Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 109

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Black Falcon in topic Early and Later Israelite Campaigns
Archive 105←Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111→Archive 115

GAN Article Scores?

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

How do articles that are assessed as "GAN" get the result of the "score"? What is the "score" based on? Because I compared one above mine and the only difference I could notice was the size of the article. Adamdaley (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit to being confused by the question. GAN means Good Article Nomination, and those that pass become GA. I am unaware of any score; potential GAs are reviewed based on criteria just like ACRs and FARs. Whilst each reviewer may have their own system as to how they review nominated articles and determine if they meet the criteria, at the end of the review the article will either simply pass or fail, no one keeps a score, so GAs can only be compared by how they meet the criteria, not by size or appearance alone. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 05:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
You weren't talking about scores in the monthly article writing contest, were you Adam? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
No. If you go to the assessments page. Go to any Assesment table down the page and click on "GAN class", it has a score for each article. The highest one I could see was about Adolf Hitler (around 2,100). While my re-write article was around (1,400). Adamdaley (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah - these are the toolserver 1.0 lists? The "score" there is something WP:1.0 use to weight articles by (very approximate) priority for inclusion in "released" versions; it's essentially internal to that project, and is summarised here. It's based on a rough synthesis of current importance + current quality for all projects claiming involvement in the article, weighted by the overall "scope" of those projects, and overall article hitcount. The score is calculated for all articles regardless of rating; the highest-scored MILHIST article is World War II, at 2300. Shimgray | talk | 13:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of a new name for the Action of 25 January 2012 article

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a discussion about the most suitable name for the Action of 25 January 2012 article on a recent United States special forces operation in Somalia. Comments on this would be most welcome at: Talk:Action of 25 January 2012#Article name Nick-D (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to raise it again, but are we sure either incident is notable? I'm not against articles on recent news items but do we need to ensure that our guidance makes clear how we define notability in recent cases - in neither of these cases is there time for considered expert review to be published (which is a prerequisite in earlier periods) so we will be relying on press reports. Do we define what press coverage is considered reliable and what isn't? Monstrelet (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that it is notable, but other editors have raised concerns that it might not be. The best option might be to either propose a merge and/or start an AfD discussion to clarify this. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nick. I think it touches on a fundamental about WP, about how much it is a digest of the recent and how much a reference encyclopedia, which is beyond the scope of the project. All we can control is a consistent approach in project.Monstrelet (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for 7 Independent Company (Rhodesia) now open

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The A-Class review for 7 Independent Company (Rhodesia) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)]]

"Redtails"

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

With the failure of the requested move at Talk:Red Tails, it seems to me that the target of the redirect Redtails comes into question. People at the film article dispute that the Tuskegee Airmen are known as the Redtails/Red Tails, so should "Redtails" redirect to the African American fliers, or should it point to the film article, or the disambiguation page? (Note: several sources were brought up at the requested move showing that the Tuskegee Airmen were indeed known by that name, at least by a few people) 70.49.124.157 (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Complete nonsense by the anon; no one disputes that "red tails" identified the aircraft of the Tuskegee Airmen, but Red Tails is an article about a film. This is an example of Tendentious editing and a failure to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

And coming onto a WikiProject talk page to make WP:POINTY remarks at someone, after the move request has been closed and repeating the same "stick" line, whilst being the top contributor of an article you're aiming to defend represents a potential WP:COI. Might I recommend you keep this dispute in your own playground, before engaging in a battleground mentality with the IP, as is clearly becoming the case [1]. If you don't throw the stick, they won't have a friend to play with at all, per WP:DFTT. Ta-ta. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Except that Redtails is a different page. With the finding that the film is primary to the title "Red Tails", then the title "Redtails" comes up, and is a different but related issue. 70.49.124.157 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to move Lewis Powell (assassin) open

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion to move Lewis Powell (assassin) to Lewis Powell (conspirator) has been opened at Talk:Lewis Powell (assassin)#Requested move. He was part of the final event of the American Civil War, Lincoln's death, so technically this is within MILHIST's scope (and it's B-class). Normally I'd have just moved this myself, but given the high-profile US President he relates too, think this was best discussed first. Opinions welcome. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mentor intervention needed

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:༆ has strong views about names and the Vietnam war, and is involved in a POINTY campaign to change body text mentions of the PLAF/NFL to Viet Cong. They've been changing content over citations, and long standing consensus, while making invalid ENGVAR and COMMONNAME arguments. As I'm involved, I'd suggest that someone with the time have a cup-of-tea with ༆ and potentially involve them more deeply in the project while developing their editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

3rd battle of Ypres

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've put a lot more detail on this page (with emphasis on making it less Anglocentric) and some of the linked pages for individual operations. There's still much to do, particularly with the structure of the page and decisions abut what detail to retain on it and what to move to the linked pages. Is there anyone around who wouldn't mind having a look at the page and offering suggestions? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Anzac Mounted Division

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An application to move the name of the ANZAC Mounted Division to Anzac Mounted Division had been made. If anyone wishes to add their thoughts to the requested move of this article, closing arguments are now being made. --Rskp (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Laser and Qantas are still acronyms, but are no longer treated as such, so I have no problems with the move. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The attempt to move this article to Anzac Mounted Division on the basis of consensus twice gained on MilHist has failed. The AWM web site had been relied on.--Rskp (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Patrol boat Love

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Warsailors makes mention of a patrol vessel named Love rescuing survivors from SS Janna close to the Irish coast. There was no HMS Love, nor was it an Irish ship. Anyone got any ideas? Was it possibly a naval trawler? Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Miramar gives two hits for the name Love. A Belize cargo ship launched as Nico P.W. in 1961 (gained the name in 1998 and was scrapped in 2006) and a Thai cargo ship launched as Miryam in 1965 (named Love in 1982, renamed the next year, scrapped in 2002). Manxruler (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope, neither of those. I should have said it was during WWII. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Evolution of Pakistan Eastern Command plan

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone take a look at this article? I tagged it for balance, as it uses only Pakistani sources, leaving out the other two parties directly involved out - India and Bangladesh, and not using any sources from un-involved/international sources. Naturally the article reflects the bias of one of the warring sides. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Leon Panetta as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, as a WikiProject that relates to this article, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Attention all British Milhisters!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are you interested in a programme of military history outreach activities centered round the Centenary of World War I? Wikimedia UK is starting to develop just such a programme with a range of interested partners. If you're interested in joining in, discussing ideas, or just expressing an interest, please sign up here! The Land (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

German formations

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military_history/Archive 106#German formations,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military history/Archive 107#Single country-military ?, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military history/Archive 107#A question regarding categorisation

I came here because of an edit to the Battle of Berlin which altered a link from German Second Army to 2nd Army (Wehrmacht) that was done because of a move with the comment: 14:16, 13 January 2012‎ Hamish59 (moved 2nd Army (Germany) to 2nd Army (Wehrmacht): German 2nd Army in WW2 was distinct to that of WW1.)

I understand why Germans for political reasons wish to keep a cut-off point between former German formation and those of the Bundeswehr, and because many English language sources also go along with that split, I can understand why it may be desirable to have two articles for post 1945 and pre-1945. Years ago I knew a young junior German officer who was court-martialled for writing about such an historical linkage between his regiment and earlier incarnations of one from the same geographic location.

What I have never understood is why editors of Wikipedia who would never agree to placing an an article Democratic United States for the country involved in the World War II conflict think it OK to put Nazi Germany instead of "Germany" for their enemy. This type of POV is one pushed by the current German state to distance themselves from the actions of the German state from 1933 to 1945 while still claiming legally that there was no debellation at the end of World War II (it seems like tying to have their cake and eat it).

So while I understand why it is convenient to 2nd army (Bundeswehr) for such a formation if it exists as the Germans do not claim that any of the current Bundeswehr unit has any link to the past. That is not true for units that existed up until the end of World War II, where like other military forces there is encouragement for a unit to have a military tradition based on similar numbered units in the past. Therefore I do not think that the split of 2nd Army (Germany) into 2nd Army (German Empire) and 2nd Army (Wehrmacht) is desirable any more than it would be for Second Army (United Kingdom) to be broken into Second Army (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and Second Army (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (which was a change of nation state that took place interbellum as well).

If one wants to argue that there really was a big change in the state that governed Germany, then that is not a cast iron reason to separate out the articles, for example the Indian Army does not do this for its units, instead it treats the history of units that existed pre-1947 as part of the history of the current units (Indian Army historyBall of Fire Division both those are government documents ( Remembering 'Ball of Fire' it is the 5th Division's insignia like the Big Red One )).

So anyway I think that the split of these German Army articles into two is a mistake and is not justified in either military history, or political necessity. There may come a day when the articles are big enough to warrant an overview articles and more detailed sub articles but such a content fork should not be done for other reasons. -- PBS (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the other militaries you mention, units of the modern-day German Army do not claim lineage from pre-1945 units of the same name. As such, it's appropriate to use different names for the units, as they are in fact different. I think that I agree with your point about the pre-1945 units though. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Key question is whether the Wehrmacht units in the 30s consiously traced their history from German Imperial units. Did they? Can anyone help here? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
See the discussion on "German Field Armies of WWI & WWII" above. I think the point made was that while smaller units may have traced their lineage back to Weimar and Imperial times, Armies did not.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@PBS: I only read until you wrote the thing with the german officer and the court-martial. There is no court-martial in the Federal Republic of Germany, only Truppendienstgerichte, which are federal courts. And second I dont see any reason for a conviction of the officer for research the linkage between pre-1945 and post-1945 units because such research is explicitly wished in Germany. Please explain this or present some sources for your statements. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea which court he was up in front of, it was of little interest to me at the time and I don't remember the details. It is of little relevance to this conversation, other than my own personal experience of the German authorities are twitchy over something which other countries encourage. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It is of extreme relevance for this conversation because this challenges the free democratic basic order in Germany. The only non-free law in Germany is Volksverhetzung and that would only have been used if this officer would have claimed that a german unit which has murdered civilians (especially Jews) in the war has not murdered them and that it was a lie, this means if he would have claimed the opposite of what he said. You used this as an example that we cant trust the german sheme of name giving so it is important when your example is possibly wrong. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As a user from the German WP, I would like to clarify certain points in this discussion:

  • armies (or army headquarters, if you prefer) were (in Germany) created only in times of war (or in similar circumstances),
  • there is absolutely no lineage between these armies (neither for corps nor divisions) of WWI and WWII,
  • in effect, we are talking about completely distinct entities in all cases.

I therefore highly commend the effort to sort these things out and hope this approach will be applied to the other armies as well. Sincerely, --Prüm (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Many military units are created and disbanded, (that was the whole point of seniority in the British Army for regiments the higher the number the sooner disbanded at the end of a war). As for armies are they in principle any different from other military units? The logic of different articles for every creation would lead to half a dozen articles on Army Group A and Army Group Centre. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I can only tell you what we did, which is describe all Army Groups of a given name in sequence in one article (which is by no means a perfect solution, but a workable one). What you cannot do, imho, is describe imperial army units and Wehrmacht units in one and the same article, because, as I said armies are created only for a war and cease to exist afterwards. The corps and divisions were formed along different lines too, btw. No comparison to British regiments, which keep their colours, recruitment districts etc. --Prüm (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
At which period are you referring to with British regiments? Armies can also exist in peace time and may not be in existence for all of a war, it depends. As I said above the logic here seems similar to that of arguing that British armies should be listed under different dabs depending on the state under which the fought eg instead of Second Army (United Kingdom) having two articles: one for "Second Army(UKGBI)" and one for "Second Army (UKGBNI)". Why should German army articles be treated any differently from other countries' articles. For example France likes its republics it has had three in the last century (see Fourth French Republic) should the article First Army (France) be cut up by states or wars or both? If not what makes the German example different? -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, the imperial army ceased to exist after WWI when the Reichswehr was formed. And this goes from regiment up to army group. Regimental traditions were taken over by Reichswehr batallions, for example. Corps didn't exist at all and there were only 7+3 divisions, none of which had anything to do with previous divisions. There also were numbered German armies before in the wars of unification and we have individual articles for them (let's say, some of them) as well. --Prüm (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The army of the Fourth Republic of France ceased to exist when the Fifth Republic came into existence, but the army of France continued to exist, in the same way the army of Germany continued to exist in the interbellum. I do not see the difference between the two. -- PBS (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, you lost me there. I see absolutely no similarity between the two. If you do, let me humbly suggest you do some more research on the topic. --Prüm (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Even if the higher echelon units did not carry the traditions of their First World War namesakes, that can noted with a single sentence in the article. It is not especially necessary to break the material into two articles. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Task forces (periods and conflicts)

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I would like to start a discussion since the "Task forces (periods and conflicts)" end with the "Cold War" in 1989. Of course there has been many conflicts since 1989 to the present (2012). Is there a possibility to add another period to cover 1989-2012? Adamdaley (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Perhaps "Post-Cold War" or something similar? Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Or "Modern era" with the understanding that it will almost certainly have to renamed at some point... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed's "Modern era" would work for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Would people please stop misusing the word 'Modern'? First-year history classes will tell you that for historians, Modern begins in about 1500, with variations depending on the specialist. Poost cold war is a much better title, or maybe post-1991. But Adamdaley, have you considered that these task forces do virtually nothing at the moment? All the talkpages redirect here, and there is only a list of resources. What purpose would this extra page serve? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I meant 'modern' in a non-historian sense, but what you say makes sense... also these are more for categorization, I think. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Could also title it "Conflict in the End of History". Seriously, I think "Post Cold War" would not be a bad title. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess it wouldn't serve any purpose other than WikiProject Military having no Category for the last 20 years for any conflicts, etc. So I guess we could put people who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and other regions, battles, etc, in the "No Category" section of our wonderful WikiProject template. Thought it might have filled a "void" in our WikiProject name where it states "Military History". Sure, we can put people who were active in the Military, etc until 1989. What do we put them in from 1989, when they are still serving their country. Adamdaley (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The Cold War article list 1991 as the approximate year which the cold war ended, with the collapse of the USSR, perhaps that is a better book end date for that task force? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Since the post-1989 period can not be easily labelled, and as there are already areas of Military History that do not fall into chronological categories (such as between Napoleonic and WWI, Amer. Civil War notwithstanding; "Middle Ages" of Asia, etc.), perhaps this contemporary period does not need a task force yet. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

German ranks in WW2, particularly Waffen SS ranks

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

G'day all, I just wanted to sound out experienced editors regarding the issue of anglicising German ranks, in particular Waffen SS general ranks. I have seen them anglicised, but it seems obtuse given that SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS was a rank generally equated with a British Brigadier or one-star, but if you literally translate Generalmajor it is Major General, equated with the British rank of the same name and therefore two-star, also often divisional command etc. I have been rendering this rank in a minimal translation style as SS-Brigadeführer and Generalmajor of Waffen-SS, but have had editors jump in and render it as SS-Brigadeführer and Brigadier General of the Waffen-SS. Seems tautological to me. Is there a consensus within the project on this? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that someone could hold one rank in the SS and another in the Waffen SS. Hence SS-Brigadeführer AND Generalmajor in the Waffen-SS. Remember the SS was a political organization. While members of the Waffen SS would claim it was more of a fighting force. I know that last bit is open to debate. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
My general inclination is to translate German terms when there's a direct translation to English available. This is the approach Richard J. Evans used in his widely acclaimed series of books on Nazi Germany (on the grounds that using the German version in such instances is unnecessary and confusing and can also add an unwarranted mystique to unglamorous things). It's also in line with my reading of WP:ENGLISH and WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. I'm not sure whether there's a convention which is generally used by historians though. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Whereas there is clear equivalence and commonality between Wehrmacht ranks and those of other armies, the SS were rather in a league of their own and I don't think their ranks can usefully be translated. Richard Evans seems to have a semi-political motive for translating the names (glamorising the SS) but the same logic would see us dropping the word Führer when referring to Hitler and calling him Leader or President. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Nick-D. Translate them. Very few German military terms are so unique in their meaning as to require rendering in the original language. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
According to Walther-Peer Fellgiebel (see page 31 in the German edition) the general ranks for the Waffen-SS came in inseparable pairs. They were "SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS" and was equal in rank to a "Generalmajor" in the Heer or Luftwaffe and equal to a "Konteradmiral" in the Kriegsmarine. The next higher rank was "SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS" and was equal in rank to a "Generalleutnant" in the Heer or Luftwaffe and equal to a "Vizeadmiral" in the Kriegsmarine. Further up the career-ladder was the "SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS" and was equal in rank to a "General der Infanterie", "General der Artillerie", etc. in the Heer or "General der Flieger", etc. in the Luftwaffe and equal to a "Admiral" in the Kriegsmarine. The top of the ladder was the "SS-Oberstgruppenführer und Generaloberst der Waffen-SS" and was equal in rank to a "Generaloberst" in the Heer or Luftwaffe and equal to a "Generaldmiral" in the Kriegsmarine. There was no equivalent rank to "Generalfeldmarschall" or "Großadmiral" in the Waffen-SS. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for your perspective. My understanding of the pairing of Waffen SS general ranks corresponds with MisterBee1966's observations. Given that translating the actual ranks is unhelpful (ie Generalmajor to what is effectively Brigadier or one star etc), I don't propose to translate the actual ranks themselves. However, given this is English Wikipedia, translation of the definite article, preposition and conjunction seems appropriate and encyclopedic. Therefore, I propose to continue rendering these ranks as (for example) SS-Brigadeführer and Generalmajor of the Waffen-SS. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
To add to the above, I've tended to write out the ranks in full in German and link the first instance to an appropriate article. There's an argument to be made for translating them, but as MrB says this can't be done consistently and to my mind runs a risk of WP:OR. I suppose if it's necessary a brief explanatory sentence or footnote could be added as well as the link. EyeSerenetalk 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A class reviews

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

One of the differences between an A class article and a featured article is the matter of images. An A class article "contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate" whereas a featured articles "has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. (emphasis mine) This has been interpreted over time to mean an image review is conducted of featured article candidates. Should an image review be required of A class articles as well? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say not, because an editor may choose to replace a particular image during the period between an ACR and FAC, thus rendering an image review done during an ACR useless. Having said that, I think the editor should be experienced and well-versed enough to be able to include appropriately-tagged images in their articles. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should be checking images for appropriate licences in all reviews. Whether an article is at A-level or FA-level (or GA, B or whatever, for that matter) the potential issue of copyright infringement or inappropriate tagging is still there. I have to admit I thought we always checked images in reviews, particularly A-Class, as a matter of course -- I always give them a once-over. I don't think any of us in MilHist are necessarily expert at image licensing (though Nikki's background at FAC/FAR may qualify her) but we should be able to spot clear cases of infringement or less-than-appropriate tags, and so say when we do.
To take this the next step, from discussions at FAC it sounds like it would be useful for us here not simply to make image checks (and spotchecks of sources) a regular part of our ACR process (I think we should be doing that anyway, even if we're not quite as rigorous as they are at FAC) but also to link to those ACR reviews/checks when we nom an article at FAC, so the delegates there can see them and determine what more is needed in those areas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Given that adherence to the various policies on images is part of the good article criteria, they should also be checked as part of A class reviews. Like Ian, I normally check the status of any images which don't obviously seem to be PD. I'm not an expert on this like Nikki is though. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but it's true that nowhere in WP:MH/A do we explicitly or implicitly mention copyright compliance. I guess most of us would take it for granted anyway, but might it be worth adding something to that effect? EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Aye-aye, Eye. I'm always wary of instruction creep but if we don't explicitly mention image copyright in the ACR instructions then we should. Really, an ACR should at minimum pass all the GA criteria for structure, prose, style and supporting materials, plus more in the way of reliably referenced content. As an aside, this question today made me think of drafting an op-ed for the Bugle that explores the differences between each of the classes in terms of both writing and reviewing. If anyone thinks it's a good idea I might start something and invite others to critique... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:WIAGA mentions copyright in regards to both prose and images. I agree that A-Class articles should de facto meet GA standards but since our current slightly odd system allows an article to hold either GA, or A, or both simultaneously, I think it might be as well to mention full compliance with WP:COPY (and perhaps by extension WP:PLAGIARISM?)
Your article idea sounds great - look forward to reading it :) EyeSerenetalk 12:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm hopelessly under-informed, but I would assume that the difference between A and FA is merely one of degree, and not scope, of requirements. That is, an A-class should have every requirement of WP:WIAFA checked for glaring deficiencies, but not for full compliance with the standards of WIAFA. One contrast between A and GA, then, is that the scope of the requirements of GA is more narrow... By way of example, ages and ages ago I used to find WP:COPYVIO in MILHIST FACs. I have mentioned that two or three times on this forum over the past couple years, so please forgive me again if I sound like a broken record that only plays once per year or so. :-) Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed you have, and I'd hope we've addressed those issues as far as we can. I know many A-Class reviewers will consciously spot check for that sort of thing but it never hurts to be reminded and frankly the more eyes looking for it the better :) In my view core content policies (NPOV, verifiability, copyright etc) are things that should really be regarded as non-negotiable in any article no matter what standard. I think comparing GAN to ACR is slightly more than a matter of scope, as GA reviewers couldn't and shouldn't be expected to be able to provide the same level of subject expertise that we might hope to see at ACR, but I'd certainly expect our ACR process not to exclude anything covered at GAN. EyeSerenetalk 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Maginot Line Môle fortifications

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There are a lot of categories for post-WW II môle fortifications. These were Maginot Line ouvrages re-purposed to help repel a Warsaw Pact invasion. The problem is that these categories are hardly attached to anything; it took me a considerable bit of searching to figure out what they were talking about. I think something needs to be done here, but I'm not sure what.

Right now the main Maginot Line article doesn't mention these at all. Articles on the fortified sectors generally do have a section on the corresponding môle (e.g. Fortified Sector of Rohrbach has a section on the Môle de Bitche, which in turn has Category:Môle de Bitche). There is no overall article, nor is there a main article on any môle. Some thoughts on this:

  • There needs to be some main article, it seems to me, or at least a subsection within Maginot Line.
  • If the categories are to remain, they need some main article to refer back to. At the moment that would be the subsection of the appropriate fortified sector article.
  • I think there is something to be said for listifying the categories within the fortified sector articles, or if a new main article is constructed, making one union list there.

Any other ideas? We could take this to talk:Maginot Line if it proves to be an extended discussion. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe, thanks for your note. Would you mind listing the categories in question? I had a look around but couldn't find anything but Category:Cold War fortifications, which at the moment really should be renamed Category:French Cold War fortifications. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Cold War Fortifications as a category could also contain articles about Swedish postwar coastal defense batteries, fortified zones south of the 38th Parallel, nuclear war bunkers in Europe, etc. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Buckshot, those six subcategories of Category:Cold War fortifications are, as far as I know, the ones in question. The "as far as I know" is indeed part of the problem, as this supercategory is the only thing that ties them all together. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone - It would be great to get some more eyes on the merge discussion at Talk:Iowa class battleship#Merger proposal. The proposed merge (of the USS Illinois and USS Kentucky into the main Iowa class article) could use some more opinions. Also, the USS Illinois (BB-65) article (a featured article) has a lot of cleanup tags on it, and so is in danger of being taken to WP:FAR unless cleanup work is completed, or unless it is merged into the main Iowa class article. Hope to see you over there, Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nazi SS

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Had to chuckle a bit at this category. Nazi SS, as opposed to the non-Nazi SS? W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There are other objects or organisations with the initials SS could be applied to, for example SS Cars Ltd - which later became Jaguar Cars.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand the distinction; it just looks absurd when one sees it. I'd also argue that the initials "SS" tend to immediately evoke the image of the Nazi Party auxiliary. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
To me, they'll always mean Super Sport. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not sure why the category isn't located at Category:Schutzstaffel to match the location of the article itself. I don't think there's a real need to abbreviate (and thereby make ambiguous) the term in the category title if the full name is considered well-known enough to use as the article title. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Military history will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in the military. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Voting for military historian of the year for 2011 now open!

Latest comment: 12 years ago151 comments31 people in discussion
Military historian   of the year 2011

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. All editors are welcome to vote, and you may vote in favour of as many of the candidates as you wish. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 28 January.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

The voting has now closed. Congratulations go AustralianRupert, who is the 2011 Military Historian of the Year, and wins the coveted Gold Wiki. The second and third places go to Ian Rose and Nick-D, who receive the Silver and Bronze Wikis. Well done all those that have been nominated and thak you every one who has participated,  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

  1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support Ma®©usBritish [chat] 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support Buistr (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. EyeSerenetalk 11:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support --MOLEY (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support Buistr (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support — Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support --MOLEY (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support --Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) (posthumous) I'd like to nominate Bahamut0013. Not because of some need to recognize a passed Wikipedian, but honestly because my participation in this project was strongly enhanced by this member. He was always very helpful, knowledgable, and dedicated to WP:MILHIST. His contributions have greatly improved Wikipedia and had his unfortunate passing not happened, he could easily have been a contender against these other well suited candidates.--v/r - TP 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC) tweaked - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support DCItalk 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support --v/r - TP 01:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support --Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. As nominator --MOLEY (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. PMG (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. As nom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support — Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  9. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support --Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support DCItalk 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. EyeSerenetalk 11:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. There are some great articles here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support — Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  10. PMG (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Ma®©usBritish [chat] 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support Buistr (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. EyeSerenetalk 11:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Hard to get over the work that has gone into Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battleships of Germany and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battlecruisers of Germany. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. PMG (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Boneyard90 (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support DCItalk 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. PMG (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:22, 21 January 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.

Comments and discussion

  • I could have voted for all nominees, but restricted myself to five votes. Those I did not vote for don't take it as a snub. You are all worthy. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I think to pick people would to miss the point - I'd prefer to reward individual achievement with my personal thanks when I cross paths with another editor. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think we all try to do that. This is just one more way to honor those who have done a lot in the field of military history – it's supposed to be an honor to have been nominated, much less get first, second, or third. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand, my abstention was not to make a point, but just to put it on the record that I'd noticed and wasn't deliberately overlooking the field, or something else. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Like Jim, I've gone for a deliberately stingy number of votes; I'd happily vote for you all. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Have supported 2 nominees, looking to support 3 tops, but it's a tough choice. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 19:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Query: What happens in the case of a tie in any of the places.. do you present it as joint-winners or is there a deciding vote process? Ma®©usBritish [chat] 00:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd wondered something similar myself, though having "too many" excellent candidates is a good predicament to be in! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The usual procedure for tied votes everywhere on Wikipedia seems to be to declare joint winners, and I imagine that's what would be done here. User:Roger Davies has volunteered to close the voting and hand out the awards though. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC
          • Sharing the award is the easy way out and dilutes its value. Would it not be more appropriate to have a second round of votes to decide the winner between the tied candidates? Farawayman (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
            • That could complicate matters. For example, if three people came joint-first, technically they should be taking 1st/2nd/3rd. A revote would simply take more time and effort and could cause another draw. What if there are 2 firsts, 4 seconds, and 3 thirds, for example? Do we revote the top 2 for 1st/2nd and the revote 4 for 3rd, and everyone else runner up? Just gets far too messy and tactical voting can result which causes animosity. Better diluted, it's the honour that counts, not fighting over the title itself. Maybe in future years we should adopt a Eurovision-style system, in which every voter can award 5-points to their fav, 3-points to second fav and 1-point to a third fav, no more-no less. We tot up the points at the end and have a better chance of clear-cut positions. Something like that.. we could worry about the details later, if members think shared titles have less impact. Personally, I don't.. it's all just a bit of fun, in the end. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
            • It's worth noting that there is precedent for a tie in this vote; the 2008 awards saw a tie for third place between TomStar81 and Skinny87, and the end result in that instance was that both editors shared the award. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Heh, interesting how we're self-imposing vote limits here, isn't it? I feel the same way a bit and I think I've done that in previous years. Well, I can't fail to support the five I nominated -- after that we'll see... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it's a nice gesture. I find that MilHist is a very modest WikiProject, members here are very professional and discreet, despite covering a vast and involved topic with very high standards to maintain, and a lot of academic scrutiny to contend with. I'm sure there are "lesser" WikiProjects would sooner run their own flag up a pole than adopt the same principles we have here. T'is a good team, with a good "aura" despite that we all work in different areas of the project. The fact that we're each choosing to limit our votes and be discriminate, rather than patronising and vote for everyone, is a positive attribute, imo. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 02:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I could easily have supported all the candidates. I only supported five, but it was tough! It's great to see such a good candidate pool—it's a good indicator of the health and strength of the project overall. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As usual every nominee is a fine editor and worthy of recognition for their amazing work. Others have already said it, but it does make it very difficult to narrow down the field. This year I've not voted for any project regulars—you all know how good you are!—but confined my votes to those I believe to have been outstanding newcomers in whatever area they've chosen to work in. Congratulations to everyone nominated and thank you for making Milhist a great place to be. EyeSerenetalk 11:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As with several others I also found it hard to choose just a couple but I mostly restricted mine to the editors I have worked with most frequently over the last year or so. --Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Apologies all for missing the votes, there are a lot of people who would have got an extra tick from me. Ranger Steve Talk 15:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Restricting Forts category to Artillery forts

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'd like to suggest we restrict the 'Forts in' category tree to artillery forts, as there are separate trees for 'Hill Forts' and 'Roman Forts', and there is a clear difference in type. This would mean that Forts in Cumbria would go, but most other examples already follow this principle and would be unchanged. Vicarage (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Various Forts in parts of Yorkshire categories now empty, but I'm not confident enough to delete them. Vicarage (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove Category Napoleonic Forts in Dover

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The category only has 2 items, Dover Castle and the Western Heights, better to move things to the higher category Napoleonic Forts in England, which isn't overcrowded. Vicarage (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Cateegory refs removed, I'm not confident enough to remove the empty category. Vicarage (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:CFD#C1 once the cat. has been empty for four days. Just flag it.. be bold, not confident. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 10:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling Battle of the Bulge experts

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Battle of the Bulge -- the battle box strength quotes could use some work. I've left a comment on the article's talk page with a couple of examples. My suggestion is that rather than trying to present a total for the entire battle, quoting for a particular day, like 16 December 1944, might work better. I am also skeptical of some of the data there (see the talk page comment). Rather than Lone Ranger an effort to provide better data, I think because of the importance of this article that a collaborative effort would be a better approach. I can work up AFV quotes for 16 December 1944 and provide some information on additional vehicles sent into the battle although my information on the latter is likely incomplete. Anyone interested in working on this? Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Add new category Forts on the Thames

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This would have some 11 members, and while overlapping with the Kent, Essex and Medway categories, is significant as the forts were built to address the common goal of defending the river. Vicarage (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why Slough Fort Garrison Point Fort and New Tavern Fort don't appear on the map though. Vicarage (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you've done switching the external links Vicarage. With reference to some of the other changes you've made and queries you've posed here, it strikes me that it might be worth considering the option of reformatting our lists of Palmerston Forts. At present they're largely listed on a county basis, but as with the Thames example, they weren't built on such a basis. The Needles Passage was defended by a dozenish forts, but one of those is in Hampshire (the modifications Hurst), so isn't grouped with the rest on the Isle of Wight. Given that authors like Hogg group the forts by the stretch of water they defended, perhaps we could do the same instead of county lists - from memory, that's also how the original Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom proposes them. Ranger Steve Talk 15:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd spread the scope to forts generally. I wouldn't remove the county classification, but I'd add "Defences of" categories, with the different name so we had "Defences of Portsmouth" to avoid clashing with "Forts of Portsmouth". It would be a biggie, but the big picture is important. I find the categories most useful for their associated maps to visualise the problem. Plymouth and Harwich are obvious candidates too to join Devon/Cornwall and Suffolk/Essex. You might want to add castles back in, like Southsea. Vicarage (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following military history-related categories are up for discussion:

Any and all comments will be welcome. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Struck 2 off; closed. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 22:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Striking 10. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 06:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Short articles?

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

I've written (with a bit of Wikihelp) British Alpine Hannibal Expedition a while back, and it has recently passed GA review. I think it is fairly complete, but it still is rather short. Is it a suitable candidate for A-class review? Formally, I think it meets all criteria except, arguable, A3. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends a bit on the literature I guess. I thought the article was little short on the "so what" factor: what happened next, what did this event influence, etc. But... that might be because there isn't much to say there, in which case it would cover the topic fairly completely. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I had much the same reaction. What happened to the elephant afterward? Has anyone else undertaken similar sorts of research (on this or similar expeditions)? Magic♪piano 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I've ordered Hoyte's book ("Trunk road") from AbeBooks to see if I can find more on the context and aftermath. It's cheap, and apparently funny. But it's your fault that I broke my book-buying moratorium. Please send more shelving and a larger flat via email. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
:) A generic problem to which many a Wiki MilHist contributor can relate! Well said! Farawayman (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Seen positively, our book collections act as valuable additional insulation to our properties during the winter months of the northern hemisphere, however. Or so I keep telling my partner! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm living in Karlsruhe, one of the two warmest cities in Germany. You're not getting out of this that easily ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I use books in lieu of wallpaper. Strictly for the decorative value, mind you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Having thought about the above comments - perhaps we can assist one another in not filling those limited shelving spaces with junk! Firstly, I guess this comment does not belong here - because I am now deviating from the accompanying header to this section, but I think we have the attention of some serious book collectors / owners here. And secondly: I have not stopped buying, but I have tried to stop buying merely for the sake of trying to own every hard-cover book on the military history periods / campaigns which I am interested in. I have thought about selling some, but cant bring it over my heart to part with some books - even though I consider them to not really contain anything of material historical value. I have to target my buying - to the very best books... but I am not always certain which are the de facto reference works on these campaigns or periods? I think there is a need for a "Top 50" reference works per MilkHist subject or era - maybe it exists somewhere in the nooks and cranny's of Wikipedia, but I have yet to find those reference pages. I will gladly list my top recommendations in the appropriate place. Any interest? Farawayman (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. I'm always looking out for the best books on certain topics (where "best" means "brilliant prose, and as accurate as one can expect for the time they were written at"). Of course we run a certain risk of increasing systemic bias if we all read the same books ;-). As for a good place: Maybe the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities is less prone to inbreeding than this page? Is there a good place to archive the results--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
A common problem, indeed. :D Kitchen & bedroom can be small (& are ;p), but I need floor space for my books. :D And how often have I had to refuse a place because I couldn't get it all in, or pay the rent for someplace bigger? :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
You have weird rooms in your flat. I currently have the sleeping library, the living library, the cooking library and the hygiene library (the latter mostly has journals, not books). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"You have weird rooms" I also have more than half my books in a storage locker because I can't afford double the rent. :( ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleting articles with a #redirect

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

User:Mangoe has used a #redirect to delete three articles on the USAF Texas Towers without merging the information into the article pointed for redirecting. I'm unsure of this, as isn't there an established procedure (RFD) to delete articles? None of the information in the articles was incorporated, and before I revert these actions I wanted to bring this up for discussion here, Bwmoll3 (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, from the contrib history I suspect you're referring to the redirects Mangoe added to Texas Tower 1, Texas Tower 2, Texas Tower 3, Texas Tower 4, and Texas Tower 5, all of which now go to Texas Towers. The redirects make sense to me; I don't see why we'd need six articles on now-defunct radar stations two of which were never even constructed. The original content of the articles are not deleted (still there in the history). To avoid unnecessarily upsetting people it might have been better to have posted notices of the intention to redirect on the various article talk pages, and if there were any objections gone through a formal merge proposal dicussion, but other than that I can't see any significant issue with Mangoe's actions. EyeSerenetalk 08:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This merger was proposed here when the category which collected them all together was discussed. I'm unclear on what information you are claiming was lost, except for the depth of each of the three constructed towers, where it seemed to me that the crucial information was that Tower 4 stood in twice the depth of either of the others. The location, the staffing units, the dates are all there. I was planning to go after the images which were set aside, but I hadn't gotten to that when it came time to go to bed. In any case, the histories are all there if there is anything else which you would like to take from them and incorporate in the merged article. I'm sorry this came across as a bit of a surprise but (a) it didn't seem necessary to have the same discussion twice, and (b) I guess I expected that anyone watching the five subsidiary articles would have been watching the main article and the category too. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies, I was unaware of that discussion. I've struck part of my above comment accordingly. Bwmoll3, there doesn't seem to be a valid reason for you to revert as far as I can see. EyeSerenetalk 11:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this seems pretty reasonable and a good move. I also wish that redirecing would stop being described as "deletion". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
If I was to make an edit to this page and remove your comment, then you would probably quite rightly complain that I shoudl not delete other peoples comments. Deletion of information is distinct from deletion of an article page. If a redirect is made without moving the information onto the target page then information has been deleted. If the information has been moved then it has been merged. -- PBS (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Except refactoring other peoples' talk-page comments is against policy, and that is an apples-and-oranges comparison. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It was the different way in which the word delete is used to describe an action not the policy behind it that I was highlighting, so I do not think it is an apples-and-oranges comparison. -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, first I must apologize for raising this to this discussion board. The fact is that the merge of the seperate Texas Towers articles is probably a good thing, however I was questioning the method in which it was done, not the validity of the actual actions.

I believed that a discussion on merging was posted on the page to be merged (merge proposal dicussion). I was unaware of the discussion made on the Categories for discussion page, which is not on my watchlist, and which these actions were briefly discussed.

Now why I raised this issue was because when I saw the articles were "merged", which is what the edit to the article stated, I looked over on the Texas Towers article, but I did not see any "merged" data; i.e., it appeared that the merging was stated but the #redirect was used essentially to blank the page.

Now, with regards to the statement that "The original content of the articles are not deleted (still there in the history).", this is true. However, the backlinks to the seperate articles were removed from the Texas Towers article, which means that, although true, the articles are not really visible to the vast majority of users, who would know how to access the previous versions of the article. So again, in essense the #redirect statement was used to blank the page to the vast majority of readers interested in the subjects and automatically direct them to the Texas Towers article, unaware of the previous separate articles.

Also I see the phrase, "...the histories are all there if there is anything else which you would like to take from them and incorporate in the merged article...." I believe the definition of Merging is to copy the pertinent data from the old article into the new one First, before #redirecting it? Or am I incorrect?

Anyway, never mind, and I'll remember this technique when I see some articles in the future which should be merged into another; I'll make a request on the "Categories for Discussion" page, rather than on the page itself; and just #redierct the page, planning sometime in the future to actually do the merging.

Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If articles are going to be merged and a discussion is happening somewhere other than on the articles' talk pages, then notification of a discussion should be placed on the article's talk pages at the very least. It is not reasonable to say "This merger was proposed here" as fettling categories is a specialised interest and I doubt if most editors who watch a page also watch all the categories to which they are linked and even fewer watch Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Further in this case there was an objection in the discussion to the idea of merging, and only one voice was raised positively in favour the the merge, but only after the merge had started "Comment I am at this time working on a merge of the articles...". I think that if Bwmoll3 was to revert the bold merge then given the lack of consensus building that took place, this would fall under Bold Revert Discuss (and the guidance at WP:RM that says "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not required ...) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article." (just substitute in "merge" for move" and this seems to me reasonable guidance for contested merges) This was bought in to reduce unnecessary moving to stop people trying gain an advantage by moving a page before discussing it by arguing there was no consensus to move back to the status quo ante -- PBS (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
My last comments were edited in before Bwmoll3's last edit and caused a clash, so I had not read Bwmoll3's last comment. To comment on that "I'll make a request on the "Categories for Discussion" page, rather than on the page itself" to do so would be WP:POINTY and WP:DISRUPTIVE. -- PBS (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I made that last comment in a sarcastic tone, my apologies. However, that is what appears to be the case here, and I saw no objection to the procedure of using a #redirect to blank a page without actually merging the information after an obscure, brief, discussion in the previous comments (which I disagree with). Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the Australian Army

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have proposed a major restructure of the long-standing (since 2005) Structure of the Australian Army article. Comments on this are welcome at: Talk:Structure of the Australian Army#Proposed new structure for this article. Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The featured article candidacy for List of Ohio class submarines is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured lists; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese prisoner of war camps

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Moved from WT:MHCOORD by Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I came on your page while browsing 'Japanese prisoner of war camps' and wanted to mention that the camp at Ambon in the Philipines (I think) was not mentioned. It is hard to forget it as it had a death rate of 77%, it was very brutal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mummywolf09 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, if you have my first comment of a few minutes ago, I think you have made a major error in referring to the region by the name the Japanese used during their occupation - the Co-prosperity Region. This is a name that can only have the worst associations for those who lived in the area during the japanese occupation.and remember it still. At least the Japanese in Australia got fed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mummywolf09 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there.

I was browsing japanese prisoner of war camps and came upon the list you have under internment camps, and noticed that you did not have Ambon, which as an Australian I could not forget, as it had a 77% death rate. Congrats on the article, shocking as the camps were, it is shocking also to see the number of camps in Japan, perhaps helping to explain the brutality of the guards in S>E> Asia.

In one of your articles you refer to the "Asian Co-prosperity Region" or something similar. To the people in the regions so occupied, such a reference would be most offensive and frightening - the Japanese are not forgotten and this particular term would bring up the worst possible memories. I think in bending over backwards not to be anti-Japanese you have lighted on the term most associated with the slavery, degradation and murder of civilians and prisoners of war that you could — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mummywolf09 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Which articles are you discussing here? Ambon was in the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) by the way. Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You are right, Ambon is in Indonesia. There were a number of camps on the island alol referred to by that name which is the name of the island and of the main town there. The Co-prosperity reference was in the Japanese War Crimes article. unsigned comment added by Mummywolf09 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
With regards to the "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", as I believe the full name was, I direct you to WP:NOTCENSORED. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bushranger, I think the term that you are defending would be offensive within the wiki guidelines; I had a look at NOTCENSORED. It is the name used by the then government which has been convicted of warcrimes; it is not associated with the current japanese government. Not to use it is not anti=japanese but is sensitive to the sufferings of those in the then occupied territories. unsigned comment added by Mummywolf09 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Admittedly it's not really a common name though, and it doesn't appear to be used in the image that it's in the caption for (at List of Japanese-run internment camps during World War II). Perhaps 'Japanese occupied territory' might be better? From what I can work out the Co-Prosperity Sphere was an unfulfilled concept (in that they wanted more land than they got). Just a thought. Ranger Steve Talk 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ranger Steve, "japanese occupied territories" would be a much more acceptable term, given the fear and distress associated with the other phrase. It is a phrase associated with the then japanese rulers, and has associations like the swastika etc. in Europe. Areas in Europe that were occupied were not referred to as the "Third Reich" but as "occupied France" or whatever. One would hope that the current govt of Japan would want to dissassociate themselves from the names and symbols related to the wartime regime. unsigned comment added by Mummywolf09 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 February 

2012 (UTC)

Plus, Ranger Steve ! They (the J) had from Japan to New Guinea and from Burma to the Philipines (inc.), and a lot of China in territory, it was a big big war, and the Co-prosperity Sphere was the term used always with reference to the policies in the occupied regions. It is associated absolutely with that wartime regime, and not to my knowledge with any current Japanese govt. To use it now(by a Japanese govt) could only be a deliberate reference to those past events, and therefore a threat. I dont think they would do it ...I am in Aust. and the size of the war is well known. The war in China started in the early 1930s, it went a long time.

I have no reliable sources handy, but I have heard it (from the "friend of a friend" kind of thing) that the CPS is mentioned occasionally, if not officially - been awhile since I heard about it though. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, that is creepy. If the Germans started referring to parts of Europe as being in the Fourth Reich... I think I have seen one reference to a CS recently, where I dont remember, but I assumed it must be a really bad mistake on someone's part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mummywolf09 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Plus did you know that the civilian/prisoner death toll of the japanese was 30,000,000  ? Higher than the toll in Europe (25 mill), and a much lower survival rate of prisoners. Over 20mill. Chinese,Mummywolf09 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Bryan

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In case no one knew about this, this probably falls under the ACW task force, since this deals with the Battle of and Battlefield of Gettysburg. Since no one from the ACW task force has commented on this, please do so. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is now closed. No one from the ACW task force bothered to comment on this at all. Posting this alert was apparently a waste of time. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No one even cares that this was posted in first place, do they? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No, IP 76. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 04:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I looked at it when you posted the link, but I didn't see a reason to vote or comment on it. The article has, at most, a tenuous connection to the ACW and if the AfD decided to keep it because of some unique shingles on the house, I couldn't care less. If anything, I'd recommend removing the WPMILHIST template from the article. Mojoworker (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Joan Pujol Garcia - review/assess, please?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's been 8 days since I put this up for assessment. Could someone at least review it? Thanks! Allens (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)   Done Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Arkansas in the American Civil War

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed that the units articles were included in this category but I can't find on the page the coding which adds these articles to the category. Could someone help me with this? Wild Wolf (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's included within the {{Arkansas in the Civil War}} footer bar. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 16:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Would removing the <includeonly> tags fix this? Wild Wolf (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No. "includeonly" means the {{Arkansas in the Civil War}} only lists the article it appears on, and not itself, in the category when it is transcluded. i.e. {{Arkansas in the Civil War}} is not listed in Category:Arkansas in the American Civil War. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 16:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
That's what I meant by the question (sorry I wasn't clear on that). I wanted to know if removing the tags would mean that the template would appear in the category but not the articles in is included in (such as the units articles). Wild Wolf (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Your best bet would probably be to remove the category link from the footer template altogether, then manually place Category:Arkansas in the American Civil War in any articles that actually need it. Including it in the template has been a bit of a lazy move by someone in the past, I gather, to blanket cover all Ar-kan-saw related articles. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 16:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A little off topic but I personally never liked embedding categories like this in templates. It tends to make things more confusing. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the category link and it looks like it worked. All of the unit articles are gone from the Arkansas in the CW category. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You've left a stray </noinclude>, which will display as text. Needs removing or pairing. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 17:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You may want to check these articles...

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, over at WP:Videogames we've had a user User:Collingwood26 that has been deleting perfectly acceptable categories from articles. Going through their edit history I spotted that they've actually been pretty active in you area of interest. They've deleted flags and categories from articles - possibly valid, but I'm not an expert on your subject, so you may want to double check their edits. The user has been active since November 2011. Also ignore any edit summaries, the user uses summaries like "Spelling mistake" when they're actually deleting categories. - X201 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've drafted a new intro section for Ulster Defence Regiment. I'd welcome more reviews from the wider community: link Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel real progress has been made with what is difficult and controversial subject matter and it would be great if I could get 'uninvolved' editors so we can take this forward Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox castrum

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You may want to take a look at {{Infobox castrum}} with examples like Porolissum or Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. It was developed initially for WP:Dacia but should be usable in any Roman province, and not just for castra but other types of fortifications also settlements/cities etc. Looking forward for your feedback. Cheers! --Codrin.B (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks highly specialised and rather more than an overview of key information but I have little grasp of what's important to a scholar of Roman military bases. Something wrong with using Template:Infobox military structure, Template:Infobox_settlement Template:Infobox archaeological site? as required. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Names of militias

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I'm copy editing an MILHIST article in response to a GOCE request. In the article, I see inconsistency in the capitalisation of "North Carolina M/militia" and "C/colonial M/militia". I am familiar with WP:MILTERMS. My only question is whether these two terms are accepted proper noun phrases or not. The article is discussing events in the middle to late 18th century. Regards. --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Offhand I'd say the first should have the caps but the second not. In Google searches, the second comes up with caps but only apparently as article titles, not when used in the body of a sentence. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for taking the trouble. I'll follow that advice in Griffith Rutherford. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

NARA Images (American four star generals)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was wondering if there is anyone with a scanner willing to go the College Park branch of NARA and help out with this request. I can narrow the list down if someone is willing to help out here. Thanks so much in advance, – Connormah (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

President of the American Historical Association praises Wikipedia

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For those who haven't seen it, this story in the current edition of the Wikipedia Signpost describing a recent article on Wikipedia by the President of the American Historical Association is really interesting. His article is here and is well worth reading. Hopefully it does encourage more professional historians - including military historians - to engage with Wikipedia, and it's likely that the article will help with efforts to engage with museums. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gettysburg articles

Latest comment: 12 years ago43 comments11 people in discussion

I recently came across the following articles recently:

I was wondering if it is necessary to include articles about the actions of individual divisions at Gettysburg. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of prose, refs and nice maps there.. well 3 anyway.. would be terrible to lose any, but they probably should be merged into the main article, which isn't terribly long, and redirect them to it. Might need to go via WP:PM to make sure no one objects, though, to avoid disputes afterwards if it's done without consensus. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 16:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I also found a few other articles here and was wondering if these places were notable enough to warrent an article:
Apparently, most of these articles were created by Target for Today (talk). Other than they are all connected to the Gettysburg battlefield, I don't see much reason for keeping them, unless someone else thinks otherwise. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The last 5 (stubs) seem a bit scrappy and lacking. I personally wouldn't merge the consecration and Address. One is a notable event which might have been better suited at the end of the Battle of article, one is a highly notable speech which certainly warrants an article of its own. Not sure about the Observation Tower. Seems to be more an inherited notability than having notability of its own. Also probably better suited in the Battle of article, some heading like "Modern day battlefield" with details of its observation points, visitor center, tours, etc, but non-promo. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I also found these articles which look to me like canidates for deletion:

Do anyone else think these should be deleted? Wild Wolf (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

All are stubs. However, I could add a substantial amount of information from my personal family website about Barlow Knoll, where two of my ancestors fought David and Thomas Moll. The source of that page being the 1909 History of the 153d Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I took a brief look at Target for Today's contribs. It seems he's adding a lot of Gettysburg stubs and fairly insignificant categories, which are now being nominated for deletion, by other editors, as people feel there are too many or they don't serve a purpose. Might be useful to reel him into a discussion here and plan a more objective approach: instead of a plethora of stubs, one substantial article, which might actually attain A-class and GA status, would be better. Several of these could easily be merged into the Gettysburg battlefield article to make it a lengthy, centralised article. When you tour a battlefield like that, you usually want to see it all, you don't go to one small area then done. Same for wiki. Redirect these to that one and give a bigger picture. Focusing on small zones is not really achieving anything, imo.. though the information is still valid, the splits are not as notable compared to merging them into one nice detailed article. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 15:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I left a message on his talk page. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea if some more expert editors looked at the categories being created starting at Category:Gettysburg Campaign working down to come up with a plan of how best to fit the articles in them into an appropriate categorization scheme. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have put some of these pages up for deletion; please comment on the deletion log page. I will also alert Target for Today. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Additional articles have been put up for deletion on this page. Any and all feedback will be welcome. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that on some of the first round of deletions I put up, The Bushranger suggested merging some of the pages (like Zeigler's Grove, Rose Run, and Knoxlyn Ridge) into a single article like "List of minor locations of the Gettysburg Battlefield". Sound like a good idea to anyone else? Wild Wolf (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:TROUT to this idea, which was provided without rationale by the article nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeigler's Grove and by the endorser who placed it here. Problems that indicate such an article is ridiculous:
    1. Scope: In what way are the areas minor, e.g., horticulturally: are we going to have the area with the tree dedicated to Eisenhower's WWII leadership (clearly a minor area) and areas not related to trees listed together? Ditto for all the other types of areas. There are probably 100,000 distinguishable areas on the Gettysburg Battlefield which spans about 4 miles north-south and 10 miles east-west (some modernists want to mistakenly include the Battle of Hunterstown battlefield), and just the ones in the borough are so numerous that it is ridiculous to try to list them. For example, the area of each monument is notable (that's why a monument was placed there), and the area of each marker is notable (Ditto), and the area of each battlefield burial site before the site's bodies were exumed… one can go on for such types in the dozens. Just the individual archeological areas (e.g., each lunette and other earthworks) are separate places and extensive enough for their own list:
List of Gettysburg Battlefield earthworks (cf. Fort Mill Ridge Civil War Trenches)
List of Gettysburg Battlefield ecoregions
List of Gettysburg Battlefield artillery locations
List of Gettysburg Battlefield sniper locations
List of Gettysburg Battlefield … [on and on]
2. Definition: What is the cut-off point for "minor"--is it where a sub-engagement of the battle was held--as by definition, the Gettysburg Battlefield is an entire specific region of military engagments over the 3 days, i.e., the major area. Is the minor definition by non-contiguous location (the areas outside of the largest area--called "Infantry area" during the commemorative era--, e.g., first shot area, area of the east cavalry battle, etc.). Will the smaller areas of the minor areas (sub-minor? areas) which are also notable (i.e., meet the wikipedia notability requirement for an article) be listed in separate list articles?:
List of military engagement areas of the Gettysburg Battlefield
List of post-battle encampment areas of the Gettysburg Battlefield
List of visitor service areas of the Gettysburg Battlefield (toilets et al)
List of parking areas of the Gettysburg Battlefield
List of Gettysburg Battlefield areas visited by presidents
…
3. Content: The size of this article will be extensive since the notable information in the articles proposed for deletion (and recommended for this list article) is extensive--just look at The Peach Orchard, which has extensive historical information. Of course the notability of each area meets the criteria for having separate articles, so of course the list isn't necessary--there's a category that lists the articles for the Gettysburg Battlefield: people, landforms, etc.
4. Notability: Having a list for Gettysburg Battlefield areas, as with all the lists of NRHPs, is by definition, identifying the areas are notable. Why not a list for the "major areas", as they are of course, more significant in some major way--clearly if that list isn't needed, then the "minor areas" list isn't needed.
5. Validity: Is expanding the "List of minor…" article/category tree also valid for the following non-places and for the following higher-level places? This recommendation opens the whole wikipedia sub-namespace for "minor" topics to include articles such as List of minor military engagements during the Battle of Gettysburg (e.g., Confederate Private Able killed Union Private Baker at the woodshed of the Charlie house on Delta street in Gettysburg on the afternoon of July 1 where they engaged in hand-to-hand combat with bayonets.) et al:
List of minor figures of the Gettysburg Battlefield
List of minor events on the Gettysburg Battlefield
List of minor places of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
List of minor places of Adams County, Pennsylvania
List of minor places of Pennsylvania
…
Category:Lists of minor places by county
Category:Lists of minor places by state
…
Category:Lists of minor places by continent
Category:Lists of minor places by planet
Category:Lists of minor places by galaxy
Category:Lists of minor places by constellation
6. Naming: Why have the extraneous "lists of…" wording -- the unreasonable proposed article is solely about Minor places of the Gettysburg Battlefield (the category tree is Category:Places, not Category:Areas, etc.
Again, WP:TROUT for proposing the list article and even moreso for deleting the notable articles. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not just toss them into Gettysburg battlefield? I doubt anyone is ever going to search for "minor locations" anywhere in the world, as the term is somewhat ambiguous and subjective, imo, and I'm not sure if it would improve their notability as much as if under the main title. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 04:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Because per WP:MOS, Gettysburg Battlefield is a main article and is not to have the level of detail of its sub-articles, which meet the WP:NOTABILITY requirements. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

With the deletion proposals, there seems to be much support with keeping the streams articles as part of the Rivers and Pennsylvania WikiProjects but there are few comments on the others. Perhaps, as MarcusBritish suggested, the other geographical features should be redirected to the Gettysburg Battlefield article, since many of these, such as the Slaughter Pen and Excelsior Field, were the focus of the actions of only three or four regiments in total, and others, such as Knoxlyn Ridge and Warfield Ridge, only served as staging areas for assaults and saw no military action. The following setup might work:
Redirect and merge into Gettysburg Battlefield:

Keep but remove from Gettysburg Campaign categories:

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day:

Any comments? Wild Wolf (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're happy doing that, I'm happy to support it! Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [chat] 08:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be increased interest in deleting some of the Places of the Battlefield entries, so I'll wait a few days to see how it turns out before creating the mergal proposals. Wild Wolf (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've put up a couple of categories up for deletion here. Any comments would be appreciated. I will try to get to merging the Second Day articles later today. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added additional articles here. Any comments would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to maneuver through this blizzard of proposals and update all of the appropriate comment pages. But let me say in general that I support Wild Wolf's attempts to clean up this area and remove or merge all of the splintered articles about micro subjects relating to Gettysburg. The strategic and tactical description of the Battle of Gettysburg has already been split into an overview article, nine major subarticles (first day, second day, Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Little Round Top, third day cavalry battles, Pickett's Charge, Union OOB, Confederate OOB), and two campaign articles. This is substantially more detail than is written for any other American Civil War battle. Breaking down the description into even more subarticles does not make it any easier for the reader to understand this important battle. Furthermore, the minor streets, streams, and hills in the Gettysburg area have virtually zero notability outside of their involvement in the tactical details of the battle. The appropriate place to describe features such as Winebrenner Run or Wheatfield Road is in the related battle subarticle, not articles of their own. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase Blueboar, "The question here is not whether Wikipedia should discuss this (place) or not... the issue is whether it should have a stand-alone article devoted to it. Information is always best when presented in context... the existence of this (place) is trivial, except in the context of the civil war battlefield. Placed in the context of the battlefield it is worth mentioning." This is why I nominated so many articles, since having these articles contributes nothing to the understanding of the battle or battlefield and these places didn't have any impact at all on how the battle played out. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In case nobody noticed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Bryan is still open. Since this happened on the Gettysburg battlefield, I guess this is comes in part under WPMILHIST jurisdiction. Some comments from this community would be nice. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't anyone from this project going to comment on the deletion proposal? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This proposal has been up for nearly two weeks now, and so far no one from the ACW task force has commented on this. In fact, has anyone from WPMILHIST commented on this? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Gettysburg categories

While we're on the discussion of Gettysburg articles, perhaps we should also talk a look at the categories of the Gettysburg Campaign and decide which ones are really necessary. There seems to me to be a case of overcategorization here. I have already nominated Category:Gettysburg Campaign military engagements in Pennsylvania for merging on this page, along with Category:Gettysburg Battlefield woods. I have also nominated additional categories here on this page. Any comments would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We are finding whole rickety category structures being created to support some of the low level categories (for example, see the mass nomination I made at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 19#Category:Military sites by country to get a picture of how one such tree sprang up) which in turn are used for some of the small articles discussed in the previous section. There is also a set of cold war categories, mostly from the same person, which look much the same in terms of excess. I've put this to AN/I as people have complained about this to him/her to no avail. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Made my views known, as there appear to some over reactions on AN/I. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
In the Category:Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, there are some early 20th century military camps (mostly connected with WWI and WWII) included. Should these be removed, since they have little to do with the Civil War era sites on the battlefield? Wild Wolf (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as there are no objections, I will be removing the articles on the camps. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that most of the Gettysburg categories are merged into the Gettysburg battlefield category, we might want to look into the articles included in it. For example, there are several on the rail stations previously located on the battlefield, which I'm not sure should be included. In my opinion this category should cover the features associated with the Civil War battlefield. If anyone has any thoughts on this, comments would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments

I wanted to bring up the articles in this category, which seem to be mostly the work of Target for Today. I was wondering if it might be better if all of these articles were merged into a single article (perhaps entitled "Monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield"). The momument of the 11th Mississippi is just a small stone slab, while there are two other articles on the monuments of single regiments (the 72nd PA and 44th NY). This seems to be overkill on coverage of the battlefield. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It would make a certain sense, especially since some of the memorials have intertwined histories (e.g. the two Pa. memorials). The main impediment is that Eternal Light Peace Memorial is something of a monument to overcitation (and it's worse than it looks at first, because a lot of the citations are embedded links that don't appear in the references list). Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Would there be any problem to removing any unnecessary citations from this article? For example the sentence "President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived at a temporary platform[21] on his special train via the Reading RR from the North[22] after leaving Springwood at Hyde Park NY[23] that morning.[24]" has four cites, which could be reduced to a single citation at the end of the sentence. (Surely FDR arriving at a platform doesn't needed a citation of its own.) Wild Wolf (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No one has opposed this proposal, so I'm going to create the page Monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield using the three regimental monuments pages and adding tags to the other articles proposing a merge with this page. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
hi, i tend to agree with the merger of markers, but would prefer that notable statuary monuments be separate. (iconic enough for coinage) especially when they are on the Smithsonian database. some even rise to the level of the national register. a comprehensive list would be nice too with gps. (might make a nice walking tour) Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that being put on a coin would make this particular monument (the 72nd PA) significant. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Since SlowKing4 hasn't responded, and no one else apparently cares about this, I'd say go ahead and merge away. (At least no one can object that you ignored their opinion.) 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There's some debate going over at Talk:List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield about merging the Gettysburg monuments to this page, especially concerning the North Carolina, 72nd PA, and Eternal Peace monuments. Any other comments would be welcome. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is commenting on this either here or on the list talk page for over a week. This means that nobody cares about the merger, so you can do anything you want with the articles and nobody has the right to complain about what you did. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You have strange ideas how Wikipedia works. No one can do "anything they want" just because a discussion hasn't received any interest. What hey can do, is act boldly within reason, and if anybody does complain, which is anybody's right, FYI, then their concerns should be discussed – if and when they arise, per Wiki policy. As I've said before, and which your pointedly seem to ignore by plaguing this discussion page with pessimistic and aggressive remarks, not everyone watches or reads his page, many editors act independent of WikiProjects, and not all ACW editors give a hoot if and how MilHist operates, or what task forces offer. Many care even less what an IP editor thinks of them. Please learn to control your attitude regarding MilHist members and their activity, it is, quite frankly, disgusting. If you want to give orders or have authority, go find somewhere that operates in such a way.. Wikipedia does not, and your tone is unwelcome. Read WP:CIVIL and adopt it... whoever the hell you think you are. Your manner is potentially detrimental to hard working editors. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ACW stubs

Latest comment: 12 years ago30 comments7 people in discussion

I've been going through some of the ACW task force's stubs and found that some of the articles with stub tags are long enough to be start class. Also, several articles which were classes as stubs on their talk pages were too long to be stubs when I checked the articles. Other pages which actually were stubs didn't have stub tags on the article page. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and edit accordingly. I find that stubs are often not reasessed when they are expanded. But also be cautious - unstructured, unreferenced material does not automatically become a start because it is longer. As the definition of a stub says "It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible."Monstrelet (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing these - it's a long-term maintenance task that takes quite a while to bring up to date. (By my estimates, at least 10% of stub-tagged or stub-rated articles are start-class.) As Monstrelet says, many people don't change the rating themselves after improvement - some don't realise they can, some don't realise there are talkpage ratings, some don't think they're "allowed" to... often, if it's a series of successive small improvements, any individual editor may not think they've "destubbed" it themselves, but the cumulative effect is there. As there's no mechanism for systematically regrading articles, it basically relies on them being caught manually. Shimgray | talk | 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going through these articles but since there are over 2,200 articles in the ACW task force assessed as stubs, it would be nice if I had some help going through all of them. Also, I noticed several articles which are assessed start class which might be better assessed as C or B class (and there are probably some C class which are actually B class). 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are 600 or so 701 articles that have already been assessed, and pretty much accurately: User:MarcusBritish/ACWR If you do review and change the class of any of these, please can you update the table by adding a tick to the new class, but please don't remove the "initial" ticks. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [chat] 15:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Just ran a count and 145 of those 701 Regiment articles from Dyer's Compendium are Stubs. Well... I suppose that save you checking 7% of those 2,200 again, lol.. every bit helps. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been running through these articles in the ACW stub class category and found many to be start class, not stubs. Still got several hundred to go through. There might be a B-class backlog reduction drive in March; if so, this might be a good place to start, trying to improve at least some of these articles to B-class. (Some of the unit stubs could be improved to start class with a simple internet search. I can do some once I get through with the Gettysburg controversy). Wild Wolf (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the IP contributor there has stopped bothering with us, seems to have taken the huff over something.. so I don't know if they plan to continue with those stubs. I guess not, though. I would imagine, with the vast amount of literature available on the ACW, that books would provide better material and sources for upgrading some of the stubs to B-class; although there is a lot of good history material online, I find a lot of the references gathered from a basic Google search get challenged come ACR, GAR, etc. It takes time to sift through Google results these days.. all the commerical and amateur crap, old 404s, unsourced claims, etc, leaves perhaps one reliable site in 100. Backlog reduction drives are one thing, but if it means a lot of editors are simply using Google and referencing whatever they can find online, rather than engaging in dedicated research through books and records, and expressing their understanding by writing prose with genuine interest, I feel the effort is somewhat artificial and unproductive. To use an analogy: anyone can put a quick coat of paint over a bare wall, but it takes time and effort to properly paper one. I'd rather spend a month writing and developing one GA article than a month trying to raise 100 from Start to B with less effort per page. That's just my practice, though.. given that you have worked on a lot of ACW articles, I expect you have books and reliable sources in mind that would be beneficial rather than padding. I have about 30 good ACW books myself, and when I've finished, or need a break from, working on Napoleonic stuff, I might lend a hand with ACW material, as it's been a while. Adam and I have about 700 regiment articles to worry about also. That's a big job! Ma®©usBritish [chat] 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

With the internet search, I was referring to getting stubs up to start class (perhaps C), using books to get them up to B-class. (Sorry I wasn't clear on that.) I've got a collection of my own, and I live within driving distance of three libraries with good collections of Civil War books. I'm steadily working on improving articles to B-class but with other personal commitments it's slow going. Can't seem to improve articles to GA though; apparently a good B-class is not necessarily GA ready. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GA is somewhere around A-class, aiming for FA but not as close, I think. GAs are a bit more speculative than classed articles, as they don't need to meet various MOS standards or as heavily referenced, in some cases. I think, with MilHist having some of the strictest criteria of any WikiProject, that an A-class MilHist is far close to GA than a lot of other project GAs, which is why we attain them in large numbers, because there's lot less to do to round-off an article for GAN once it is rated A-class by our members. Some members do it the other way round, they attain GA, then go for ACR and sometimes find that they still have to improve the article a little to get a GA to meet ACR approval. Most MilHist members seem keen to get the double A/GA reviews under their belt, and I don't blame them. Also, one reviewer can pass a GA, ACR needs 3 supporting reviews, which makes ACR a little more involved. GA is going to be an easy process if you've passed the ACR first, I find, and a lot of GA reviewers are not experts in any one topic, they review by criteria/content alone without WikiProject interests in mind, unless the article is really involved and needs a second opinion. But being impartial does mean you get an honest GAR, I find. I would try to avoid making GAN during GA drives also.. again, there is always going to be the odd reviewer more interested in boosting their own numbers than genuinely improving content. I prefer a reviewer with the interests of the project at heart, than themselves, willing to show interest in the article's development. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. MilHist A-class is nearly FA-class in quality whereas GA is only a step up from B-class and a significant step below A-class. I have ten times as many GAs as I do A-class articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
So I see. Curious.. I tend to see more MilHist members with the same A/GA titles than A/FA titles, on their userpage "articles I wrote/developed" wall of fame. Perhaps they just don't like the FAR process.. I know I don't fancy it. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 02:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Many people dislike the FAC process and don't bother. I've gone back and forth on it myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to get a couple articles to GA (Battle of Bentonville and the Wilderness) but failed both, the Wilderness because of too few references. Any suggestions on how to get these two to GA? Wild Wolf (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You already answered that one yourself: you need more references. :) Chances are that "key" information, i.e. dates, statistics (i.e. troop totals, casualties), quotes, claims are not full cited. You need to cite anything which people might be able to challenge, particularly numbers. Grab a copy of Shelby Foote's trilogy The Civil War: A Narrative, as one of the most prolific ACW historians, his massive work is bound to have such data, and he is a highly respected authority on the war. Great bloke to listen to also, if you've ever see him in Ken Burn's The Civil War, which is an amazing series, beautiful work, and the accompanying book is massive and very good too. Highly recommend all these to anyone new to the topic, or even with a lot of knowledge. There are a lot of books available on "battles of the Civil War" which would probably give some good general information, also, for citing. e.g. ISBN 978-1862274334 Ma®©usBritish [chat] 02:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I find battle articles very hard to write for anything over a medium-sized skirmish because you really need to master the available literature on the topic and that can be daunting for the popular or well-covered battles. I doubt that that would be a problem for Bentonville, but it probably would be for the Wilderness. Another issues is that you need to cover the battle in more detail for GA than at B-class. I'd recommend that you look again at the comments at your failed GANs and try to correct the issues found by the reviewer and also to follow several GANs that are reasonably close to your topic as they wind through the reviewing process. This should help to illustrate what reviewers typically look for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I wish someone with a lot of experience in writing battles from scratch for Wiki would write a comprehensive "how to" for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Missing academy articles. It would be most helpful, as there a couple I would like to write about also. I have read plenty of descriptions books and on Wiki, but I'm not sure the best way to approach describing one without it coming across like something semi-fictional, e.g. a Sharpe novel battle. I wonder if others feel the same way. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 04:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try placing Bentonville and the Wilderness up for peer review in the near future. But I have a few other projects to clear out of the way first. I'm still trying to wrap up all of the article deletions, mergers, and category discussions from Gettysburg, which will probably take a couple weeks. I'm also doing research on several articles to expand them to B-class, and also several orders of battle. So I might not get to Bentonville and the Wilderness for several weeks. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Came back to see if anything has improved but I see nothing has changed much since I left you guys. Nothing much is getting done by the ACW crowd. The three big discussions on aCW topics in this talk page and how many taskforce guys are taking part? A grand total of three and one (Wild WOolf) is doing most of the talking for the group. You would think that if a topic about the ACW came up on this page more than three people would be interested, especially when the task force is supposed to have over 60 participants. What exactly are they participating in? Many of these guys haven't even edited in years but are still listed as "Participants". And how many articles has anyone improved lately to B class? Wild Wolf did 40 last year alone. Why hasn't any tried improving some of the articles to GA or A class? Or are you expecting Wild Wolf to do that as well? Lets see some ACTION people! And somebody get stub tags on those stub articles! And check if they really are stubs! 76.7.231.130 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, if you have nothing better to do than rudely complain, please don't bother posting at all. If you want to see members prioritise one small section of Wiki above everything else in their lives, try offering a bloody pay cheque! Comparing what editors have done is little more than condescending behaviour and belittlement. Each to his own. Each of us are busy in our own departments, and is hardly going to rush to improve 2,200 in two weeks just because you have a problem with them. They'll get there in their own time. The ACW isn't the whole of MilHist, and MilHist isn't the whole of Wiki. And Wiki isn't the all and everything of life. I don't see you editing for the last week, Mr Anonymous. So put up, or shut up! Ma®©usBritish[chat] 14:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm just saying that if people put their name up as a participant in this particular project, then it might be a good idea if they actually participate in the proces just a little bit. As I believe Wild Wolf said above, a few minutes of internet searching probably would get enough info to expand a couple of stub articles to start class, which itself should take only a few minutes. And is asking that each "participant" to expand just 'one article per month to B-class really expecting too much out of these people? Taking only twenty or thirty minutes out of an entire week for this should show some kind of improvement here, right? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If only the world worked that way... if you had been reading the topics on this page and around MilHist you'd know that about one-third of the memberlist has been inactive for more than a year, and probably around another 20% for 3+ months, which means, or our 1,200 members, only about half are active "now". Applying the same average to ACW task force, that makes about 20–25 active "now". It's not as simple as you think. And simple web-searches don't always cut it. There are a LOT of non-authoritarian/amateur websites on the ACW, which would need to filtered out to get to reliable sources. I personally don't believe it's good practice to add any old info to an article to get it to a higher class. Because the higher up the quality scale we go, the more demanding the criteria on referencing and reliability of sources. "Yankee Joe's Union Army fanpage" may seem like a good source for a stub, but come A-class, it's just junk that needs to be removed, and the text rewritten and recited by a proper source or recognised historian. It's sometimes harder to redevelop an article, than simply build on it a step at a time. Articles are best taken one at a time, and developed from 0 to 60 in a few weeks, than a push to painstakingly bunny hop from stub to start to B to A by a dozen uncoordinated people, because it becomes a mess, that no one is willing to pick-up before long. Wiki doesn't work well as a manufacturing line, with people adding bits here are there, when articles are "specialised" subjects. History is generally a specialised subject, not because it's hard, but because the material is interpretative and articles need to be developed objectively. It's not easy when everyone is stepping on each others toes. So, no.. there would "necessarily" be an improvement. It would be better if each active participant took one article and worked on it a little each week from stub to A/GA or even FA, and dedicated their efforts to that article only until a high-standard was achieved. I don't see the point in having 2,200 B-class, instead of 2,200 Stubs. I'd rather see 10 stubs become 10 GAs a month than 2,200 sloppy B-classes that won't get anywhere after they hit B, because no one likes clean up. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 14:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading through some of the comments made about the ACW articles. Both MarcusBritish and I have gone to the trouble of ordering (and receiving them) the Frederick H. Dyer "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion" (First Published in 1908 and Second Published again in 1959). Which is a total 1,796 pages over 3 Volumes (3 books). All the articles in the ACW that have information from these books we both hope that we can improve them and eventually they can become better articles. At the moment, not much is moving, while it is difficult for just one person to go through the 1,796 pages and get every detail referenced or sourced correctly. Adamdaley (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If half of the people on the participants list are inactive, then why in heaven's name why hasn't someone removed their names from the list?! Guess that means I'll have to do it since no one else seems to want to keep the information accurate. (And under my suggestion 60 articles would have become B-class per month, which I thought would have been slow enough to allow for carefull review and revision from the other WPMILHIST members on the assessment page. But since nobody actually assesses articles on that page and there are far less than 60 participants in this task force, I guess that was hopelessly optimistic.) 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't start removing names from member lists or task force lists. We are in the middle of redeveloping the member list format, and it may disrupt the process. Normally we don't remove names from the list, they add/remove themselves, and I suspect many would not appreciate an IP-editor removing them without permission, and normally we'd review all the task forces for such an update, not just one. Some members may simply be on a long wiki-break or other personal reasons for a long away period. Regardless, any such removals should be discussed with the project coordinators first. Even those who are active may be engaged in other areas of Wikipedia, so the removal selection would be subjective anyway. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 18:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
As long as somebody is doing this, then fine. I don't see what is so "subjective" about removing non-participants. Either one is participating in the task force or one is not. I don't see how not editing articles included in the task force can be considered "participating" in any way. (One more thing: Is anyone going through the ACW stubs? I see Wild Wolf doing so and I've done a few but I don't see anyone else doing it. Considering that there are still more than a thousand articles to go through, a little help would be appreciated.) 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It would seem no one is raising their hand. But you needn't worry.. there are no deadlines, so take your time. Help will either come along, or it won't. As for "subjective", yes it is very much so. Some editors, hopefully most, don't have a one-track mind and won't only edit for one task force all the time, they get involved in 2 or more topics or WikiProjects, and lead a diverse Wiki career. As a result, you can't start taking editors off task force lists just because they've stopped focusing on MilHist for a few weeks.. people don't come to Wiki to be pressured into doing one thing, nor is it respectful to expect every member of ACW task force to be active, to be reading this talk page, to be running around in circles improving stubs, to be answering to IPs who won't take time to register and become part of the community they're complaining about every day. It is fairly hypocritical, and you make some rather unfair opinions of MilHist, expecting every member to to be interested in one war alone. You really need to develop some patience, or before long you are going to find people here aren't going to be as welcoming, especially if you maintain the condemnation you keep offering. Perhaps that is why you get so few responses? You're also overlooking the fact that if there are ~60 editors in the ACW task force, and let's say about half are active, but not replying here: then they are either not interested in those stubs, or, more likely, don't have this page on their watchlist. In which case you're pretty much only going to get a response from the same 3 or 4 people who care about the subject. So, if any of this is getting through.. I've indicated what the problems are, so it should be obvious how you can address them, but I'm not going to paint them out, I'll let you work on your own initiative. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 09:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Just went through 23 articles in 16 minutes, upgraded 3 to start, and slapped a stub tag on the rest. Just think how much faster this would have went if some of the 63 "participants" of the ACW task force had helped. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Got the backlog down to less than a thousand. At the rate I'm going, its going to take two or three months before this is finished if I do this alone. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The "backlog" is down to less than 800 articles now. Not to agree with IP 76's tone above, but I think that he is right about having to go through these stubs. I have found MILHIST templates on redirects, disambiguation pages, modern-day communities, even people who were born after the Civil War ended. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What should be in Campaign Box templates

Latest comment: 12 years ago52 comments6 people in discussion

Hi there is a content dispute over what battles should be included in the Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine. Several red links and five links to articles, one a GA, have been deleted. If we leave the red links aside for now, the discussion is at Template talk:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine#Protected for one week, which explains the situation. Could any interested editors comment on if these articles should be included. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As a question of general practice, every engagement that has a stand-alone article should be (eligible to be) listed in a campaignbox somewhere; I don't think there's any good justification for saying that something an engagement is sufficiently notable and significant to merit a full article of its own, but not sufficiently notable and significant to be linked from a navigation template (and, indeed, doing so defeats the purpose of having these navigation templates in the first place).
On a practical level, of course, it's perfectly reasonable to break a complex series of engagements into multiple tiers of campaignboxes; for example, {{Campaignbox Western Front (World War I)}} links only to the parent Battle of the Somme article, and a separate {{Campaignbox Somme 1916}} exists to list the multiple subsidiary engagements. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Redlinks are acceptable, they invite new articles – campaignboxes are a list of battles in a campaign, not only the battled in a campaign that made it to Wikipedia. As for that edit summary which says "delete engagements which lasted less than half a day..." umm yeah, that's "logical", by that standard we should forget the battle of Trafalgar, because it only lasted 3 hours. In short, there is no correlation between length and importance. Seems like a original research from Rskp's POV, and not the first time that opinions have clashed. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Battle of Trafalgar was fought between forces which were slightly bigger than a few cavalry or light horse squadrons. These were small scale engagements of short duration, during which or as a consequence of which, no territorial gains were made.

The point is that several engagements, which have formally been referred to by the Official Historian and the Battles Nomenclature Committee (which named the battles and other significant engagements of WW1), as 'Affairs' have been renamed 'Battles'. The officials who first named these engagements used published criteria which was applied in such a fashion that affairs were smaller than actions were, in turn smaller than battles. [Battles Nomenclature Committee, The Official Names of the Battles and other engagements fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire during the Great War ... 1922 p. 7] The result is that these affairs have leapfrogged actions to be renamed battles which, in WW1 terms and technology, they quite clearly were not.

This is not original research as anyone who had taken the time to read the literature would be aware. This is not my opinion, this is what the official published sources state. A copy of the Battles Nomenclature Committee's report which was presented to the British Parliament is available at the Australian War Memorial Library. You will probably find Falls' official history there too. There is also no POV here, but until some more people have read the literature describing the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and associated material then wild accusations will continue to bring into question top quality published sources.

Jim Sweeney's creation of a new article, based almost entirely on material he copied from the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article, in order to add another battle to the template, flies in the face of Wikipedia instructions not to create articles, which are already covered elsewhere. I am here referring to the Battle of Jaffa (1917) article. See the talk page for confirmation by Jim Sweeney that material was copied from the Jerusalem article

The crux of the matter now is that all these so called battles have been added to the campaign template grossly inflating it and in the process the real battles and the real campaign have been lost sight of. --Rskp (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be your problem Battles and other engagements fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire during the Great War - two of the articles were not British battles one was French and the other Ottoman. As stated on the discussion page Jaffa is a recognised battle with the award of the battle honour Jaffa, to the forces that participated. It was also a division sized attack that involved an assault river crossing and resulted in the gain of five miles of Ottoman territory. So hardly a small scale engagement with a few horsemen. In reply to the 'Affairs' have been renamed 'Battles', hat has been gone over before it was a community decision to remain neutral and avoid POV. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Its your problem Jim Sweeney that you refuse to acknowledge an official source. These engagements were fought during British Empire Campaigns when British Empire troops were involved. Its absurd to suggest the French Detachment from Palestine and Syria was involved in fighting a separate battle when it was on the front line during 19 September as part of the Battle of Sharon section of the Battle of Megiddo. This detachment did not engage in a separate attack but was part of the overall attack by five divisions with the detachment on the extreme right flank of the XXIst Corps. The Battle of Arara article should be merged. Are you suggesting that the other five divisions should have their own separate battle articles? Your assertion, that the British source for the names of these engagements is not relevant, is absurd. --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This is a personal attack. Commenting on editor behaviour or viewpoint is not a personal attack, commenting on character is. I've hung around ANI enough to know the difference! Please refrain from abusing the {{RPA}} to refactor editors comments in future! Ma®©usBritish[chat] 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No it was NOT a personal attack, because the comments were to do with a point of view, regarding a particular source as set out above. That has got nothing to do with the character of the editor. The {{RPA}} has been and will continue to be used when and where it should be. --Rskp (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"Its your problem Jim Sweeney that you refuse to acknowledge an official source." + "Your assertion, that the British source for the names of these engagements is not relevant, is absurd." Don't talk crap, you're playing in the grey area, these are tendatious remarks. {{RPA}} is not designed to refactor comments, as you did. It could be deleted, just like {{Redact}} if people abuse it. And BOLD CAPS do not impress anyone. Don't get pointy with me. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 02:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Rskp: The purpose of Campaignboxes is to list engagements, regardless of subjective significance. Regardless of what some goon in some Committee named it years ago, an engagement is a military event. Just because it may be seen as a minor affair, does not mean it should be removed as "insignificant". Your own wording "these so called battles" is original research/PO, no matter what rhetoric you spin to suggest otherwise. Campaignboxes need to include everything: Campaigns, battles, engagements, compabts, actions, assaults, skirmishes, operations, sieges, raids, expeditions, reconnaissances, scouts, affairs, occupations, captures, clashes, et al.. your own wording suggests that insignificant actions should be excluded, because major battles take priority. In short, bull shit. The aim of a campaignbox is to detail the events, in their entirety, of a campaign. Campaignboxes which aim to only list major battles are biased and incomplete. Campaignboxes are a form of wikilinking but in a focused manner. They are not designed to simply provide a chronological sequence of events, or major events. Campaignboxes are not even referenced or cited, so your "officially published sources" don't really apply, as campaignboxes are nothing more than a navigation tool. They are not required to follow notability standards, but should always maintain a NPOV. So I don't see your edits to the aforementioned campaignbox as anything but subjective and unproductive, because you're reducing readers options to a select few choice battles only you think need listing based on some nonsense that "these minor incidents over-shadow the battles". Uhh, no they don't.. they provide a full list, just as if you were listing Presidents of the US, or PMs of the UK, you'd list them all, not just the notable ones. You can't "grossly inflate" a campaignbox.. if a half-dozen scrappy skirmishes occurred before a massive battle, they happened.. that is history, as it happened, as the military historian wants to know it happened. Leaving gaps in a timeline based on some theory is bad practice, and really needs to be prevented via a MILHIST MOS guideline, of sorts. And you really need to listen to consensus more often, it seems. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 08:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
To keep the campaign boxes from getting too large and unwieldy, we normally create a hierarchy, whereby wars are divided into theatres, theatres into campaigns, and campaigns into battles. If the campaign boxes become cluttered they lose their purpose. The Manhattan Project banner explicitly does not list all the subarticles, because there are just too many of them. And by explicitly, I mean a comment that says: There are hundreds of articles in Category:Manhattan Project. Let's keep this navbox more focused than that. Don't be afraid to delete something if you find it irrelevant. That applies to all navboxes. Since the navboxes navigate to articles, and all the articles must be notable, all the entries in the navboxes have to be notable! It is certainly possible for a minor skirmish to be notable; but that does not mean that it should be added to the campaign box! And we do not want to be creating our own battles and campaigns; that is WP:SYNTH. Where possible, do as Rksp suggests and hew to the official nomenclature except where a battle or campaign is better known by another name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The campaign box is hardly grossly inflated there are sixteen articles now five blue links that were deleted and five red links for battles that had not been created. That version is here [2] two of the red links were even added by RoslynSKP. The matter of the article names is immaterial to this discussion as they only appear in the box as the battle name Katia and not as Battle of Katia. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Think I need to clarify my previous comment, as it comes across like I mean "absolutely everything" needs to be in a campaignbox, which I don't. When I say "major" or "minor" I'm referring to those which are at least notable, and written about, by historians. Below that there are likely to be a significant amount of trivial engagements, skirmishes of such small consequence that there would never be enough material to form an article of notable value.. perhaps a stub, at best. I think, or at least I believe, Jim is concerned that articles are being removed from the campaignbox in question yet there is no way they are non-notable, including a GA. If an article is long-standing and notable it should be in the campaignbox, regardless of nomenclature, which does not dictate wiki practices, and is possibly biased in itself as a single source. If there are concerns that items in the campaignbox are not notable enough, then editors should be raising those articles as not notable and AfD'ing them. Trivial engagements are normally sub-headed under more notable events, but campaignboxes don't normally link to anchors. AfD is the appropriate place to determine notability or an article, and therefore its rightful inclusion in a campaignbox. If the result is "keep" then it should be in the box also. Bearing in mind that if an editor raises a bunch of articles with AfD just to exclude them from a box, it would be an WP:POINTY and not tolerated very well. Hence why we have consensus: "Don't be afraid to delete something if you find it irrelevant" is not consensus. Relevance is subjective, and disruptive if the result is war editing, as is the case in that template. In this case, I see more of WP:IJDLI. WP:SYNTH is about taking info from numerous selective sources and forming a single conclusion, with intent to reach that conclusion from the outset. You can't really synthesise a campaign.. either the engagements occurred, or they didn't, you can't "make up" a battle, if it is listed in records, memoirs, or some other reliable source.. you can only determine its notability in terms of notable or trivial. Trivial engagements are the "clutter", minor skirmishes are simply lesser battles. Would you also exclude them from the related campaign Category, if they're not good enough for the box? Can't have it both ways.. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 10:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh but you can. Consider this stupid campaign box. It is pure POV pushing. It constructs a campaign out of a series of unrelated battles, and not one reputable historian accepts the campaign as actually having happened. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If the campaignbox is drawn from the article, then the article should be challenged at AfD, and the result of that decision used to justify an AfD for the template. Given the overwhelming number of Aussies en project, I doubt either would succeed, based on the chances of COI/biased voting, alone. Though I'm not saying all share that attitude. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 10:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is okay; it merely explains that the campaign is a WP:FRINGE theory. The problem is with the bogus campaign box which gives it WP:UNDUE weight contrary to WP:NPOV. I have listed the template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
As has been pointed out several times using a British name for an attack by Ottoman or other forces is POV. The British Battles Nomenclature Committee's report would have no interest in a French or Ottoman battle or the naming of them and if they did its obvious POV if both sides fail to use the same name. All this however has nothing to do with their inclusion in the campaign box template. If you unhappy with an article set up an AFD, its not a reason to remove them from the campaign box. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
How can it be POV when it is a British Empire campaign being described on the English language section of Wikipedia. This is not the French language section, nor the Turkish language section. The Battles Nomenclature Committee's report named the battles fought by the British Empire in WW1 and remains THE authoritative English source until scholars revisit the area. As far as I can see the only reason you question the value of this source is because it doesn't list all the fights you would like to identify separately as battles. This logic would have the French (called the Palestine and Syrian detachment) attack identified in a stub article as the Battle of Arara. But then the five other divisions which attacked at the same time on 19 September along the same front line would all deserve separate battle status. All were fought equally hard and with great courage and determination. Added to these six battles you would have to add the day long preliminary attack by XX Corps and the main attacks by that corps' two divisions. So on one day you would have 9 battles along the same front line. The BNC identified two; the Battle of Sharon and the Battle of Nablus. Newly created article Battle of Jaffa (1917) is like the Battle of Arara part of a larger battle and is identified by the BNC as a subsidiary battle of the Jerusalem battle. If all these battles were recognised by separate articles and listed in the campaign template the campaign would be completely fragmented and a hopelessly confusing view of the campaign would be created. Is this your aim? --Rskp (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [Referring to the first point in the arguments against] Unfortunately, this is not the most important point. Who does it refer to? The Brits, the Germans, the Turks? Given that campainboxes cover all wars, such a belief must extend to all allies and enemies, per campaignbox. Right? Yes.. because that's NPOV. So what about War against Terrorism campaignboxes.. are we going to call the Taliban "heroic"? How about The Troubles in Ireland where some see the Irish militants as heroes, but some see them as terrorists? Do all southern state Americans consider Sherman and his troops "heroic" during his destructive march through the Carolinas? Were the Nazis always heroic, per campaign? This is why this point is conceited: "heroic" is editorialising, non-neutral, unencyclopedic, and unwelcome. I don't disagree that most fighting men are heroic just for fighting, causes aside, but that isn't how Wiki works. When you introduce ideas like this, POV creeps in. Good, objective, historians look at history from a neutral POV, without national sentiment, they have to play Devil's Advocate and understand the thoughts, feelings and motives of both sides to be able to assess a campaign factually. The Holocaust.. loosely, a form of campaign, from the Nazi-political POV "necessary ethnic cleansing, for the better of Germany", from the ROW's POV "inhuman genocide, criminal, abhorrent". We don't judge on Wiki.. hero or coward, a soldier is a soldier, he's neither "good" nor "evil", his cause is what he fought for, not something we honour or condemn him for, the medals he won are what his leaders awarded him, not us, even if we disagree with them. Whether Churchill, Hitler, Santa or Satan, we remain neutral. You end your list by stating "Uninformed or malicious accusations regarding notability, quality of articles, bias, original research, POV and affiliated sources are not helpful to this discussion." Sadly, your very first item in this list is a highly informed example of how every example: POV, notability, quality, bias and OR can be detrimentally affected just by clouding it with "heroism", and thinking that it alone guides the way a campaign should be expressed. Heroism lacks impartial historic context, and can't be assessed without subjective thought. Editors judge other editors by their ability to adhere to NPOV, notability, non-OR, quality, etc.. so you're wrong, very wrong, if you think anyone's contribs should not be considered in order to resolve the matter. Because the only alternative, far more serious, is taking offenders to AN/I and requesting a topic ban for not sticking to consensus. MilHist is usually content to discuss matter for extensive periods before more extreme DRs become necessary. But your unwillingness to be flexible has been raised on these boards several times over the past few months, and member's patience is running thin. Competence is required at all times to achieve consensus, and get faster agreeable results. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 04:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Its understood that your comments are uninformed; that you have not read any of the articles in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. Otherwise you could not so totally misrepresent my position.
The comment you so virulently attack refers to all those involved in fighting for their country or empire during the Sinai and Palestine campaign of WW1. The extrapolation to include the whole history of fighting is way beyond anything under discussion here. There is no national sentiment involved here nor any attempt to make an assessment of heroism.
And you agree with the sentiment stated in the first point
I don't disagree that most fighting men are heroic just for fighting
This is exactly the meaning of the first point, its a preamble. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. You will notice then I go on to discuss the campaign template and suggest an alternative approach. --Rskp (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • "Its understood that your comments are uninformed; that you have not read any of the articles in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign." — That's a very polemic retort. Nor is it an understanding. It's an assumption. Like you assume you have the right to reword my comments, i.e. from "thoughtless" to "thoughtful" under guise of a "typo correction" (also deemed rude by guidelines, I should note), and I recommend you don't do that again. Also, this use of bold, what is that? An alternative to SHOUTING IN CAPS. Don't you think being overtly pointy makes you look more pretentious than objective? Note, these are editor behaviours, so I think you should address them. Finally, sentiments are akin to "personal feelings". Wiki is not the place to express personal feelings through articles. You may write about certain battles out of a sense of pride or such to your country, yes, but don't let patriotism, or sentiment, distort the facts that need to be written. I find it curious how you consider my comment which questions your ability to act from a NPOV as a "virulently attack". If that is going to be your only defence in proving you are not stricken with POV sentiments, then it won't get far. If you feel my understanding of your rather moot point is inaccurate, you are always free to strike your point.. as far as I can determine, it poses no significance to the way campaignboxes should be presented anyway; you can't be for having campaignboxes written the obscure way you prefer based on sentiment, in any form. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 02:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Its clear from your comments regarding the articles in the Sinai and Palestine campaign, that you have not read them, further you listed your areas of interest, so there was no need for my to assume you are "uninformed" regarding the articles and their names.

'Thoughtless' was either a typo or a spelling error or a personal attack. It has now been replaced with the appropriate template.

Regarding "sentiment," you are confusing our discussion on the MILHIST page, with naming and writing Wikipedia articles. This sentiment was voiced in the preamble comment, to my arguments against the inclusion of the disputed articles, in the campaign template.

Because you have not read the articles in this campaign, you are not aware that sentiment regarding anything you care to list, has had no part in the writing of the articles in the Sinai Campaign, which I have had anything to do with. You will not find any sentiment in the naming of these articles either.

  • "you have not read the articles in this campaign" — polemic retort, and only an assumption. Ma®©usBritish[chat]

Although you "don't disagree that most fighting men are heroic just for fighting" ... "this point is conceited: "heroic" is editorialising, non-neutral, unencyclopedic, and unwelcome." I couldn't agree with you more. It was merely mentioned in passing, in the preamble and has no part in the problems about the articles, their names and the campaign template. --Rskp (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • If the disputed articles were deleted then the names could be included in the campaign template and linked to the articles were they are described. - why delete an article on a battle then include the battle in the template pointing somewhere else? This seems to suggest that the dispute is not over the inclusion of these battle in the template, but something else.
    • If the battle is part of a bigger battle and has already been described in that bigger battle then a separate article e.g. the Battle of Jaffa covers the same information as that described in the bigger battle the Battle of Jerusalem article. The link is not pointing somewhere else but to the bigger battle which the smaller one was part of.
Yes, but you wouldn't have it on the Sinai and Palestine campaign where you cut Jaffa and Arara links to the Jerusalem and Megiddo articles. --Rskp (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also Upgrading Katia, Abu Tellul and Buggar to battle status has resulted in these engagements leap-frogging larger and more consequential engagements that have been and continue to be referred to as actions. For example Action of Tell 'Asur - There was no upgrading consensus was asked for and agreed to use a non POV name in these articles.
    • The result of changing the names of the Affairs of Katia and Abu Tellul to battles means that the less than a cavalry brigade or light horse brigade fighting for less than half a day is a battle but the Action of Tell 'Asur when two corps fought for five day fighting from 8 to 12 March by the XX and XXI Corps is only an action. It would be original research to call the Action anything else.
  • Another example is the newly created Battle of Jaffa (1917) which continues its existence despite the subject being already covered in the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article. The Jaffa article is WP:SYNTH, contravenes Wikipedia guidelines, and should be deleted as well as reference to Jaffa on the campaign template. Jaffa was a recognised battle with the award of its own battle honour, it mentioned in the aftermath of the Battle of Jerusalem article. How is it synth and what guideline does it contravene.
    • As the battle of Jaffa article covers information already described in the battle of Jerusalem article before the Jaffa article was created. It is synth because the Jaffa article covers the same information in the battle of Jerusalem article. When you create a new article there is a question at the top of the page asking if the information is covered elsewhere. If it is you are requested not to create the new article.
      • The information in Jaffa that is covered in Jerusalem is the background before the battle. Anyone can see by comparing the two articles. The only part of Jerusalem that mentions Jaffa in in the aftermath, as it happened 11 days after the capture of the city, in a different place 40 miles away. As its part of the aftermath its covered in two sentences All three infantry brigades of the 52nd (Lowland) Division managed to cross the River Auja on the night of 20–21 December. It is claimed that by morning they had secured the Ottoman defensive line, completely surprising the defenders who surrendered without firing a shot.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You forgot the four paragraphs in the main Jaffa subsection of the Aftermath section.

--Rskp (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All these references have been copied from the Jerusalem article onto the Jaffa copy article. They come from I suppose the background, as Jim Sweeney says, but also mainly from the 24 November: First attack across the Nahr el Auja subsection and the Second attack across the Nahr el Auja – Battle of Jaffa subsections. The citations which appear in both articles are -

  1. 1. Allenby to Robertson 7 December 1917 in Hughes 2004 pp. 102–3
  2. 2. Erickson 2001 p.173
  3. 3. Kinloch 2007, pp. 229-231
  4. 4. Bruce 2002, pp. 158–9
  5. 5. Moore 1920, p. 95
  6. 6. Erickson 2001, p. 173
  7. 7. Battles Nomenclature Committee, p.32 [which you subsequently cut, but its there in the history of the article]
  8. 8. Bruce 2002, p. 166
  9. 9. Wavell 1968, p. 169
  10. 10. Powles 1922, p. 170
  11. 11. Wavell 1968, p. 162
  12. 12. Bruce 2002, p. 167
  13. 13. Wavell 1968, pp.168, 170
  14. 14. Wavell 1968, p.169

Only three web sits have been added which provide new information not available on the Jerusalem article. They are :

  1. 15. "Battle of Jaffa, 21-22 December 1917". History of War. 3 September 2007. Retrieved 19 January 2012last=Rickard.
  2. 16. Baker, Chris. "52nd (Lowland) Division". The Long Long Trail. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
  3. 17. "Battle honours of the Scottish regiments". Western Front Association. Retrieved 19 January 2012.

The vast majority of the Jaffa article has been copied from the Jerusalem article as anyone can see if they compare the two articles. --Rskp (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • None of these disputed articles describe trivial engagements, but they are not vital to understanding the campaign either. If they were not trivial engagements, how are they not vital to understanding the campaign and who decided that. Jim Sweeney (talk)
    • They are not vital to understanding the campaign, but are important in understanding the major battle they form a part of. The major battle is vital to an understanding of the campaign. --Rskp (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Battle honour#Battle honours in the British military tradition reads, "The need to develop a centralised system to oversee the selection and granting of battle honours arose in the 19th century following the increase of British military engagements during the expansion of the Empire. Thus in 1882, a committee was formed to adjudicate applications of battle honour claims. This committee, later called the Battles Nomenclature Committee, still maintains its function in the British Army today." — Assuming this is an accurate description, whilst the BNC could probably be considered a reliable source in terms of providing details regarding the locations, dates, British order of battles, casualties, etc. But given thatc the aim of the BNC appears to be to recognise British actions from a British POV for the purpose of issuing honours, and recognition of British involvement, then it seems unlikely to be be impartial. As such, I think there should be a wider discussion or RFC opened up following this fairly pointed DR, to determine whether the BNC should be considered a reliable source for battle naming. It sounds to me like it only serves British interests, in which case, it needs to toned down as some kind of prolific "battle guide Bible". The heavy-handed use of this material by editors is not leading to neutral coverage of WWI articles, but a distinctly pro-British view of the war and its campaigns. This practice needs to be examined and dealt with, via MilHist/editor approved consensus. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to make it clear these are the articles deleted from the template Battle of Katia, Battle of El Buggar Ridge, Battle of Jaffa (1917), Battle of Abu Tellul and the Battle of Arara. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Katia is known as an affair during the Defence of Egypt, Buggar is not identified as a separate anything, Battle of Jaffa is identified as part of the Jerusalem campaign, Abu Tellul is known as an affair and Arara was part of the Battle of Sharon which was part of the Battle of Megiddo. The two affairs were fought for less than half a day, by less than a brigade of cavalry/light horse, without consequence that is no territory was won or lost. --Rskp (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Known as an affair by who, no need to answer, its been pointed out that that name is POV and a community consensus decided to use battle. I suspect that is partly why you want these deleted as you are still not happy with that decision. When they were called affairs you were quite happy with there inclusion. s can be seen here you added Katia to the box [3] and changed the name of Abu Tellul here [4] Now I am glad you have mentioned Jaffa was part of the Jerusalem campaign as such it is not part of the battle of Jerusalem, as has been you position previously. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
For background this link [5] provides details for the establishment of the BNC. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
As I suspected.. the BNC classified battles for the sole purpose of issuing honours. Has nothing to do with being a historical text or form or neutral compendium. Rskp's rhetoric in the past has fooled me into believing that it was a complete catalogue of WWI events. It seems now that it is a cherry-picked assessment of battles worthy of awards. That raises further questions over its usage, as it no longer appears to be neutral enough to determine battle naming conventions with, purely from this source. It does not appear to represent campaigns completely, and therefore how can we expect to create neutral campaignboxes based on material aimed to serve British interests? It clearly does not represent the campaigns/battles of German, Ottoman, etc.. interest so far as WWI goes. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 21:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The BNC has never been used as a single source; its been quoted in the following articles: Battle of Mughar Ridge The Battle of El Mughar Ridge (officially known by the British as the Action of El Mughar), Battle of Jerusalem (1917) The Battle of Jerusalem (officially named the "Jerusalem Operations" by the British) and Battle of Magdhaba The Battle of Magdhaba (officially known by the British as the Affair of Magdhaba). None of these articles follow the BNC slavishly as you are all suggesting. The first two were edited to GA standard and the last is currently a GA nominee. I can't see what your problem is regarding the use of the BNC as clearly a number of the names don't follow it and all these articles have been edited to GA standard by me. --Rskp (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The BNC has never been used as a single source - yes it has, its the first citation in the three articles linked above. The problem is it is British POV. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
That's right so that readers can see the source for the officially known by the British ... blah blah. Only you think its POV to name the official British name for the battle in brackets and then give the source of the information. The GA reviewers had no problem and awarded them all GA standing.--Rskp (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrong consensus was reached by several editors that the names used were POV. I fail to see how after several months you can still not grasp this was a community decision. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Most of what Rskp is posting amounts to WP:SOUP, and is completely unrelated to the matter. Rskp is trying to relate and limit the DR to one specific campaignbox, when it is clear that the matter relates to all campaignboxes, esp those related to WWI where Rskp is involved in disputes over their content, or where war editing may have existed. None of this riff-raff from a couple of select articles matters, and the lack of generalisation in Rskp's arguments hints at lack of objective means to address the overall situation. The title here is "What should be in Campaign Box templates", not "What should be in the Sinai and Palestine campaignbox" alone. This matter needs to be looked at in its entirety, otherwise I can see it only getting resolved for one campaign, and then the editor will pursue the same goals to limit content on other boxes, because they disregard any decision here as enveloping them. Similar to what Jim mentions above. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 12:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jaffa

This article is a special case as its been created by copying information from the Aftermath section of the already existing Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article. This is against the instructions to be followed when creating a new Wikipedia article.

In the process of coping the material, Jim Sweeney also copied all the citations from the Jerusalem article, except three which are web sites. It appears he did not read the Jerusalem article, as he claimed in his Jaffa article, that the Battle of Jaffa ended the Sinai and Palestine campaign. This was undone here [6].

This article has been substantially edited overnight and no longer reflects so slavishly information copied from the Jerusalem article.--Rskp (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A second engagement is described in the same Aftermath section: the Defence of Jerusalem operations, which, with the battles of Nebi Samwil and Jaffa form the campaign to capture Jerusalem. All these battles occurred between 17 November and 30 December; the Battle of Nebi Samwil from 17 to 24 November, the Battle of Jaffa from 21 to 22 December and the Defence of Jerusalem from 26 to 30 December.

The introduction to the Jerusalem article (which has been awarded GA status) begins "The Battle of Jerusalem (officially named the "Jerusalem Operations" by the British)" then the three operations and their dates are listed. By creating this new article Jim Sweeney has moved Jaffa out of this context and copied material.

Including this new copied article in the campaign template takes this battle further and further out of its context. These problems could be fixed by Jaffa appearing in the template with the link to the Jerusalem article. --Rskp (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

See all above comments. Nothing new here. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No there is nothing new here its all been in the Jerusalem article for some months. Readers still need to see the context within with the Jaffa engagement was fought to understand it. --Rskp (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Box templates - arguments for and against

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello everyone, I've become aware of this thread through the dispute resolution noticeboard thread on this subject. I wanted to jump in here as it looks like the discussion might be in danger of going round in circles, and I think if we can structure things a little bit better then it might save everyone some time. To get everything in one place, how about we make a list of all the arguments for using the British naming including the disputed articles in this particular campaignbox, and all the arguments against? As well as making the arguments clearer, this will set the discussion up well for an RfC if we can't reach consensus here. I'll set out the format below, but don't feel that you have to follow it - this isn't my WikiProject after all. If you would rather just keep discussing, then feel free to ignore it. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I've taken the liberty of moving MarcusBritish's comment out of this section and into the section above - the idea behind this structure was to simply list the arguments for each position, not to have an argument about the arguments for each position. :) Marcus, please forgive me for the rough treatment. Also, if you could keep this section purely for listing arguments, and keep discussion to the section above this one, I would be very grateful. I think we should wait another day or so to see if any new arguments appear, and then I will have a go at summarizing the arguments presented so far. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's fine. Do note, when you consider my comments, I am uninvolved so far as the disputed WWI articles go.. I'm not involved in editing those areas. My comments relate purely to the use of the {{campaignbox}} templates in general.. whether if be WWI or II, Roman, Greek, ACW, Napoleonic or whatever war uses them. The WWI dispute is simply used for context. Some of the ideas being expressed for the campaignbox template's use are disturbing, and I don't want to see those practices spread into other areas like some anti-historical plague. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 06:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'll bear that in mind when I'm summing everything up. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Arguments for and against including the disputed articles
Arguments for including the disputed articles
  1. Campaignboxes aim to provide a complete coverage of a campaign, as a group of wikilinks (inc. redlinks), to aid timeline and navigation purposes. They should not exclude battles that:
    • "Are trivial not notable" – if the battle is not notable it shouldn't have an article on Wiki, period. If it does it should usually be linked.
    • The thoughtless remark above – "How can it be POV when it is a British Empire campaign being described on the English language section of Wikipedia" – is a moot point. en:Wiki relates to use of the English language for reading purposes. It does not mean we should only be using English sources, English POVs, or English naming conventions. History is an international subject, and battles are not named by or only given notability for English speakers. Foreign sources can, and should, be considered, though translations are usually required.
    • Redlinks are acceptable in campaignboxes, to encourage editors to write articles. Wiki is incomplete, which means even some notable events have yet to be written about.
    • Inclusion is not based on article class. Links can be to stubs through to FAs. There is no convention because notability is not class related, and even if it was, all low-quality articles have room for improvement.
    • A campaign is not a one-sided affair, unless it's a civil war. How can a campaign against a foreign nation only be a "British Empire" matter? That thought process resembles a non-NPOV also, which needs to be condemned, because it leads to articles representing national bias, rather than neutral examination of facts and events.
    • Basing a campaignbox on some nomenclature from the defunc. British Empire POV presents bias and does not represent the war objectively, only how one side perceives it, and subjects its own importance to it. That is not a NPOV. And speaking as a Brit, the Empire was up its own backside much of the time, and is unlikely to have presented its history as anything but "perfect". Single sourcing is bad practice.
Arguments against including the disputed articles
  • The most important point to make is that the engagements described in these disputed articles were unquestionably determinedly fought and heroically won or lost.
  • The decision to seek to exclude some articles from the campaign template revolves around how the template works.
  • The campaign template seeks to provide the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article with a useful tool to help readers engage with that article and the campaign as a whole and in detail. It aims to provide a chronological list of events which will provide readers with an understanding of the scope of the campaign, not a chronological list of all events.
  • The main argument against including the disputed articles is that they will almost certainly confuse readers.
  1. If someone started with the Battle of Arara (which I suggest may be WP:SYNTH) they would have no idea that it was a very small part of the Battle of Sharon which was only a part of the Battle of Megiddo. In mitigation this area of the campaign is only now under detailed construction and when the Battle of Sharon article gets up, then this article should be merged. Reference to Arara should be deleted from the template.
  1. If there is to be a separate article for Arara and its to be mentioned on the campaign template, then each of those other five divisions which were involved in the same action should have a separate article and a battle name created and added to the campaign template. The creation of these names would certainly be WP:SYNTH and would lead to complete confusion.
On the same day not only was the enemy's front line captured ( the Arara article describes a portion of this) but Et Tire and Tul Karm were captured. So there would have to be the Battle of Et Tire and the Battle of Tul Karm as well. And this is just the first day of a battle which lasted seven days; was exploited for a further six days and whose aftermath culminated four weeks later.
  1. Another example is the newly created Battle of Jaffa (1917) which continues its existence despite the subject being already covered in the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article. The Jaffa article is WP:SYNTH, contravenes Wikipedia guidelines, and should be deleted as well as reference to Jaffa on the campaign template.
  1. Another example is the 3rd Gaza and Beersheba. One or the other should be cut from the template as they were both parts of the same major operation which the British tend to refer to as the '3rd Gaza' and others as 'Beersheba'.

If the disputed articles were deleted then the names could be included in the campaign template and linked to the articles were they are described. For example, Jaffa. Anyone wanting to see the Jaffa engagement would be linked to the Battle of Jerusalem article where they would find the information they required. This had been tried on the template but Jim Sweeney undid these edits.

In the case of Abu Tellul a link could be established to the article on main the Occupation of the Jordan Valley article.

That would leave Katia out on a limb because Jim Sweeney won't allow the 'Defence of the Suez Canal' campaign name as he says its POV. Both Katia and Romani continued this campaign which had begun in 1915. Technically the Defence of the Suez Canal came before the Sinai and Palestine Campaign but has always been included at the beginning of Sinai and Palestine Campaign literature and I would argue strongly that it should remain in the S and P campaign article. Otherwise Wikipedia would have this tiny, isolated and nameless campaign, if Jim Sweeney's argument is correct.

  • Placing Katia, Abu Tellul and Arara in the same basket as the other engagements, suggests they equally affected the campaign. They did not.
  1. The disputed articles did not progress the campaign. Not only was no territory gained or lost during the fighting described in the disputed articles, the fighting was over in less than half a day, and the British Empire forces amounted to considerably less than a light horse or cavalry brigade, while the Ottoman forces in most cases is unknown.
  • Upgrading Katia, Abu Tellul and Buggar to battle status has resulted in these engagements leap-frogging larger and more consequential engagements that have been and continue to be referred to as actions. For example Action of Tell 'Asur
  • The engagements included in the template are fully documented, including planning, deployment and the battles are described as they unfolded for the duration of the engagement. There is no such description for the disputed articles.
  • Historians have written about these engagements at length while the disputed articles are only briefly mentioned as fights.
  • Its clear from the sources that the disputed articles will never grow from being stub articles because there is simply not much written about any of them.
  • None of these disputed articles describe trivial engagements, but they are not vital to understanding the campaign either.
  • Wikipedia is a work in progress and the editing of this campaign is just a beginning; the main concern here is to provide a firm basis for future developments.
  • If all these disputed articles are added to the template then its likely that every engagement will be listed. This will grossly inflate the scope of the campaign as described in the literature and result in the parameters of the campaign being lost from sight.
  • The decision to limit the number of engagements on this template has not been based solely on the Battles Nomenclature Committee's report.
  • The articles describing the engagements as published on Wikipedia have been the main influence with the report being used as a guide only.

Uninformed or malicious accusations regarding notability, quality of articles, bias, original research, POV and affiliated sources are not helpful to this discussion.--Rskp (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary of arguments for and against

I have had a go at condensing the arguments down to the very basics. In the end, although the arguments have taken up a great deal of space here and especially in the discussion, the essentials seemed to be simple:

Arguments for including the disputed templates
  • Campaignboxes aim to provide complete coverage of a campaign, no matter what the relative importance of the events in it. Because of this, articles should be included as long as they are notable, regardless of their quality or their importance. By the same logic, redlinks should also be included, as long as the resulting articles would be notable.
  • Basing the decision of whether to call something an "affair" or a "battle" solely on British Empire sources should be avoided, as the British Empire is not neutral regarding battles it took part in. By extension, articles should not be exlcluded from the Sinai and Palestine campaignbox because British Empire sources call them "affairs".
Arguments against including the disputed templates
  • The Sinai and Palestine campaignbox should give readers an overview of the important events in the campaign, not every single event. Including every single event might confuse readers, and would distort the importance given to them in the literature.
  • British Empire sources call these disputed articles "affairs", and as such they are not full battles and should not be included in the campaignbox.

Starting off, I think the talk about the British Empire sources has been a bit of a distraction. The actual substance of this argument seems to be that the literature gives the disputed articles less weight than the other articles in the campaignbox, and this general idea is already included in the first bullet points in each section. So basically we are left with the argument that campaignboxes should be comprehensive, and the argument that campaignboxes should list only important articles. On the face of it, both these arguments look valid, and I'm not aware of any policy that would affect our decision of what to do. Rather, this seems to be a question of convention, editorial judgement, and consistency.

It seems that the convention in campaignboxes has been to include articles where possible and practical, and this is reflected in Kirill's, MarcusBritish's, and Jim Sweeney's preference for inclusion. RoslynSKP seems to be in a minority here, and the convention to include most articles in campaignboxes seems to have worked against them, despite partial support for their position by Hawkeye7. From the discussion so far, it seems clear that the consensus is to include the disputed articles. However, the argument for exclusion in this case does not seem inherently bad, and consensus could change if more editors comment on this specific case; for this reason I suggest RoslynSKP start an RfC on Template talk:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine if they wish to pursue this further. Any further discussion here is not likely to be productive though, and I encourage all editors to simply stop replying to the discussion thread above, both to bring this towards resolution, and to save everyone more stress. Let me know if you have any questions about this, or any concerns with my summing-up. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus reached

Consensus for the inclusion on the deleted articles is three for to one against.

For
Against
Commented but no declared position

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Sweeney (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

New map of the Battle of the Bulge

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion
 
 
New (left), old (right)

I've created File:Wacht am Rhein map.svg as an SVG version, with some improvements, to File:Wacht am Rhein map.svg. I'd love to hear if you think it's good - I'm considering whether to send it down the FP route, it's not one I'm familiar with - also check that I've transcribed it correctly (the dates in particular were difficult to read). I also omitted the red hatched area, as I didn't know what this was - could anyone enlighten me? Finally, if you think it's an improvement, could someone replace the original file's uses (the SVG creator doing this is sometimes frowned upon). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That image looks like a big improvement to me. I'm pretty sure that the red hatched area is the German Siegfried Line, but there's no good reason to include it in the map given that this was a German offensive. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see the units names in their home language which would allow to use the map in different Wikipedias. Furthermore, as the map is called Wacht am Rhein you maybe should change the colours because the file name intends the map shows the german perspective of their offensive but they wouldn't sign their own positions with hostile red. --Bomzibar (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too difficult at all to translate the map into a German version, if someone gave me the translations. I've already tweaked it from the original for pro-allied "bias" (changing the front lines from blue to grey). Ultimately I can't think of another colour that would would work to replace red, which would mean just swapping them and we'd have the problem in reverse. It's a German offensive, so red mmakes more sense, I would think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
One more thing: Is there any reason some cities are written in capital letters and others not? --Bomzibar (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I went with the source map on that, presumably something to do with size/importance. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Understand you followed the original map on this. I also understand Bomzibar's comment -- Bonn more significant than Cologne? Only in postwar federal politics. Not sure why the original map creator put caps on some of those names. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The direction arrow for the movement of VII Corps is reversed from what it should be. Check against the other file. Also suggest using the same font size for units of a particular size (all corps with one font size, all divisions with a smaller font size, etc.) There should also be a legend explaining the dates that apply to the various front lines shown on the map. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Now changed. Also had a go at standardising font sizes. In so far as "explaining the dates" - what sort of thing do you mean? I'm no real army guy - I couldn't tell you which level is a corps or unit or whatever so best to give me an example if you have something specific. Also, for interest, what are the vaguely horizontal lines with "XXXX" or "XXXXX" in them? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You have a typo - Colonge instead of Cologne. Other than that, it looks pretty good. Parsecboy (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Changed. You know I stared at that for a minute, swore that it was wrong but couldn't put my finger on it. Sigh. How silly of me. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes it's those little things that slip by. I don't know how many times I've made silly mistakes like that in articles. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
RE the lines: XXXX indicates Army size unit, XXXXX Army Group, so by my reckoning they mark the boundaries between units. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yup, they're unit boundaries. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Re questions. Unit sizes -- Allied Army Groups are literally identified on the map, the German ones are "H" and "B". I suggest leaving those alone even though they are the highest echelon shown on the map. The armies are all literally spelled out so they should be easy to identify. The corps are shown in Roman numerals with the exception of "BR30" which is the British 30 Corps. The small numbers like "84ID" are divisions. Explaining the dates -- look at the original drawing. In the upper left part, there is a legend explaining the meaning of the solid line, the dashed line, and the dotted line (showing where the front line was on particular dates). For example, the solid black line on your drawing is where the front line was on 16 December 1944, but on your drawing there is no legend explaining that -- this is a must-have for a military battle map. Let me know if this explanation is still not clear. BTW, a suggested font size for the corps would be that used for the "I SS Pz" corps. Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a legend provided on the file description page – this is normal for maps, because it makes it a lot easier to translate them. Will examine the "I SS Pz" issue. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeaaah, but a legend would be more useful for interpreting the graphic immediately than the spot on the image showing the location of Belgium in Europe -- my take is that the image should be self explanatory and not rely on text in the file description page. Nice colors on your version, they're easier to look at than the reds in the original version. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's now at FPC (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wacht am Rhein) where you are invited to comment: it has changed substantial (for the better, I think) as a result of feedback here and there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Could we focus on the following:

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Could we concentrated/focus on the following sections for a few days?

  • Category:Unassessed military history articles = 66 articles unassessed.
  • Category:Military history articles with no associated task force = 24.
  • Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists = 25,874.

The first two would be nice to be back to a low number, possibly 0. It would be appreciated, that we could get these down, especially about 200 to 300 incomplete "B-Class" articles. It is a little too much for just me to do, so I am asking for some help from fellow Coordinators and/or WikiProject Military History Users. Adamdaley (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In wandering through the unassessed articles, I found that Redirect-class articles are being dumped into this category. Should we split these out into their own category, similar to Category:Redirect-Class Ships articles?
We use it in WikiProject United States as do nearly all of the United States related/supported projects. Not every redirect needs to be tagged of course but if it is tagged it should fall into the correct category. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Unassessed military history articles is now down to 31. I wa about to assess Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133 when I was struck by doubts about its notability. And having just looked at its references for evidence of significant and independent coverage I find copyvio of this entry at Globasecurity.org. Opinions? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Duplication Detector report. I think the unit is probably notable, but it desperatl needs a total rewrite to be rid of that (and preferably rid of GS as a reference altogether). - The Bushranger One ping only 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the incomplete B-class checklists, I believe that something was mentioned a few weeks ago about a B-class backlog drive contest. Is this still being orgainized? Wild Wolf (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wild Wolf ... I don't know anything about the B-class backlog, it seems like over the last 2 or so weeks, 100 to 150 articles has been added to the incomplete B-class list, which was a major let down for me because I could see that WikiProject Military History Coordinators and users were getting the number down at an incredible rate. Unfortunately, it's gone up and has slowly stopped to the point where only a few are being done and more articles keep getting added to it. As for the American Civil War articles in the B-class section the majority of them will be taken upon myself and MarcusBritish due to us both having the Frederick H. Dyer compendiums and he has a subpage of military units listed by each state. I am currently doing two of them at the moment, but the two I'm doing are at a slow progress. Adamdaley (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for any delays in the Dyer articles progress. I'm aiming to gather as many titles as possible onto the ACWR list I made before anything, as well as awaiting the photo books, after that I should be closer to getting started. Not planning to steamroller through them though, just take them one at a time, get them organised steadily, quality over quantity, etc. The list on the ACWR page is up to 949 articles, since the inclusion of 3 more states and USCT. There may be more to add though. Original creation of these regimental articles was by no means organised; different editors started different states, and each had different approaches. Most, however, are C-class at best for the time being. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 07:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
949 articles for American Civil War? I'm going crazy with the backlogs above especially the B-class backlog! I look at the number and think, I've put myself into a position that I cannot get out of! Honestly, I don't know what other people think ... Either Coordinators or Users of Military History. Feel we need to put personal articles aside and doing making progress. On the other hand I know we are short for Coordinators. Adamdaley (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
949 regiments. I don't know how many other articles there are relating to anything else for the rest of the ACW.. about 2,000 I think, if IP 76 is right. Don't worry though, there's no deadline.. once we get started the numbers will gradually fall away. The ACW Dyer articles are never going to achieve a really high-quality each, so there's no need to rush to get them all done fast. If it takes a year, then so be it.. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 12:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that some at least of the remaining backlog are redirect articles. Class=Re-direct does not seem to be recognised by the bot, so it doesn't remove them from the unassessed category. This may be because there is no redirect class listed in the categories on the assessment page. Should these be reclassified as DAB or should a new class be programmed into the bot? Monstrelet (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

unsuitable image used as icon representing Goths?

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Hello. In quite a few infoboxes of articles about battles where Romans encountered Goths or other Germanic peoples (eg Alamanni) this image from Commons is used (at very small scale) as an icon representing the Gothic party. See, for instance, the battle of Abrittus. However, I doubt that this knot has anything to do with most of the Germanic peoples of the late Roman period. Therefore I plan to remove it from these infoboxes. Question is, am I correct or I am really nitpicking? Thanks!--Dipa1965 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's good reason to believe its use is incorrect, or original research, remove it and leave a note in the discussion page in case anyone, including the original editor who added it, wishes to provide a source, or query the removal. Just leave a clear edit summary to indicate your reason and to see the talk page, and you should be fine. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 17:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
"Knot"? That's an image of a pendant representing Mjölnir, or the hammer of Thor. The original pendant is from Sweden, and I believe from a several centuries later than the classic Roman Empire. I think we'd be quite justified to remove that icon. I'm not against using some icon for the Germanic tribes, but let's find one that's culturally and historically relevant. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The original image caption is clear what this is and it is both culturally Scandinavian and later, so justification is clear. ideally an alternative should be found - this is quite nice, in period and artistically typicalMonstrelet (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks much better (hope you don't mind that I fixed your link btw, you had a pipe in there that was causing an error). EyeSerenetalk 19:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Happy for your help - I always struggle with images Monstrelet (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to be using that in infoboxes, I'd suggest asking if someone might be able to recreate it as a 2D vector image.. the photo has a fairly grey background, and the DOF was very narrow so the tips are out of focus (bokeh). It probably won't look as stunning used as a small scale icon:   — as seen here. I would offer, but not sure that I could do it justice. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 19:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all. I appreciate MarcusBritish suggestion (about creating a vectorized icon) but I am not competent in those things. Perhaps a downsampled transparent gif version of the Ostgoten-fibel.jpg, with its shadow and background removed, would do the job. I hope gifs are acceptable in infoboxes. You may check the result here: Battle of Philippopolis (250) :) --Dipa1965 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

PNG would offer better transparency. GIFs tend to look tatty round the edges. You might be able to do that, though.. removing a background is easy enough. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 00:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Converted to 30 px transparent PNG.--Dipa1965 (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that came out OK - what do others think? Monstrelet (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I went a bit ahead and used it in some battles. Feel free to remove/modify if you want.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've edited the icon because the background was showing white rather than transparent. Also made it larger so people can see clearly what the icon is if they go to the File:30px Ostgoten fibel transp.png page. Won't affect articles; Commons will create an 18px thumb to use where icons are placed, of smaller filesize. It does look a bit bigger though – let me know if that's a problem, I can reduce it a bit more if necessary. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 08:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 scholarships and submissions

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Spreading the word about Wikimania 2012 call for participation (talks, panels, workshops, whatever, don't be shy!) and travel scholarships (deadline Feb 16). Wikimania 2012 is in Washington, DC and we hope to offer side-events and tourism opportunities, like backstage tour of the National Archives, hopefully the Pentagon and other cool military history-related places. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone considering presenting something to the conference? From the various discussions I've seen, there are a few members of this project who are planning on attending (disclaimer: not me though as it's on the other side of the world!). Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If folks want, we could also offer a space during lunch one day for a WikiProject lunch (e.g. a special interest group type thing). Or if there is another idea, don't hesitate to ask us and we can try to make it happen. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Early and Later Israelite Campaigns

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I came across a series of articles related to what are called the Early Israelite Campaigns and the Later Israelite Campaigns which are sourced to – and, at times, quote large portions of – one or more versions of the Bible. While the Bible may be a valid primary source for Biblical topics (I say "may be" due to the fact that there are different translations and interpretations), it is most definitely not a reliable source of historical data.

Affected articles include, in addition to the two 'campaigns' articles:

I am not sure whether the problem is one of the articles themselves or rather of how the information is presented – from the Biblical point of view. Most of the articles were created by User:Scarfaced Charley and my first inclination was to discuss the matter with him; however, as he has not edited in over four months, I am bringing the issue to this project's attention. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this thread at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of the German term "Fall" in an article title

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Can someone give me steer on why we seem to be using the German word "Fall" meaning Case ie Fall Weiss rather than Case White in WW2 articles? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Case" is not commonly used in military terminology in English, so most sources do not translate it. Therefore, the German form is the more familiar one to English-speaking readers. I blame Barrie Pitt. (As an aside, why do we have Operation U-Go? I mean, doesn't "Go" mean "operation"?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No, japanese for Operation is 作戦 meaning sakusen. The japanese transcribed japanese Name for Operation U-gō (its completely wrong with a normal o) has to be U-gō sakusen. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Didn't the "-go" pretty much stand for "Victory"? (i.e. "Operation Assured Victory" or whatnot) (disclaimer: insufficent coffee consumption so far). - The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe it did. (Further disclaimer: memory has not been reliable lately...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Gō means number in this case means number. As example Operation Ichi-gō, 一号作戦, Ichi-gō sakusen means Operation Number One. So you can call it Operation and then the name. We had the same discussion with the names of japanese operations during the candicateship of Operation Ichi-gō in the german Wikipedia. --Bomzibar (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A class reviews

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Given that the requirements for A-class and Featured are now the same, I am proposing that the Featured criteria wording be used in lieu of our existing A-class criteria WP:MH/A. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry did I miss something? We've always considered A to be near-FA quality, but I don't remember anyone suggesting they were exactly the same before. Funny, I was saying to Eye (here or on the Coord's page, can't remember) that I was considering a Bugle op-ed on the (occasionally subtle) differences between writing/reviewing at the various class levels -- perhaps this is impetus to do it sooner rather than later... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
In here there was a discussion about the difference between WP:MH/A and WP:WIAFA. This in turn arose from your suggestion that image and source reviews at the A-class review could be accepted at FAC. I would personally like them to be the same. Otherwise, we will have to travel down the road of creating an A-plus class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I would very much like them to be different, and when I ACR I standard I believed was in place: like FAC, but more forgiving, particularly in prose (difficult to be more forgiving about image use, say). I see ACR as slightly below FA. Doesn't FA replace A in the project tag (although the ACR will still be linked)? That's how I see it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I understood the thrust of Ian's comments to be that, because image and source reviews are done at FAC as a matter of course, and done by many reviewers at ACR as well, it might be useful to point to them (where we have them) at FAC as evidence that we have done our bit towards due diligence. As I recall we then got into a discussion about explicitly including certain things, like copyright checks, in our A-Class criteria. While I strongly support the latter, I think that even with that we'd still be some way from the full FAC requirements, and I'm with Grandiose that a little distance between ACR and FAC is a good thing. On a practical note I'm not sure we could convince the FAC crowd to accept milhist ACR as a bye anyway... I certainly wouldn't want to try :) EyeSerenetalk 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The A-class criteria should be slightly different, and a bit more forgiving than FAC, as Grandiose said. A-class criteria should exclude more articles than GA criteria, but slightly less than FA criteria. dci | TALK 23:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, you guys seem to see it pretty well as I do. Each assessment level should meet all the criteria of the previous level, plus a few more things in certain areas, for instance:
  • I see GA as pretty similar to MilHist B-Class in terms of structure, referencing, and supporting materials, but with a greater emphasis on style and prose quality, and perhaps a little more context/detail for the non-military crowd (reflective of GA's WP-wide assessment).
  • I see MilHist A-Class as similar to GA in terms of style and prose quality, but with a good deal more detail/coverage.
  • I see FA's relationship to A-Class as much like GA's to B-Class: similar in terms of structure, referencing, and supporting materials, but with a still greater emphasis on style and prose quality, and perhaps yet more context/detail for the non-military crowd (again because of FA's WP-wide assessment).
When it comes to copyright checks, I'll always give images the once-over no matter what level, but don't tend to do referencing spotchecks until I get to ACR/FAC (not to say those shouldn't be done for B/GA, but frankly I'm hard-pressed to find the time for that); I also don't always bother with ACR spotchecks if I'm familiar with the nominator's work, whereas at FAC I tend to do it on every article I review, unless someone else has. To sum up, I think Grandiose is right on the money with his succinct observation of ACR as being like FAC, but more forgiving. To respond to Hawkeye's last comment, even if we link to ACR image/spot-checks in our FAC noms, it's not a given that no-one has to bother with them at FAC, it just gives the delegates more info on the depth of review the article has already received. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER & Legion of Honor

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I remember a discussion in the past regarding criteria for notability in WP:SOLDIER and the Legion of Honor, however I cannot appear (my google-fu is not with me this morning) to find it. From what I can remember there was some discussion about what awardings of the Legion of Honor make one notable per SOLDIER, and what awards do not. I ask this as there is an AfD, where part of the claim of notability is an awarding of the Legion of Honor. So far I have been unable to find any third party reliable sources that confirm the awarding. Furthermore, depending on the awarding, based on what I can remember of the past discussion, it may not fall under SOLDIER.

Is it not that the Legion of Honor need not be awarded for valorous action in combat? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can remember that was indeed the consensus. I'll see if I can find the discussion. EyeSerenetalk 18:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Would this be what you're looking for? That discussion, and the footnoted addition to WP:SOLDIER that was the end product, should answer your question. EyeSerenetalk 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That is exactly what I was talking about.
Perhaps (can't do it myself now; editting from cell) we should link the discussion to the note, this way interested editors can see the reasoning for the footnote.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually there's a link to the discussion at the start of that section of MILPEOPLE :) EyeSerenetalk 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
That's to the discussion that originally created SOLDIER, not to the discussion that clarified item 2. As I am now on my regular comp, I will add the wikilink ^_^ --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_109&oldid=1259636017"