a row, and neither completely "negated or overruled" what came before. They seemed placed for dramatic effect, and sounded amateur or juvenile. The word still has its place of course, but "however" abuse (through redundancy) should be watched and avoided. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that a sentence starting with "however" negates anything, if care has been taken. For example: "Christians consider Jesus the divine Son of God. However, Islam teaches that Jesus was a human prophet." Meaning much the same as, "Christians consider Jesus the divine Son of God, whereas Islam considers him a human prophet." Personally, I could take either of those versions and derive the same meaning, without considering the first negative sounding, or feeling the Islamic belief to appear more valid than the Christian belief, as a result of the "however" per se. A "however" doesn't depend on that word alone, but on the context it is used and the full clause it leads. A "however" can be read as a negative "but" or "instead of that", yet used as a constructive "alternative" construct it can introduce a less notable contrasting POV. i.e. "The Holocaust resulted in the deaths of 6 million Jews according to official figures. However, some historians dispute the total exceeded 2 million." Again, it's not negating the first sentence, but offering an alternative without prejudice or contest. Hence why I find it odd that anyone would aim to remove all usage of this word without taking care not to affect the tone that may result. Read back that "Holocaust" example, without the "however", just "Some historians..." is too blunt, and challenging, the "however" softens the alternative to a degree, imo. Not perfect examples, but you get the picture. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marcus. It's a common human reaction, on being told that something is over-used, to throw the baby out with the bathwater but we should try to be careful. The word is over-used, but it's not one that we should be eliminating on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

While I agree "however" doesn't necessarily change the meaning, nor is it "prohibited" by any manual of style I'm aware of, I find it artificial. I'd far sooner reword the sentence(s) to eliminate it, per Marcus' "prophet" example. I suggest we aspire to the best style, however ;p we achieve it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the second version, using "whereas" in the "prophet" example, probably works best. Though I still believe the lead "however" in the "holocaust" example adds value to the sentence, countering the original clause with less hostility in its tone. I'm not sure I could consider any particular word as "artificial" which has been used correctly, and applied sparingly. It's not like the word "said" which some writers use to such extend, despite the many synonyms, that it becomes bland. In the case of "however" most of its synonyms are fairly negative sounding, or give quite a different impression as to what the sentence means.. "yet", "but", "nevertheless" and "despite" are quite negative, whereas "though" and "still" are less so. I think, given the vast choice of words in the English language, it is not the actual words, "however" or whatever, that are in doubt, but the manner in which they are used to convey an uneven impression, rather than offer a neutral disposition. Editors removing "however" on sight without question are being very ignorant of the semantics involved, and the objective of word elimination leaves a lot to be desired. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

♠"Artificial" may not be the best word, I'll acknowledge. ;p Stilted, perhaps?

♠That said, I get a very subtle sense of POV from the "however" in the above example, as if the second exemplar is implicitly superior. I doubt that's intended, & I doubt most readers would see it. I think I'd rather say, "Christians consider Jesus the divine Son of God. Islam, by contrast [or "on the other hand"], teaches that Jesus was a human prophet." TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

More reviewers needed at ACR

If anyone has any time to contribute a review or two over at WP:MHR, it would be much appreciated. I'll do what I can over the coming days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'll try to pick one up this week. I've been trying to get stuck into the GAN list a bit, as it is getting very long and is probably the choke point at present. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've got a couple papers to finish this week, but hopefully after that I'll have plenty of time to devote to reviews over the next month or so. Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review advice

Hello! I'm from the U.S. Roads WikiProject. We contribute to the shared WP:HWY/ACR, which is an A-Class review for all the road projects. However, it takes a very long time to get articles through there (the quickest is usually 2 months; the record is 9.5 months!) Part of the problem is that it takes very long to get the four needed reviewers, so the reviews spend 75% of their time as inactive. Do you have any suggestions, or ways that we can decrease the amount of time it takes to get articles through our ACR? Thanks! --Rschen7754 10:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Rschen, of course we know each other from FAC but MilHist ACR is also very close to my heart... ;-) Couple of possibilities straight off the bat... One way we try to ensure we don't have a big ACR backlog is to put a 28-day limit on the life of a review. Now this is often extended if a project coordinator (one of a dozen or so MilHist members who among other duties close ACRs, like FAC delegates) believes it's worth keeping something open longer to get a clear consensus, or simply because the coordinators are otherwise busy. This concept may help focus people on reviews more than if the limit -- however elastic -- wasn't there. Also, when you say four reviewers are needed, do you mean a HWY ACR requires a minimum of four declarations of support to pass? In MilHist we require three supports at minimum, which might further account for a quicker turnaround... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

We require four declarations of support, which I am finding is higher than just about everywhere else - the level was set back in 2008 when reviews weren't as comprehensive, and hasn't changed since then. One of the proposals on the table is bringing it down to three supports and an image review, which is what some reviews have passed with already, with the last reviewer supporting on the basis of the other reviewers. --Rschen7754 16:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we expect image licensing to be either a dedicated standalone check, or part of at least one comprehensive review. On the number of supports required, ACR pre-dates my membership of MilHist, so I don't know the precise reason three was decided on, but it always made sense to me because FAC effectively requires the same number. In FAC of course we want those to be comprehensive, not drive-by, supports, and to a lesser extent we want that in ACR too, but then ACR is not meant to be quite as rigorous a review as FAC, so we tend to be more forgiving on the "comprehensive" bit. Some in MilHist have questioned whether three supports is in fact too many, but I believe the consensus is to maintain that number. Another suggestion that came up during that debate was that if the article had recently passed GA, that would be considered its first "support", and only two further supports at ACR should be required. There may be something in that, but I think we need to be careful about lowering the bar at ACR, as it will widen the gap between it and FAC. Since many see ACR as preparation for FAC, we try to keep an eye on developments at the latter and incorporate those in ACR; a greater emphasis on source spotchecks is one fairly recent example. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by military rankings

I just came across this list. Aside from the ranking based on annual expenditure, the rest seems to be the original creator's personal opinion. Is this salvageable or should it be sent to WP:AFD? Constantine ✍ 11:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be the editors only article, and clearly there is some effort and minimal research gone into it, perhaps with a lack of understanding of POV/Citation guidelines? I would advise working with the editor to encourage a more rounded and balanced article, to make it work in accordance with Wiki standards. AFD might be harsh on a new editor, and the listed totals there are hardly controversial or of no value. Perhaps invite them to discuss the matter here, see if anyone is willing to verify their research, copy-edit any POV, etc. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I am inviting him to this discussion here. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

AFV identification

Can anyone correctly identify the AFV on the right hand side of this picture: File:Mont Ormel tanks.jpg The picture has been classified as M4 Sherman and Panzer V, but the superstructure just doesn't seem right for a Panther, even a badly damaged one. I think it's some kind of wheeled armoured car, but I can't find the model -- perhaps a Puma with an unusual turret? (Hohum ^@) 00:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been staring at the photo so long all the grey tones are beginning to merge into a single mass. The perspective might be a bit screwy, but to me, it looks like the front end of a 250 or 251 half track variant of some kind pointing at the camera, immediately in front of a panther with a dislodged turret. There is a mass behind the gun mantlet that looks like the main body of the panther. Zawed (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're correct, although the turret appears to have been partially displaced onto the top of the 250/251.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The size and configuration of the turret are that of a Panther, the distinctive glacis plate etc, but I think it looks like a smashed up and turretless Sdkfz 231 or something in front of it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the "fenders" & shadows, I'd say a 6-wheeler. Puma? With a long 50? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's almost certainly two vehicles. The front is a dead match for a 251 (but slightly different from a 250). The sides make it look like multiple wheel arches, but I think the rearmost one is probably damage. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Would go with the eight wheeled Puma. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that the article this image is ussed in, Hill 262, already identifies it as a Panther and a 251 in the caption. Might be worth asking User:EyeSerene or User:EnigmaMcmxc if they wrote this caption and how they got that conclusion (it might be in an After the Battle or a publication like that). Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Which I've just done. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Turret is all wrong for a Puma. It looks like the Panther was to the right of the armored car and likely hit from that direction, pushing the Panther turret over onto the armored car. The vision blocks don't look right for a Puma, either. More like those on the 232. Intothatdarkness 17:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, check out this better res photo I found on the net: link

The AFV is deffo not a puma. To me it looks like a HT with the MG gun shield pointing to the left. If it is a long or short HT, I ccant tell. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice find. There's also more pics from different angles on pages 1 and 4 of that thread. To my mind there's no doubt it's a 251. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd also go for a 251 or just possibly a 250. The issue to me is it seems very short for a 251 but this could be an optical illusion, similar to the impression that the Panther turret is on top of it.Monstrelet (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That extra image clears it up - great research! (Hohum ^@) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What to do with A-Class Review when page was renamed?

Arrow (Israeli missile) used to be named Arrow (missile), which is now a disambig page. The A-Class review is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military history/Assessment/Arrow (missile), which is causing the talk page to show up in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging. What do I do? Inkbug (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Would moving the A-Class review assessment page solve the problem? Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it will solve the technical problem. However, what should one do with all of the text on the review page? Inkbug (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the page, but did not change any content. Inkbug (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal Australian Artillery units renamed

Should the units 104th Field Battery, Royal Australian Artillery and 105th Field Battery, Royal Australian Artillery, amonst others be renamed (moved) to their current name conventions of 104th (Observation Post) Battery and 105th (Observation Post) Battery respectively? Also does anyone know when the 104th was reraised?? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

p.3 of Army News Edition 1253 of 3 March 2011 [17] says they were re-named in January 2011, and it is also a good source for the across the board changes to the structures of 1, 4 and 8/12. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

HMS Hood

There is a discussion at WT:SHIPS re HMS Hood (51) and the list of ships called HMS Hood. You are welcome to comment on a proposal to move these articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

US military images needing categorisation

I was just doing some patrolling on Commons and saw that we have 18,210 images imported from Marines.mil that need checking, categorisation and (if possible) reuse. I've done a few but I'm not really a military buff, so I thought it better to ask here. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

HMS D5

Can someone with access to the sources named at HMS D5 please run a check for me? The things really need to be cited properly anyway but I note that the article says D5 hit a German mine. The ODNB article for Godfrey Herbert - a bio that I have just begun to create - says that it was a British mine.

If someone can verify and cite at D5 then perhaps I can incorporate it in the bio. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Colledge & Wardlow don't specify the nationality of the mine as does the British official history; only that it was floating.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a start, at least. There are other sources mentioned and obviously (well, hopefully) someone has got most of the detail in that section from somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Collective terms for combatants/military forces from the British Empire/Commonwealth since 1707

Following recent reversion of changes I have made to World War II (inter alia), I think this is good time and place for me to (again) raise an issue with far broader relevance and implications: historical changes to the official names for, and relationship between, Britain and its external territories, including the military forces of those entities.

Much misuse of these collective terms results from a lack of awareness of three events, in 1926, 1931 and 1949 respectively (see below); these all represented profound changes to political/constitutional and, hence, military command structures – in spite of their obscurity these days (or even at the time). For instance, the political changes of 1926–31 terminated the supremacy of the British (or "Imperial") Parliament over Dominion parliaments and, consequently, over Dominion military forces. (For example, while it would have been completely unlawful for, say, Australia to stay out of WW1, the UK government could not raise any objections to another Dominion, the Irish Free State, being neutral throughout WW2.)

If this all seems like a trivial concern (or one that flies in the face of allegedly popular/common/normative terms in military circles), I would merely suggest that they check out Wikipedia:Systemic bias. This is especially insidious if one is an editor/reader of the English Wikipedia who is not British or American. Or, to put it another way: "British", "British Empire", "British Commonwealth" etc are all collective terms that emerged at different times in the interests of accuracy and avoid causing offence to particular countries. The same logic made Ferdinand Foch the first Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies, in 1918. (And imagine the outrage had Foch, hypothetically, become "Supreme Commander of the Franco-British Armies". Similarly, it isn't possible to imagine Eisenhower as heading up the "Supreme Headquarters American Expeditionary Force".)

I would also like to urge the use of some non-anachronistic and technically correct collective terms and their adoption as official style for military history articles.

(If anyone would like external/non-WP references for any of these particular points I can provide them.)

1. Between the Act of Union (1707) and 1926, "British Empire", "Imperial", "British and Empire", "British and Imperial" (etc) accurately reflected the constitutional/political/military command relationship between Britain and the separate, subordinate military forces of its Crown Colonies/Dominions/Presidencies/Indian Empire etc.
2. At the same time, "British" has never been an accurate or adequate term for British Empire forces that originated outside the UK, except in proper names like (e.g.) British Pacific Fleet. (While some such proper names lingered until the late 20th century, I would point out that the members and commanders of joint, so-called "British" formations generally referred to themselves as (e.g.) simply "the Eighth Army".)
3. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 recognised the "equality" of the UK and Dominions (but not India, the Crown Colonies etc) and the official, collective name for Britain and the entire British Empire became the British Commonwealth until 1949 (and the source of names such as: British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, British Commonwealth Occupation Force, 1st British Commonwealth Division, etc.) Hence:
   1. the only accurate usage of "Empire" or Imperial" after this point is in proper names that are older in origin (e.g.) Imperial General Staff and Australian Imperial Force;
   2. since 1926, formulations like "Empire & Commonwealth", "British and Commonwealth", "UK and Commonwealth" etc have been outdated and tautological (in spite of their persistence in a few proper names) and;
   3. thereafter, references to "British and other Commonwealth forces", or "the UK and other Commonwealth countries" (etc.) are correct.
4. With the Statute of Westminster (1931) the UK government recognised the ability of the Dominions to have independent foreign policies, distinct from that of the UK, including the ability to make/not make war.
5. All of the above are even more true after the London Declaration of 1949, when the current official, collective name was adopted: Commonwealth of Nations. (Hence the 1st Commonwealth Division etc.)

I look forward to any comments, qualifications, minor quibbles, objections etc to any of the above :-) Grant | Talk 08:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My concerns were first no source and second editorial ("incorrect and tautological") in the text rather than the talk page or edit summary. As to the content, what were the forces called then and what do the reliable sources call them? Britmax (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A variety of names were used historically, including "British Commonwealth forces" and "British and other Commonwealth forces". And as I suggested above (point 3), such terms also have the advantage of reflecting: the official name of the entity at the time; the realities of political/military command during WW2 (relative to previous and later conflicts), and; greater acknowledgement of non-UK contributors to the Allied cause. Grant | Talk 11:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Duncan Crow's Profile Book No. 2 is British and Commonwealth Armoured Formations (1919-1946) there is also the 1986 Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As reliable as sources like Crow may be, it doesn't mean that their books have concise, elegant and technically correct (i.e. encyclopedic) titles? As I say in my point 3, that "and" is tautological because it distinguishes "British" units from the rest of the "Commonwealth", a technically invalid distinction in terms of politics and military command. It is like saying (by way of analogy) "US and UN forces in the Korean War". Grant | Talk 06:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from a Canadian POV, in (frex) the North Africa context, I've always taken "British" to mean "Brit & Commonwealth", unless there's reason to be specific, I don't oppose a more accurate usage, but I find myself thinking it will introduce some tortured language that gets in the way of good writing. So, presuming we do get a settled usage, I suspect we'll later need to resort to "British & Commonweatlh (hereafter British)".... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Long time no see TP...sorry, I cannot agree. British Commonwealth is accurate in WW2 and less torturous than "British & Comonwealth". "British" means ..... British and nothing more. I have had similar argument with a New Zealand editor who tried to convince me that because most RNZAF sqns were in the habit of using the short form e.g. "488 (NZ) Sqn" etc we should refer to all Article XV squadrons in the same way, thus creating the impression that they were part of the RAF and completely ignoring how RCAF and RAAF units and personnel in Europe saw themselves and more importantly, how and why they were actually constituted and controlled. He relented when I quoted at length, from a book by a Canadian author, demonstrating that they were not RAF squadrons, although some Dominion politicians/senior officers were very passive in their dealings with the British Air Ministry. Grant | Talk 17:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that the squadron thing was a bit of revisonism at the time they looked and behaved as RAF squadrons, personal moved between squadrons and the others without noticing the difference. I also suspect at that time they they would not have flinched at being called British. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We are getting off track here, as the issue is not how individuals assumed to be the relationship at the time, but the use of historically-accurate, concise, official terminology that reflects the realities of political control/military command. But since "revisionism" has been raised, I can't resist quoting the WP article on Historical revisionism: "Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., in contrasting the United States with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, wrote:

But others, especially in the United States ... represent what American historians call “revisionism” — that is a readiness to challenge official explanations. No one should be surprised by this phenomenon. Every war in American history has been followed in due course by skeptical reassessments of supposedly sacred assumptions ... for revisionism is an essential part of the process by which history, through the posing of new problems and the investigation of new possibilities, enlarges its perspectives and enriches its insights.

In other words if any written history is not "revisionist" to at least an extent, it is not doing its job.

Re. the relationship between the RAF and Dominion air forces: it varied greatly, especially at the sqn and individual level. In some cases, there was unreasonable behaviour on both sides. See, for example, the case of No. 451 Squadron RAAF, which the Australian govt wanted to retain in an "Army Co-operation" role, while the RAF wanted to convert it to a "Fighter" unit. The squadron was in limbo in the Middle East for a year or so, until the Australian authorities gave way. In Malaya/Singapore/Dutch East Indies during 1941–42, senior RAF officers' misconceptions of (and discomfort with) the separate status of Dominion personnel/units was a notable cause of friction within the (multinational) RAF, RAAF and RNZAF sqns. Likewise, the South African govt initially would not allow the SAAF to serve outside Africa, or exchange personnel with other air forces. The RCAF and RAAF attempted to ensure that their Article XV squadrons were as Canadian or Australian in personnel as possible. On a much lesser, more symbolic level, the SAAF retained army style ranks and khaki uniforms, while "RAAF blue" (chosen in the 1920s), was quite different from RAF issue, being only one shade lighter than navy blue.

In the case of Dominion armies, Churchill famously diverted the ships carrying the Australian 6th and 7th Divisions, while they were en route to the Dutch East Indies and Australia, towards Burma. The Australian govt then re-diverted them, although – as a gesture – two brigades were released to garrison Ceylon for six months.

Relations between the RN and Dominion navies seem to have been more placid in general, but I could be wrong there too.

Anyway, as I say, we are getting off track. The central issue I have raised is this: when we need to use a collective term, which one manages to: (1) convey the multinational nature of Commonwealth forces, (2) was used officially; (3) is concise and non-tautological and; (3) accurately represents the relationship between the governments/forces? There is only one in WW2 and that is "British Commonwealth". Grant | Talk 04:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The word British is used in this series in two senses : in one to denote the peoples of the British Commonwealth and the British colonies as a whole; in the other to denote the people of the British Isles as distinct from those of the self-governing Dominions . Thus, when the 16th "British " Brigade is mentioned it should be understood that it was the 16th Brigade of the army of the United Kingdom; but when the expedition to Greece is described for the sake of brevity as "British" the word is being used in its wider sense . In the war with which these volumes deal, as in 1914-1918, the lack of simple words with which to distinguish United Kingdomers from Dominioners was more than a mere inconvenience, because irritation and sometimes serious harm could be caused by ineptly-written communiqués and reports in which the word "British " was used in senses not universally understood. For example, in 1941, when much of the fighting on land was being done by Dominion, Indian and native troops, those United Kingdom officers who were compiling communiqués in Cairo, and some Fleet Street correspondents received instructions to emphasise that United Kingdom troops were also taking part; and the names of United Kingdom regiments which were in action were listed from time to time . This was a natural and desirable reaction ; but, at the same time, the custom was established of referring in the communiqués to "British Imperial" troops and the "British Imperial " army (the "British Imperial Army of the Nile", for example) . By this term the communiqué writer probably intended to denote British troops from anywhere in the British Empire, but to most Dominion troops and their people at home the term had a very different meaning—troops of the army of the United Kingdom, India and the colonial Empire—and was sometimes used in Australian newspapers in that sense . As early as November 1939 the Commonwealth War Historian, Dr C . E. W. Bean, had written to Mr Street about the need for discovering another word than "British" for covering English and Dominion and other troops referred to in communiqués. He pointed out that great misunderstanding was caused in the last war because "British" to Australians meant "not Australian" whereas the writers of communiqués included Australians when using the term . However, no solution to the problem was sought, except that the still-more-misleading term "British Imperial" or "Imperial " was more often than not substituted for "British " in the sense of "belonging to the British Empire".

— Gavin Long, To Benghazi, p. 72

While I'm a fan of Gavin Long (and To Benghazi still holds up very well), he was writing over 50 years ago. It would be best to focus on the usage in recent sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, good to see you again. I agree, and what strikes me about that quote is that Long mentions the obvious word, Commonwealth, but seem to think it only means "the Dominions" (i.e. he distinguishes "Commonwealth" and "colonies"). I suspect that because we had been the Commonwealth of Australia since 1901 (whereas Canada and NZ were "Dominions" and S. Africa was a "Union" at the time), "British Commonwealth" was slow to take off here because after the changes of 1926 and 1931, e.g. the name British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (from 1939) never took off in Australia. All the same, Long's angst is odd, because there are references to "British commonwealth" (small c) in Australian newspapers as early as 1850. John Curtin was referring to the "Dominions of the British Commonwealth" on January 1, 1940, the same day that King George VI (whose titles included "Marshal of the RAAF") was reported to have "stressed the solidarity of the British Commonwealth in the common cause. He said that all the nations of the Commonwealth belonged to one great family..." Grant | Talk 11:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Uboat.net

Having created or substantially edited over 300 U-boat articles, I am increasingly concerned about using 'Uboat.net' as a source. The sites' veracity must be called into question when randomly discovered gems such as those below appear [any emphasis is mine]:

1. From the U-13 section, 1st patrol - description:
"Ordered to observe the shipping in the Southern North Sea, but was recalled for a minelying operation."
2. From the U-22 section - Fate:
"Missing since 27 March, 1940 in in the North Sea/Skagerak, exact position unknown, possibly lost by a mine". (Has the mine found the boat yet?)

From the U-45 section - Map showing the route of her 1st patrol:
This map shows the boat travelling across the mainland of Denmark (outbound) and the Danish islands on her return. I know it says "You may have to zoom out to see all data. In some cases missing data may make the route appear go overland which of course U-boats never did on patrols." - This implies that the U-boats did move across country at other times.
These extracts are more than mere typos; for instance, in the U-77 entry - 9th patrol, the location of the attack on HMS Stork is indicated as off Fouka in north Africa; but on zooming-in the pointer is about a mile inland !
On the boat's 11th patrol, the viewer is greeted with an almost blank page. I say 'almost' because things like 'Legend; means a ship hit' and so-on is still visible. I have seen this phenomenon on many other pages
I often see links for maps, which on clicking them, do not react (not all of them). Nothing, not a sausage, bugger-all.
A location might be indicated thus: "Sunk West of Pillau", which I might find is in Lithuania; but often following the red line is not possible as it finishes in the middle of the Baltic. On another occasion the line terminated in Hungary, which is land-locked !

Having been rather harsh on Uboat.net, I must say there is a lot of information there, but a good spring-clean is defintely in order (even if it is December); you don't have to look far for obvious mistakes.

RASAM (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As with all sources, there may be errors. I've been using uboat.net extensively for info on WWII and WWI shipwrecks. I've found the site to be generally reliable but it must be borne in mind that English is not the first language of the owner of the website. I'd presume that French is his first language given the contact details. I believe that this website has been run by WP:RSN before and found to be useable. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad proofreading doesn't really prove much. Have there been major factual errors? Also, given the scale of the maps, I'm not sure mistakes there amount to much, either. I'd rely on it. If you're concerned, tho, do what any good writer does: confirm with another source. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Uboat.net is commonly referenced in recent books on the Battle of the Atlantic. Given its scale, it's not surprising that it contains some errors and bad wording; this is true of other works on this topic (for instance, Clay Blair's massive and excellent books also contain some mistakes, and his writing style wasn't great much of the time). While the website shouldn't be used in isolation, this applies to all the other major works on the Battle of the Atlantic and it's a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Moscow - forthcoming TFA

Hello MILHIST editors. Battle of Moscow is scheduled as the TFA for 11th December 2012 but the FAC nominator Grafikm fr (talk · contribs) has been inactive for over three years. Would one or more of you be willing to check over the article to carry out any necessary "spring-cleaning" before its big day? That would be much appreciated. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 23:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I can help. What can I do? Arius1998 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, cancel that request. I hadn't realised how old an FA this was (2006) and there's simply too much uncited material to expect this to pass without criticism on the main page in less than one week. I've removed it from the TFA queue and gone for a more recently promoted battle FA, Battle of Radzymin (1920). Thanks for offering, though. Bencherlite^Talk 00:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The first main section, "German planning" is uncited and seems to repeat what's covered by the later "Initial German advance" section. Someone more familiar with this please check on that. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I plan on removing that section unless someone raises an objection in a the next few days. Comment here or at Talk:Battle of Moscow. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested that the article go to a featured article review in light of the fact that a high proportion of its sources are to the memoirs of the senior German and Soviet generals involved. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Concert

1. The article quotes only the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense.
2. Article includes a lead and empty sections.
3. groups totalling more than 210,000 men, women, and children - did the 210,000 fight or rather were hiding?
4. Belarusian partisans quotes a non-academic source Glory.rin.ru, according to which Axis losses totalled more than 53,000 soldiers. But partisans fought generally against local police rather than Axis...soldiers'.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Belarusian resistance during World War II and Belarusian partisans

Both articles describe the same subject and contain partially the sam text. They inform about Soviet and Polish resistance, who didn't cooperate and sometimes fought each other. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Both articles use the same souces, eg. mysterious Turonek and Soviet or post-Soviet ones, which make both articles biased.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Little help here

Portal:Battleships/Selected article/2 has some kind of error and I've no idea how to fix it. 70.135.171.237 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an error. Can you point to me to where or describe it? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Convert}} was playing up earlier because of a software issue; it's back to normal now. I suspect that was it. Bencherlite^Talk 10:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Probably so. I saw errors with the Convert template in other articles and thought it would clear up soon. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A missing fifteenth-century article?

Hi all,

Doing some clearing up of images today I stumbled across ru:Осада Парижа (1429), a Russian featured article which has no English counterpart. Judging from the French entry, it seems to have been one of Joan of Arc's battles, though our article only mentions it in passing. I was going to add some redlinks to it, but it's not my period and I'm not sure how best to refer to it. Anyone familiar with the topic? Andrew Gray (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no expertise in the area, but I've put a couple books on hold that should include information on the subject. (in depth histories of the time period in question) NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Paris 1429 is as good as any. The Russian article seems extensive and well cited to French sources. If anyone fancies creating something from a machine translation, I'd happily help with tying it in to English wiki, as we have quite a bit on this period of the HYW, just not this episode. One thing it may have which we may have to edit back is extensive background, though.Monstrelet (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. It's referred that way in some English sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian World War I edit-a-thon proposed for next June

Whiteghost.ink (talk · contribs) has proposed a World War I edit-a-thon to be held in one or more locations in Australia next year (with remote participation for those who can't make it to these venues). Editors who are interested in this event are encouraged to discuss it at Meta here. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

file up for deletion

image:Canadian Coast Guard College.png have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources needed at Crossfire

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossfire, I'm asking this forum for reliable sources discussing this common tactical term in some depth. The common usage of the term makes a simple web search virtually useless. Can some regulars here provide a quick list of online manuals or guides which discuss the use of crossfire in a tactical situation? If anyone's willing to just stick some in the pagespace, I could do the citation later. Thanks! (Disclaimer: this is not a call for participation in the procedure. This a call for sources.) BusterD (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

should cross-fire also redirect to this article? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Cross-fire (an important gait topic on its own) has an appropriate place on the Crossfire (disambiguation) page and should not be redirected as suggested. One user came by to offer a single source to the AfD, but there must be dozens of small unit tactics manuals and guides which cover the subject linked in this thread title. The deletion procedure itself has been closed as keep, but the dearth of sourcing at Crossfire needs correction. The page has existed here on WP for over ten years with no substantial sources. Thanks for helping. BusterD (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, you'll find much of our basic tactics stock is in an equally poor state - either vague or with limited referencing to one nation's practice (often US). Monstrelet (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be other articles which are little more than a definition and a bit of US-centric waffle eg Fire support. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WWII Era Colored Photographs of M3/M4 tanks for restoration

I'm interested in doing a restoration of a few of these tank pictures I found at the LOC website. I don't know which ones have the most historical/military noteworthiness, and they're all in training. What differentiates these is that they are color photographs, and probably have at least some extra merit because of that. Which of these should I try to restore first? http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=ft.+knox%2C.+ky.&sp=1 NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My suggestions: [18] (a potential featured picture, I think, if you can fix the colours), [19], [20], [21] (also a potential featured picture, I think). Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check ( Media related to Alfred T. Palmer at Wikimedia Commons), File:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg is already a featured picture. (Hohum ^@) 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do the others, and hopefully get a reasonable set of FP from his color photography work. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible TFA dates for MILHIST articles?

Does this project have a page somewhere for editors to make a note of which articles might be good to run as TFA on particular dates, akin to Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/TFA? If so, as one of the new TFA delegates, I'd be delighted to see it! If people have a particular date in mind for an article, it only wastes my time and theirs if I pick the article "out of the blue" for a random date. In any event, a reminder that WP:TFAR is always looking for new business - it can have two nominations for "any available date" and ten nominations for specific dates. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tks mate. I've not heard of us having such a thing as a potential TFA list, I've always figured that anyone who wanted to list possibilities would add items to the TFAR "pending" page. Not that I'm against MilHist creating such a list if members like the idea. Personally, though, I kind of enjoy the surprise element when I get the message that one of "my" articles has been selected without me bothering to nominate it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is curious about making a suggestion, have a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page#Warfare - many possible candidates! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly encourage people to add possibilities to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending if you have appropriate dates in mind. Bencherlite^Talk 10:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

James A. Cody

James A. Cody appears to be a CV for a former airmen, doesnt appear to be notable to me but looking for other opinions before I prod or otherwise it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It also a direct copy of http://www.aetc.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?id=13968 his air force bio, although public domain it is probably still bad form to reproduce it word for word. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

He's listed at Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force as being the incoming Chief in February. If true, I think that's a pretty good claim to notability. AfD would therefore be the correct route, if you did want to challenge it - but I think your first task is to examine whether he is indeed the incoming Chief. In terms of copying from the page, it should be noted in the references sections, something like: "Some material reproduced here is taken from United States Air Force records and is in the public domain." (along with the full normal reference). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not notable IMHO. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable (by class). All the other incumbents have pages. If we delete this now, we get to re-create later.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That probably suggests that the other sixteen need looking at as well.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive

Does any here know much about the Finnish-Russian war? There is disagreement here concerning whether or not the offensive resulted in the Moscow armistice. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should as here or in the embassy at fi.wiki for help. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a question of RfC there, and we need more comments from other people.--Whiskey (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Militarized Interstate Disputes

Is this a proper noun? Shouldn't Militarized Interstate Disputes be militarized interstate dispute (singular, uncaptialized) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is not a proper noun. However, it may also be known in that form. So I think what can be done is do a redirect. Arius1998 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Objects needing ID

I don't usually post here, but there are 350 photos of Turkmenistan military parade at commons:Category:Parade_celebrating_the_20th_anniversary_of_Turkmenistani_independence which has units, equipment, etc needing to be identified. Thanks to anyone who can help. On behalf of Russavia.Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 18:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Some are clearly naval, air force and special forces detachments, showing a strong residual Russian influence. However the various ceremonial and mounted units would require expert knowledge. They certainly stage spectacular parades in Turkmenistan! Buistr (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

SS Tofuku Maru.png

file:SS Tofuku Maru.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not an FFD nomination, so is not covered in any section under delsort -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

HMS Warwick (D25)

Accordnig to the article, HMS Warwick (D25) was sunk by U-413 on 20 January 1944. According to Busch and Röll, U-413 was not even at sea. Busch and Röll date the sinking on 20 February 1944. This date also matches the info presented by uboat.net. Ideas? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Busch, Rainer & Röll, Hans-Joachim (2003). Der U-Boot-Krieg 1939-1945 - Die Ritterkreuzträger der U-Boot-Waffe von September 1939 bis Mai 1945 (in German). Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn Germany: Verlag E.S. Mittler & Sohn. ISBN 3-8132-0515-0.

There's some more sources and information on the National Monument Record here. I would say February seems more likely! Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Birds used in milatery history.

I was wondering if there are any good books or other rescores of how how birds where used in milatery history. In particuler how they where used to intersept messenger pigones. Sorry about bad spelling my key board is being weird I am trying to get it repaired thogh.Nhog (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You might have better luck at the history reference desk. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

For WWI, see Pigeon photography and its sources. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

PD-OLD, a plea

Dear all - as some of you will know, most of the image copyright assessments done in A-class reviews and MILHIST FACs are done by a small group of people, including me. There's one basic thing that I'd like people to bear in mind, gouge into their laptop case if necessary, that would help us greatly.

PD-OLD is not a sufficient licence tag on its own. With properly historic images (pre-1800) then using the PD-OLD tag tends to be a simple mistake, without realising that it's insufficient. PD-OLD is an alias for a life-of-the-author-plus-seventy-years ("life+70") tag. For United States copyright, which all images on WIkipedia or Commons must take account of, life+100 (PD-100) or PD-1923 is necessary. So all I'm asking is that where those aren't dubious, where they are clear, then PD-OLD is not used alone, rather in conjunction with PD-1923, or PD-100 on its own.

For newer images we'll forgive you because the US copyright might not be clear and it can be confusing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I will also note that the same goes for PD-Art. PD-Art is for the photo of the portrait, the license of the portrait itself takes a second parameter, which defaults to PD-Old, but should be explicit.

Besides, an image tagged as PD-Old is not always a problem: it may an acceptable image, that someone mistagged as just PD-old, when PD-old-100 would have worked just as well. In this case, it should simply be fixed. PD-1923 is not a subgroup of PD-old in the case of non-US works, but those may be uploaded locally. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Shamelessly adding a somewhat related comment. PD-USGov and PD-US should also be avoided and can almost always be improved: "PS-USGov" has a lot of better sub-templates for the specific American government branches and subdivisions. The usage of "PD-US" is discouraged, as the PD reasoning is very vague (it basically says: "This could be PD-1923 or something else") and more specific templates exist for the various reasons (PD-1923, PD-US-not renewed, PD-1996, PD-old-100 and so on). GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no Philippines part in United States in World War I?

As one of the active Philippine-based editors in this WikiProject, I just passed through this article and I was concerned why there were no mention of the role of the Philippines in the American effort during World War I. Even if the Philippines was just a colony at the time, I believe that the Philippines was asked by the United States to assemble a 15,000-man force (correct me if I'm wrong) for the war. My nation's fervor to help in the war effort was proven when the Philippines assembled 25,000. I hope someone helps me here. Arius1998 (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Be bold add what you know. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Volume 32 of the 1922 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica provides a useful summary of the contribution of the Philippines to the US war effort (offer to supply a division of troops, funding of a destroyer and submarine, internment of German ships, creation of a national guard, voluntary enlistment by many individuals in the US Army and navy etc. Buistr (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but is there no online copy for that edition? Arius1998 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. I will however add a passage to the History of the Philippines article concerning the role of the Philippines in WW1, giving the Britannica reference as source. You will be better placed than I am to make a more substantial addition to the United States in World War I. Regards Buistr (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured article question

Could interested editors please take a look and see if the Petraeus scandal article is anywhere near WP:FAC status yet. I have been trying to bring it up to speed. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend trying for B-class, then GAN, then A-class, to help your chances at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Hi. I want to bring Juan Manuel de Rosas to Featured Article. However, there is an editor called Cambalachero who has been in a personal crusade to whitewash Argentine history. He won't allow anyone but him to touch the Article. Thus, I would need the full support from other editors. ---Lecen (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Both now and some months ago, as discussed in Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Something that must be told, you wanted to change the lead image for mere aesthetic reasons. Both times I kept the iconic portrait that is used everywhere to represent Rosas. That can hardly count as "not allowing anyone to touch the article".

Besides, your desire to bring the article to featured is just a recent development. Although it is correct that I left the work half-done when I worked with this article, I'm the main editor with 97 more edits than the second one, 103 more than Lecen, and with a clear improvement over the article as I first find it (see here, it was little more than a start-class article). Of course, I do not own the article, I'm simply pointing that the article is not abandoned and that big changes (such as the lead image) should be discussed in the talk page if needed. Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe instead of fighting over a simple image, to bring Rosas to FA, the article must be referenced better. I went to have a glance at it and I saw many paragraphs without citations. Surely that wouldn't even reach GA at its present state. I can help, even if I'm not that familiar in Argentine history. Arius1998 (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - only 30 footnotes in the entire article, and ten of those are for a single fact in the lead. This article has a long way to go to reach FA. If I were you, I'd set your sights on GA first and see how things work out. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as I said it is a half-done work, and it still has many things to work with before even thinking about any nominations. I guess I should complete the work I began a pair of years ago. I have several books about the topic I have not used yet. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't an image. Rosas was a ruthless dictator. Cambalachero has been attempting to whitewash Argentine history for a couple of years now. The article about Rosas is one big joke. He has done the same with Perón's article where goes as far as to try to excuse Perón's antisemitism and links to nazis. I will write the article alone. What I need are editors interested in the subject, willing to read about it and to help me out with any unnecessary meddling. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You won't get permission to write that or any article alone and exempted from finding consensus in the case of disagreements, if that is what you are requesting. If you want to do that, Wikipedia is not the place for you. See Wikipedia:Five pillars, specially the 3º and 4º. And, for the sake of civility, I will ignore your attempts to take things to a personal level. Cambalachero (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutrality policy. Lecen, if you want to make Rosas even reach GA, then you must follow this policy. If Cambalachero "whitewashed" Rosas's history as you claim, maybe you should focus working on adding, not replacing, on it the other side of his story. Arius1998 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's Lecen who wants to "blackwash" the article. Contrary to what he says, modern historiography does not consider Rosas a "ruthless dictator". Neither a romantic hero. Only a historical man, like all the others from that time period, and whose actions were not motivated by good or evil but by historical contexts. At least, that's the modern historiography of Argentina, the country that (not surprisingly) made the deepest studies of Rosas and his time period. If I read an article about the American Civil War, I would also expect it to represent the modern view of the historiography of the United States about that conflict. And if a foreign book insisted in mentioning as a clear truth some misconstruction that the American historiography has long discarded, I would expect that reference to be avoided. As for Rosas' public perception, check the "legacy" section. Currency, monuments, holidays, those are all traits of national heroes, not despised dictators (and of course, note that both Rosas and his party have died more than a century ago, modern politicians have no specific link with him).

Compare, for example, the article Oliver Cromwell. What would you think if an Irish nationalist complained that the article is "whitewashed" for not describing him as a ruthless dictator and passing negative judgements over his actions? Cambalachero (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning: for anyone willing to engage in the discussion, I opened a thread at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Here is the link for the discussion. --Lecen (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

fighter wing renames

FYI, several fighter wings are up for renaming, see Talk:9th Fighter Wing (World War II) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G)

I am kindly seeking more reviewers for feedback. The article has been sitting there for two months now. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Monthly contest points table

G'day all, Can someone point me to the correct points for each result ie GA to A = ?, A to FA = ? etc? It seems different editors are using different scores for the same result... It might be useful to include it on the page (which also has a weird formatting issue near the top). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not noticing a formatting issue on the page? Most scores entered in the current table looked OK to me and in accordance with the small points allocation table at the top of the page, except for one entry which had scored 1 point for getting the class from C to B. It is 3 points (as per the points allocation table), and I have corrected it. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks, the page with the scoring table was what I was after. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

partof section of military conflict infobox

Jim Sweeney has recently cut links to to the larger conflicts the following battles were part of -

• 1st, 2nd 3rd Transjordan
• Sharon
• Nazareth
• Afulah and Beisan
• Nablus
• Romani
• Rafa
• 1st, 2nd Gaza
• Beersheba
• Mughar Ridge
• Jerusalem
• Nebi Samwil
• Tell 'Asur
• 1st Amman
• Occupation of the Jordan Valley
• Tulkarm
• Tabsor
• Arara
• Jenin
• Haifa
• Tiberias
• Damascus
• Irbid
• Jisr Benat Yakub
• Kaukab
• Kiswe
• Khan Ayash
• Pursuit to Haritan
• Battle of Aleppo
• Charge at Haritan
• Samakh
• Magdhaba

The guidelines read: "part of - optional - the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre (e.g. "the Eastern Front of World War II"). For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars). It may be necessary to insert "the" before the name of the war for proper grammar."

Now the Battle of Mughar Ridge is part of the First World War, while the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) which immediately followed, is part of the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. The First Battle of Amman is shown as part of the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I while the Second Battle of Amman is shown to be part of the Third Transjordan attack, Battle of Nablus, Battle of Megiddo (1918), Sinai and Palestine Campaign World War I.

These cuts have resulted in the links between smaller battles and the larger ones they formed part of, as well as the campaign, no longer being shown in the infobox.

Do these cuts by Jim Sweeney represent the correct interpretation of the guidelines for the use of the "part of" section? --Rskp (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusing Jim of "vandalism" ([22]) is just about the worst response you could have made to these edits, and pretty much torpedoed your chances of resolving this through polite discussion. Why did you go down the path of burning your bridges with Jim over this matter and then bringing the matter here? I know that there's a history here, but responses like this just makes it worse. I'm not seeing any 'cuts', just 'changes' BTW. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Rskp. I have restored Nick's cmt above. Why ask for opinions in this forum if you are going to delete other editor's responses? Hardly seems constructive or collaborative. Criticism of your actions does not constitute a personal attack and I see nothing of the sort here. If you want to discuss something contentious be prepared for opinions that are contrary to your own. I have previously pointed out that you shouldn't edit other people's cmts and I again remind you of the provisions of WP:TALKO. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D and Anotherclown re: bridges and editing other people's comments. Be careful other editors don't perceive there are some WP:OWN issues creeping in here. I know you have done a huge amount of work on these articles, and that is appreciated, but this is a collaborative project and Jim has lots to offer. However, I consider this "optional" infobox field is important in providing context for what is a pretty complicated arrangement of battles within battles, and I consider them useful "signposts" for the reader. Jim even removed "the" from in front of the link [23] which is explicitly accommodated by the guidelines and that is an indication of a less than nuanced approach on his part. He has also used the edit summary "to comply with template documentation" which is a matter of opinion at the very least. I would like to see proper discussion of the pro's and con's on the talk pages rather than essentially unexplained changes with unclear edit summaries. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question. There was no attack on anyone. I did not accuse anyone of vandalism Yet you all agree with Nick-D's rant. A simple yes, or no was what I was looking for not personal attacks. --Rskp (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I seem to have warned you before, several times, that not agreeing with you is not a) vandalism or b) a personal attack. You may need to reread WP:NPA, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:EW/WP:3RR for good measure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Crisco, Nick-D accused ME of vandalism!! --Rskp (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Rather than an extended discussion over all 35 talk pages, wouldn't it be better to decide here? Just keep unfair accusations out of it. --Rskp (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question, clearly directed to Jim ("You have cut recognition in the inforboxes of the engagements in this campaign. Why is this not vandalism?") was obviously not rhetorical. You placed the onus on Jim to explain how his edit was not vandalism, therefore it was clearly your view that it was vandalism, unless he provided an alternate explanation. He was hardly going to say "oh yeah, it was vandalism, you got me!" was he? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief Peacemaker67 I asked Jim Sweeney a question on HIS TALK PAGE. Here the question is "Jim Sweeney has recently cut links". Well there are 35 articles under discussion here. --Rskp (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Out. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I understand your consensus regarding my post on Jim Sweeney's talk page. Attack being the best form of defence. Why so defensive? (Yes, a rhetoric question) Anyway, what's your consensus on the infobox question? --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to your own actions as "Attack being the best form of defence"?, as that's a pretty apt description of your standard response to stuff like this. I can't speak for the other editors, but I'm pretty tired of these issues blowing up when they could be resolved through polite conversation among the editors involved. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It would have been nice, Nick-D if you kept to the subject of infoboxes and started off your response to my polite question by responding politely. Do you have an opinion regarding the infobox issue? If so, could you please say what it is? --Rskp (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To bring this back to the subject the template documentation seems clear that this field is for the war or theatre in larger conflicts. So in this case it would be Middle Eastern theatre of World War I or World War I/First World War. If battle X was part of battle Z this should be covered in the article body, some of these article had upto four links [24] Yes I trimmed them down leaving what was the largest conflcit name in place. So if it had WWI or the theatre or campaign already listed, thats what I left it at. Agree there should be some consistancy. In this case would suggest using Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And that is in no way a strict rule, Jim. This is a fairly convoluted case of battles within battles within a campaign, and there is no bright line that I can detect in the documentation. A little flexibility is probably in order to place the articles in context. And please don't delete "the" before the link if it is needed to make the "part of" grammatically correct, that is clearly within the scope of the infobox documentation. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone does not know what template we are discussing its here Template:Infobox military conflict. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And to be more specific, what Rskp is talking about is this field:

• "partof – optional – the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre (e.g. "the Eastern Front of World War II"). For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars). It may be necessary to insert "the" before the name of the war for proper grammar."

I'd say it was a toss-up between "Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I" and "Middle Eastern theatre of World War I" both are effective and descriptive links to give context and link to a relevant higher article. Though there is a navbox linking to the Sinai and Palestine campaign immediately below the infobox in the articles which might make the former redundant. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So, if I can clarify, what both Jim and Graeme are saying is that the template documentation requires that this field on these battle articles should only contain either "the war during which the event takes place" ie World War I or, given the size of that war, "a theatre" ie Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Obviously, there is a need for a preceding "the" in many cases. And that consequently, these 'battles within battles' should not include any other information in this field. Any clarifying information should be in the lead. Graeme's point about the Sinai and Palestine Campaign navbox is well made IMO. Are there any diverging views? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The guidelines seem to imply it can either be a battle or a campaigns along with the theatre or war e.g. Battle of Megiddo (1918) in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and WW1. Another e.g. could be First Transjordan attack on Amman followed by Sinai and Palestine Campaign and WW1. While the S & P campaign does form the major part of the middle Eastern theatre, along with the fighting in Mesopotamia, its important to remember that the S & P campaign is virtually unknown to most people interested in ww1, and some latitude may need to be extended to ensure that the infobox clearly reflects the article's context. --Rskp (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the point Graeme was making is that there is a navbox already there for the S & P campaign so it is not needed in the infobox. I'm not sure where you are getting the implication that "it can either be a battle or a campaigns along with the theatre or war". It explicitly states "this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre". Which appears to limit it to a theatre and a war ie Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. It doesn't say "must" but "should" is pretty firm guidance. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with your point about the S & P navbox but the Middle East theatre is British-centric, POV and rather obscure. I was looking at the guidelines which state "part of - optional - the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre (e.g. "the Eastern Front of World War II"). For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars). It may be necessary to insert "the" before the name of the war for proper grammar." Doesn't it rather defeat the purpose of the infobox if it doesn't contain relevant info. --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I would like to see more info in this field, but the current guidelines really seem to restrict it to "war" or "theatre and war" (for big wars). There is a campaign navbox on these articles, so all you are missing is the "nested" battles, and the lead should cover that. The infobox is there to provide proper context, it doesn't need to have every article in the cascading sequence. I'm getting the feeling that the consensus developing here (Jim, Graeme and I so far) is that we limit this field to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I in this case. As an aside, if you think the S&P campaign is obscure, try Balkans WWII articles, we have the same issue there. However, if you think the infobox guidance should be changed, you should propose it on the infobox talk page using good examples from a range of conflicts demonstrating why the current guidance isn't good enough in your view. I'm sure there will be strong views either way, but that's the only way to change these things, consensus. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• So does your consensus override the infobox documentation regarding "battles or campaigns"? --Rskp (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you mean. I've explained my understanding of the documentation, that I consider it limits it to a theatre and a war. You haven't explained in what way you consider the documentation implies "it can either be a battle or a campaigns along with the theatre or war". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• • The documentation seems to point to some flexibility where wars are concerned "For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars)." Does this not imply that battles and theatres could also be acceptable? e.g. Battle of Megiddo Middle Eastern theatre? --Rskp (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not by my reading of it. "For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre" allows for a war, and in the case of WWI, a theatre (because it was a "particularly large war"). The sentence "For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars" seems to me to only relate to a war which is part of a series of wars ie Balkan Wars etc, not battles or campaigns within a single war, such as this situation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• So you don't see any flexibility here? Sadly it will result in infoboxes not giving much context for the engagements. --Rskp (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, not given the (albeit limited) consensus against it here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. --Rskp (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Happy to (help). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Middle East Theatre of World War II

Hi,

I believe for the moment that this is the best place to take up this matter. Recently I discovered the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II and Middle East Theatre of World War II articles. The latter clearly duplicates most of the former, as such I made this edit ([[25]]). After being reverted, on the grounds I should look at the talk page which should show there is no consensus for such a redirect, I found only an inconclusive argument which it would appear User:PBS did not conclude. I read the talkpage and found it contained nothing stating the article should remain, and that it mostly contained an inconclusive squabble. After making a similar edit to the 'Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II' article, I was made aware that a discussion was made several years ago. These discussions, on this project talkpage, appear to provide the consensus for the Middle East Theatre article being a redirect. See link. With all this mind, I made the following BOLD edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Theatre_of_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=528243302) and was issued with the following threat by PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tempaccount040812&diff=prev&oldid=528276458). I may not have made that many edits to this wiki, but all that I have made such far have been in good faith and have been no disruptive. To have my account threatened by someone who has apparently not read the basic principles of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is somewhat shocking.

I am therefore asking for the wider history community to look into this matter. It seems clear to me that the article should be made a redirect due to its duplicating nature.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The histories of Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II and Middle East Theatre of World War II reveal that Tempaccount040812 has made one bold move (which was reverted by user:Nick-D) and has made a bold edit converting an article into a redirect, which after it was reverted by me, was repeated by Tempaccount040812 without any discussion. No threat was made instead a warning was issued that not following the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would lead to a block.

The best place to discuss the move for the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II is on the talk page of that article and the best place to discuss the edit to the Middle East Theatre of World War II -- which amounts to a deletion is on the talk page of that article. -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A warning was issued? You disagree with an edit made by a new user and you inform them to expect their account to be blocked if they edit the wiki not to your liking ... that was more of a threat than a warning. Where was the good faith? Where was the attempt to discuss the situation? You issued a threat. Would you also like to drag up every edit I have made and discuss them too, since I do not see the relevance for you going through my edit history. If we go through your own, we see that you have reverted several bot edits that have also redirected other pages to Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II article. You did them without any discussion too.

From what I can see, the situation has been discussed to death over the last few years and consensus was already established for the edit I made. There are two articles that duplicate one another. Tempaccount040812 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that there was also a discussion of these articles on this board at the time, though it was quite a while ago. I undid Tempaccount040812's commendably bold move of the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II article to Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatre of World War II largely as (from memory!) the consensus from the previous discussion was that these were multiple but inter-related theatres of the war, and the move would benefit from being discussed. I'm personally not terribly happy with the structure of these articles - Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II seems too broad given that the fighting in East Africa, Iraq and Persia was pretty much distinct from that in the Med (even if they shared an overall British commander for at least some of the war). From memory, I was in the minority when this was discussed last time though ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II is trying to cover too much, imo. Two articles for these theaters seem OK, but they should be split more evenly. Maybe keep Mediterranean and North Africa parts in one article and put Middle East and rest of Africa in the other. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, although it should be done very carefully. The fighting that took place around the Med and ME was extremely interconnected. The fighting in East Africa impacted the fighting to the north, (and while it has been a while since I have read much on the subject) iirc the Italians wanted to use their northern and eastern African colonies as bases to attack Egypt. So the Italian viewpoint cannot be overlooked. Likewise (iirc), the fighting that took place in Iraq and the French colonies, in the Middle East, was due to Axis intervention and attempts to encircle Egypt/divert British attention. So again, the Axis point of view cannot be overlooked. Who was in command of who, imo, is irrelevant.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion D-Day carrier pigeon cipher

I nomiated an article in your project for deletion. Any comments are welcome. Fireice (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Communist Romania

This is to notify members that there is currently a WP:REQUESTED MOVE discussion taking place at Talk:Communist Romania#Requested move. Input would be appreciated. Regards -- Director (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As a reminder to all project editors

As we head down the home stretch of the year here we are also counting of the days until many of articles at both the Bounty Board and the Reward Board close. Anyone interested in collecting a bounty or earning an award for the pages on the afformentioned boards have about two weeks left to move to claim thier just reward before many of them expire. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

USCGC Winona (WHEC-65)

Help!! Someone with a little more experience than I needs to go to this article and figure out where the code in the infobox is screwed up and either fix it and let me know what I did wrong or give me a clue as to how to fix it. I can not seem to find the glitch and get it corrected. Thank you. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It took me approximately 1/2 hour to fix what turned out to be a minor problem that was preventing the infobox from displaying properly. Thankfully it's done now. The problem was here knots. You had unwittingly deleted one of the closing brackets ] in one of your earlier edits. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I knew it was something small and hard to spot. I hate that when it happens. Thank you for the good deed... Cuprum17 (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Project tag problems

G'day all, when I get a few minutes I've been trying to fix project tags per "Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging" on the open tasks list. Most of the ones I haven't been able to fix with some straightforward re-ordering of the fields and fixing of syntax appear to have some problem associated with the field "old-peer-review=yes". This field isn't listed on "Template:WikiProject Military history". Is it ok to delete it, or should it be dealt with in another way? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also been having trouble with articles that have the portal populated. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point to some specific examples? Without looking at a particular case, it's going to be a bit difficult to determine what the issue might be. Kirill ^[talk] 05:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, sorry. Here are a few Talk:Battle of Messines (1917), Talk:SMS Moltke and Talk:List of Commando raids on the Atlantic Wall for the old peer review field.

and Talk:First Crusade: March down the Mediterranean coast, Talk:Angus McDonald (United States Army major) and Talk:John Thornton Augustine Washington for the ones with the portal field. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the category gets added when a peer-review or a-class review doesn't exist in the page where the template assumes them to be. The template needs another field such as old-peer-review-link or something similar. Inkbug (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The old-peer-review parameter (and associated check) is a holdover from the time when we had an internal peer review process within the project, and is no longer needed now that the process has been retired; I've removed the check from the template, so the category should no longer be generated in those cases.

As far the portal tags are concerned, the template requires that both portal#-name and portal#-link be set, and will generate an error if the combination of the two doesn't point to a real subpage. Kirill ^[talk] 15:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. Your fix has removed about 30 articles, I'll see what I can do about the portal ones. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've got it down to 5, but just can't work out what is wrong with the last few [26]. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A few more appeared to have old-peer-review. They didn't remove themselves immediately from the category, but I'm hoping that's a caching thing and we might be down to two: Lee Speed and Air raids on Japan. The former was promoted to A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lee-Enfield/archive1 - not expected by the parameter, I think (create a redirect?). The latter I have no idea. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All now fixed. Kirill ^[talk] 11:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. They were really giving me the shits... Happy now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns and a way to detect them

Hey everyone! So, I have recently begun to re-dabble in Air Force Base articles in the Northeastern United States these past few weeks. This is not unusual, but I have also encountered instances of some pretty blatent plagiarism from over five years ago. This site has compiled a pretty detailed history about anything related to Strategic Air Command, and it has the potential to be a great source for the articles here. Unfortunately, anonymous editors also copyed text from the pages onto the articles here, and it has become so interwoven into the article that it needs to be removed. Recently, I cleared most of the Plattsburgh Air Force Base page of a lot of copyrighted text with the goal of re-adding everything, but I was wondering if there is a way that we could run a bot or something to check all of those pages, as they all are easily spottable, but it takes a lot of time. If anyone has any ideas that could act as a kind of easy duplication detector, let me know, because I would love to make sure that this isn't as big as I fear. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is User:CorenSearchBot, which searches for copyright violations, so it certainly seems possible, and then there's the duplication detector if you have a specific website in mind. I want to say there used to be some tool that let you type in just an article name, and it would check the internet for copyright violations, but that it's no longer available after the API (Yahoo maybe?) changed, but my memory is a little sketchy on that. - SudoGhost 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also the Earwig tool which I think does what you are talking about. Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the tools that professors use to scan for plaigirism in essays by students? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are three tools that can help (The third one will help you check if the same author who has breached copyright has done so on other pages) if you think this is a problem then you should take it to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations:

• Wikipedia:WikiBlame is an online browser-based tool for searching the revision history of a MediaWiki based wiki for a text string to identify the author of a particular change to the page.
• the Duplicate Detector
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions#Contribution surveyor, tool

However I have not looked in detail at the example you have given, but please be aware that many web sites copy US government sources verbatim without necessarily making it clear that the text originates from a US government source (much as some sites mirror Wikipedia without making it clear the text comes from Wikipedia) --see for example Talk:XX Bomber Command#Copyright problem?. The simplest way to find out is to ask the editor who added the text from whence it came. If they are no longer active than it can be a chore finding out (just as it can be a chore finding out if text originated on Wikipedia or in a book that copied Wikipedia see for example Special Forces (United States Army)#Copyright problems)!

The text from the US government is often public domain so providing the appropriate attribution is given (see WP:PLAGIARISM) -- there are templates to help see Category:United States government attribution templates -- then the text can be displayed on Wikipedia pages. So it is not enough just to check that it is on another website, it is also necessary to look at the attribution templates at the bottom of the article to see if the text may have originated from a US government source. If it has and the text is not adequately footnoted to make that clear then please add the appropriate ref tag pairs and footnote the text. -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the lack of attribution in both the Wikipedia page and the source. The lack of citation to reliable sources would by itself justify User:Ktr101's actions per WP:MOS, but IMHO would be unduly harsh. I believe this problem (as with Griffiss AFB and Plattsburgh AFB) can be repaired by paraphrase, proper citation, and use of alternate sources (Mueller, Robert (1989). Air Force Bases, Vol. I, Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-53-6. comes to mind here). However, that would take quite a bit of time, and unless that is done. I couldn't oppose the deletions, even though I'd rather see it fixed than deleted.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, we're mostly working with IP editors who added the text many years ago. In terms of using a tool, I was wondering if there was a bot that could do the work for you, but similar to the duplication detector that Derrick created. I know that the articles that I am talking about are not government websites, as they would have come up in Google results when I searched direct quotations right off of the Wikipedia articles. I am planning on expanding the Plattsburgh one over break, and Griffiss shouldn't be too hard to tackle, but I am very fearful that these aren't the only two examples out there, and many of the articles out there might contain issues similar to this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Allied leaders of World War I

This article seems incomplete to me. For example, it does not cover Japan or Portugal. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd try to promote it to C- or B-class. Arius1998 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre FAC

User:Neil916 has suggested I post a notice here about the Natchez Massacre article and its Featured Article nomination, in case anyone wanted to weigh in on the article and/or make some changes. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a reasonable argument that this article is a little thinner than some of our other FACs; the question is whether there are sources that give you anything substantial that you can use. For future military history articles, if you go through A-class first, and if no one suggests anything you should add at A-class, then you can use that fact if you face opposition at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Castle towns...?

There's an amicable conversation occurring at Talk:Castle town about what the article should be called and cover (All towns by castles? Just the jōkamachi? Or should we go for urban castles instead?) Further comments welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid

I created this article when I found a locomotive image at the LAC. It took me a while to find out why we sent 100s of them to India and I noticed that wp didn't have any info on it. I am wondering if the Ram tanks and Valentine tanks we built were part of this deal. Should tags be put at the top of the talk page to include it in this project? I don't have a decent library close so the limited info I collected is from the net. There must be more information somewhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added tags; this project doesn't have to be limited to the battlefield itself - it looks like the "gift" was a major contribution to the war effort. Surely there's some potential to expand the article? There must be sources out there... bobrayner (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I will put a notice in Canadian the history project as well. I tried to get a count of what we built from other articles and the numbers are way off. The count of tanks may be lumped into cars and trucks in the C. D. Howe article and is far lower than the 800,000 trucks mentioned in Military history of Canada during World War II. The plane counts are way off as well with 14,000 in one article and only 1,100 in another. No mention of locomotives, etc. at all in both articles that I could see. I remember seeing 100-150 locomotives sent to India alone somewhere on the net.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2012 now open!

Military historian of the year 2012

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Anotherclown: for his tireless contributions at Milhist A-Class Reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7: for his prolific article writing and consistent contributions as a reviewer, particularly at B class level. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ian Rose: for his continued involvement as a co-ord, FAC delegate and (high quality) content writer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nick-D: for managing to balance the demands of being an admin and a co-ord and still contribute high quality articles at FAC (and other levels). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67: for his significant contributions to Balkans-related articles and recent work as a GAN reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert: for his tireless reviewing, project coordination, and article work. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the nomination, Ian, but I would like to respectfully decline this time. As a previous recipient, I would like to follow Sturm's lead on this one and bow out. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria: for her valuable contributions to reviews, FAR delegation, and Canadian military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Dank: for his exemplary work as a reviewer, copyeditor, and project coordinator. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Constantine: for his skill and dedication in Byzantine and Muslim military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Cliftonian: for his skill and dedication in Rhodesian military and diplomatic history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Sturmvogel66: for prodigious work getting ship articles to FA, A Class and GA, and tireless reviewing, especially at GAN (getting close to 300 reviews now). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for thinking of me, but as a previous winner, I feel that I must decline. There are plenty of others who deserve the accolade.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Buckshot06: for his mentoring skills and encouragement to other members of the project as well as his numerous contributions to reviewing others work. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Parsecboy for another prolific year of warship articles. —Ed!^(talk) 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• The_ed17 for his great work behind the scenes. —Ed!^(talk) 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wild Wolf - for his work on the various ACW (and occasional non-ACW) orders of battle, along with orgainizing and categorizing ACW articles, especially the huge stubs category. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keith-264: for all his work on articles related to World War I, including but not limited to Battle of Messines (1917), Battle of Thiepval Ridge, Battle of Passchendaele, and Battle of Poelcappelle. With the 100th anniversary of the start of the war coming next year, Keith's body of work is greatly contributing to improving Wikipedia's coverage ahead of a significant milestone. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Grandiose: for continuing to improve the standards of the project's ACR process by consistently asking the hard questions in relation to image licencing, and making sure that Milhist A-class articles are fully prepared for FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion and questions

What is the qualification for nomination? I joined this project only by March of this year so this is my first time to see this kind of award. Arius1998 (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell its our MVP of the year award, so the nomination qualification (no ryhme intended) is anyone of particular note who edited and helped the project in a large capacity over the last twelve months. Historically a good many of the veteran editors and coordinators are nominated, along with a handful of outside the project who while not nessicarily under our particular umbrella have gone that extra mile for us. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)