Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 114

Archive 110

←

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

→

Archive 120

Eyes on an article please

A new editor is removing the fatalities from the infobox of the 1956 B-47 disappearance article, and when I added them back reverted again with the edit summary "please cite that they have been labeled legally dead etc."(!). It seems to me WP:COMMONSENSE applies, more eyes on the article would be appreciated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left a query on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Long War Journal

Request participation here. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Have left a note on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for Brazilian military leader of the Paraguayan War has been opened

A peer review has been opened for Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre. One of the greatest Brazilian military officers, he fought in several conflicts: Independence of Brazil (1822-24), Cisplatine War (1825-28), Platine War (1851-52) and Paraguayan War (1864-70). Share your thoughts on this link. Thanks! --Lecen (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading this one. We have three more peer reviews that I just listed in the open tasks: John Adair, Expulsion of the Acadians and Hafez al-Assad. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Thai Air Force Bases

Recently, several Thai Air Force Bases used by the United States Air Force during the Vietnam War have been renamed. There appears to be some discussion on the User talk:Petebutt page about these moves and also a bot has flagged them stating there is a discussion in progress. Is anyone aware where this is being discussed ? Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mystery Monitor

Anyone know anything of a Monitor by the name of Black Fly which demolished a bridge at Baghdad and sank on 26 May 1923? What nationality was she? Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be HMS Blackfly, a 98 t, 126 ft Fly class river gunboat built in 1915–16 by Yarrows for operations on the Tigris and Euphrates. It was on loan to the Air Ministry when it was sunk.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, can now link to correct article from the relevant list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A-Class milestone

I thought you might all like to know that the project has just reached 350 A-Class articles! Obviously the number goes up and down as some A-Class articles move on to FAC, but I think it's a good enough occasion to congratulate the writers on their hard work, and to thank our tireless reviewers, without whom there wouldn't be an A-class process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! Intothatdarkness 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There wouldn't be an A-class process without AustralianRupert and Anotherclown. Three cheers! - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Echo that! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this has been bouncing around in my head for a while now ... enough with the bouncing. Is it time to make A-class more visible, with a symbol at the top of the page? Not a lot of wikiprojects take the A-class rating seriously, but the ones who do take it very seriously and do great work. We'd have to discuss it at WT:FAC and WT:GAN, and they're going to point out the obvious downside: good reviewers are already the bottleneck, and if you run an article through GAN, A-class and FAC, you need more reviewers for the same article, so throughput may drop. My comeback is that it's unlikely that wikiprojects that don't already put a lot of energy into A-class will start, or that the one who do will stop, so any "cost" of A-class is already built in. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. A class isn't a requirement for FAC so it doesn't necessarily require more reviewers. And a bot should be able to add the symbol to existing A-class articles, just like one did for the GA symbol when it was adopted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats are due all around, but especially to the reviewers. The problem with marking out A-class articles might be that although WPMILHIST conducts an excellent A-class review, other projects don't conduct a review at all, and any editor can simply evaluate an article as A-class. IIRC, some even consider A-class to be inferior to community reviews, hence also to GA level as well. Constantine ✍ 18:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, Hchc was commenting on the same subject over at WT:MHC#More reviewers when I was posting this question, so check over there, too. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also commented on this point over there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg

File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg has been nominated for deletion. Does anyone know its copyright status? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

navbox vs campaignbox

I'm flagging this here since I don't have any time to look at this now, but the change from a campaignbox to a navbox format on Template:British colonial campaigns is pretty disastrous at the moment considering the way it appears in relation to the infobox of articles like Invasion of Île Bonaparte and Invasion of Java (1811). If people are happy about campaignbox being replaced in this way, the navbox needs moving to the bottom (I'd do it myself but it looks like it transcludes on a lot of articles and I don't have the time right now). And at the moment it is the odd one out, Template:Dutch colonial campaigns, Template:French colonial campaigns, etc use the campaign box formatting and positioning. I don't have strong feelings either way, but it involves either undoing a lot of work to restore it to campaign box setting, or doing a lot of work to alter the position in all the articles it transcludes on, so a firm consensus is best, and given that it's currently messing up the formatting of these articles, I felt a post here was warranted rather than let a message sit on the template talkpage. Benea (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's on 104 articles. I noticed it at the top of Suez Canal and moved it before realising that IP editor had taken the liberty of converting it from a narrow top and side box to a full-width footer box and cocked-up some parameters which I corrected. Personally, I'm not working through 103 more pages.. would be easier to simply revert it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it per WP:BRD - the IP-editor should have taken responsibility for fixing those 104 pages. Regardless of what effort they put into it, it would take far more to correct the issues they created. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

IP editor has reverted back to navbox format and seemed happy to work through the 104 linked articles to move the box from top to bottom.. so credit where credit's due, they were challenged and proved their good faith by doing the tough part.. can't fault that. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Luftwaffe - German Air Force

Luftwaffe has been split into German Air Force for everything past 1956 and Luftwaffe for everything between 1920 and 1946. As Luftwaffe now contains only a very brief overview it has been suggested to merge History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) back into the main article Luftwaffe. Comments can be left at Talk:Luftwaffe#Merger proposal. noclador (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

image:OF(D) Asteğmen TA.jpeg

File:OF(D) Asteğmen TA.jpeg has been nominated for immediate deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming dispute

At the War of the Ragamuffins. It's been advertised on ANI, but this seems a more suitable place to call for a wider participation. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

htp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USN_Fleets_%282007%29.png

This file on Commons is inaccurate - it doesn't portray a whole fleet command area that isn't numbered (U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command). Can someone with more Commons experience help me through the deletion process over there? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Y2007

USFLTFORCOM/USJFCOM	USNAVSO/USSOUTHCOM
2F

• Y2008 4F reestablished

USFLTFORCOM/USJFCOM	USNAVSO/USSOUTHCOM
2F	4F

Y2009

• Y2011 2F disestablished - no image--Los688 (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Los688, 'no image' when Second Fleet disbands is exactly my point. Second Fleet was succeeded by Commander, Task Force 20 (CTF 20). Thus Task Force-level entities can control operations over whole UCC-level command areas. Now, the issue I have with NAVSO is that, depending on sources, NAVSO may have directed task forces in the South Atlantic directly, without utilizing Second Fleet. Task Force 138, for example, is listed in Polmar's Ships and Aircraft, Thirteenth Edition, 1978, as South Atlantic Force. This is not a Second Fleet numbering, as on exactly the same page (p.16), Second Fleet's task forces are listed, TF 20-TF 28 (no listing of TF 27), without any listing of a Southern Atlantic task force. So my contention was that NAVSO, as an intermediate command echelon between CINCLANTFLT and task forces such as TF 138, may have directed task forces. If you check User talk:Marcd30319, you'll see I've linked a Center for Naval Analyses document which discusses the history of USN South Atlantic command structures, among other things. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Scholarship for PhD students from the Society for Military History

Per this: "The SMH Facebook and Twitter Management Team seeks a doctoral student in military history ... In addition to a title, the Grimsley Fellowship comes with a stipend of $2,000 per year." Thanks kindly to User:Rjensen for the link. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Wiki's military editors should get involved in the Society of Military History. They publish the very useful Journal of Military History and will have their annual convention in New Orleans in May 2013.Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

+ 1 - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree: the Journal of Military History is excellent (especially its huge book review section). Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the whole project should get involved with SMH. Maybe it will be possible that they donate articles of the Journal of Military History to be released in The Bugle once or twice a year. --Bomzibar (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also the flip side: we could emulate WP:MED and co-author an article for the journal, assuming they are amicable to the idea. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll happily copyedit any Milhist journal articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

perhaps a panel of Wikipedians would be of interest at the annual SMH convention, or maybe a Wikibooth where we can talk one on one with people. The convention comprises experts on military history and maybe 60% are academics; many are from the military or are non-academic experts; a lot of publishers and editors also come and the book exhibit is a wonderful way to see what's new and forthcoming. Rjensen (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

These are all great ideas; is there a relatively simple way to see if any are viable? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars taskforce/portal

Following on from this post, I'm querying the scope of

• Portal:Napoleonic Wars
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force

The portal and taskforce contain in its selection of FAs, A class, GAs, DYKS, etc, articles on events that took place prior to the start of the Napoleonic Wars in 1803 (or if you stretch a point, 1799), like Glorious First of June (1794). Like the taskforce, it uses a definition of 'Napoleonic' that runs from 1792-1815, i.e. including the French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802), rather than the historical definitions of Napoleonic era (1799-1815) and Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815). I think the scope is fine and comprehensive, but should both portal and taskforce be retitled to reflect their coverage of the political and military history before Napoleon's rise to power? Something like 'Portal:French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars' and 'French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars task force'? Or is this just too nitpicky? Benea (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars" is accurate, but it's just too long and wordy to be a comfortable title to use, IMO,and "Napoleonic Era" does not typically embrace both periods either. Of course, wordiness does not relate to encyclopedic accuracy. Moving portals and such is easy enough, but changing task forces and all the related links on the MILHIST pages and categories might be a big task.. might want to ask Kirill whether is a "safe" title to use in terms of length - I don't know for sure if Wiki has a max URL length policy, but as you can imagine, URLs which use that term are going to be pretty long. I suppose the question you should be asking is, "Does using the term 'Napoleonic Wars' to include both the Revolution and First Empire-period represent a POV not supported by most historians"? As if that proved to be the case, we should be using a less ambiguous title. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That was the first question I asked myself. The Oxford Companion to Military History separates the two into discrete periods (1792-1802 and 1803-1815). Virtually all other histories I'm aware of distinguish similarly. Probably because it seems a bit anachronistic to treat the years of warfare between 1792 and 1802 as 'Napoleonic', as if history were just waiting for the great man to arrive. I've certainly never seen events like the Glorious First of June falling under the umbrella of the 'Napoleonic Wars'. As to longest task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force would still hold that title. To be historically accurate I think we either need to restrict the scope of the Napoleonic era/Wars taskforce/portals, to just the events of those wars, or expand the scope with a simple renaming to better fit the existing contents. Benea (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The length of the name shouldn't be a problem; as you point out, the Australian task force has a much longer one, and I haven't seen any problems. The renaming itself is a bit complicated—we'll need to make a number of template and category changes to get the assessment infrastructure under the correct name—but it's not infeasible by any means.

As far as the substantive issue is concerned, I would tend to agree with you that "French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars" is a better description of the intended scope than "Napoleonic era"—particularly as the "era" in question might arguably include events that have nothing to do with the wars themselves, but merely happen to coincide with the period. Kirill ^[talk] 00:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, given that most of the task forces are currently as good as dead, given the level on inactivity they exhibit, restricting the scope would mean we should be creating a separate "French Revolution task force" to compensate, for editors who cover this conflict. The result would just be two low-activity task forces, and I don't think anyone wants to go to the trouble of creating a new task force that won't be popular. Technically, members of the Napoleonic Wars task force are aware that its scope covers both periods, as there are relationships between the events and benefits to knowing about both for a broader understanding of French history, so that isn't really an issue.. WikiProject pages aim to coordinate editors and provide them with a "gathering point" more than anything, so naming conventions don't apply as much as they do to articles. The issue is identifying articles in the mainspace area of Wiki, those of encyclopedic value that might confuse readers as to their scope and possibly moving them to titles that are clearer. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with the scope, as you say, the two periods are interlinked and are best understood together. As to the title though, while looking through the featured article list, I was on the verge of going 'hey, half these battles weren't in the Napoleonic Wars, they were in the French Revolutionary Wars' and deleting them. For this reason I'd go with the renaming, for those that aren't intimate with the organisational details and could be confused by the discrepancy in the scope, as I happened to be. Benea (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I tend to find that there is a lot of attraction to naval battles in the MilHist project, and given that there were more naval campaigns during the French Revolution and that the French Navy was pretty much tied down during Napoleon's reign, by the Royal Navy, a lot of naval battles tend to occupy the earlier period. More of the greater land battles, however, are in Napoleon's Era. I think the reason fewer Napoleon battles attain FA is due to the persistent disputes between editors regarding who won, how, the extent, etc. Unstable articles don't make safe FAs. Sea battles often seem more clear-cut as to the actions and victors. As a result, our high number of editors in sea actions have an easier time getting articles to FA. There are many Napoleonic Wars articles that have potential, we just lack enough editors in that period, sadly. If you look at the edit history of the Portal, I created it about a year ago, and you're the first to show any interest in updating it since. Just goes to show the lack of interest, I suppose. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this is the same sort of question we faced with "Latin America". Technically speaking, the task force covers Latin America and the Commonwealth Caribbean, but using the former makes the name much simpler. (there's also multiple arguments against using 'Latin America' as it's not exactly precise either, but the alternatives range from 'Hispanic America' (leaves out Portuguese Brazil + French- and English-speaking countries + African/Native American influences) to 'Ibero-America' (leaves out everything but Brazil). The most accurate would probably be 'Afro-Ibero-Indo America', which is never used, a mouthful, and still leaves out the French- and English-speaking peoples. The simplest option, in my view, is the solution we adopted – using the most accepted name, even if it's not completely precise, to give viewers the general idea.

I suppose this means that I'm in favor of keeping the name as simple as possible. As a semi-related tangent, have we ever explored renaming the Australian/NZ/South Pacific task force to the much simpler "Oceania"? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was suggested and as I recall was quite unpopular with people who actually inhabit that part of the world. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC notification

There's an RFC underway at WikiProject Ships about whether ship classes should be hyphenated in article titles. Your input would be welcome. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Continued contradiction issues regarding three articles about Second Indochina War servicemembers

I had previously posted a please see template regarding this issue. Since then other editors had placed qualifiers that made only two articles contradict each other, and not the original article, and that editor boldly moved the discussion to this location. Another editor then removed the qualifiers per WP:BLP which reintroduced the contradiction, and presently states that it is their belief that there is no contradiction by the use of quotes around the contradictory statement. A tag was added by another editor, IMHO appropriately, and then removed by another editor.

• The initial discussion can be found here.
• The moved discussion can be found here.
• The discussion about the tag removal can be found here.

Additional interested editors are welcome to add their opinions regarding the two ongoing discussions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• To those editors interested. You will notice that the issue in discussion is simply about the wording. The article claims that the subject has been "called" the most decorated soldier in Vietnam by some sources. Those sources were cited. In Wikipedia we state what the sources say and provide those sources. The article doesn't contradict the other two mentioned at all because it does not state that the subject "was" or "is" the most decorated soldier in Vietnam. Therefore there is no contradiction at all. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tony the Marine. The wording in the article is a clear, explicit, and precise report of what the sources actually stated. I also noticed that the article contained 31 references/citations. Thus the research, documentation and sourcing of this article far exceeds that of the other two articles. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Battles

The usage of Battles is up for discussion, please see Talk:Battles (band)#Requested move -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass removal of the word "decisive" from infoboxes

If you take a look at Special:Contributions/-Ilhador- you will see that Ilhador has been and is continuing to remove the word "decisive" from battle infoboxes. In a few cases he's right to question the word, but in the majority there is ample article text with cites to provide the summary of "decisive". I asked him for his reasoning at User talk:-Ilhador-#Decisive victories. I will let him know this conversation is underway. We could use some more eyes on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All right. I have reverted the rest of his edits and restored the "decisive" wording from the battle infoboxes. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no references for such claims, some articles don't even have refs at all. They were just added a long time ago without any criteria. You should take a look on how even minor skirmish were described as decisive. You're are saying like If I changed the stalingrad infobox when in reality the "decisive" word has no sense at all.-Ilhador- (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Aside citation, the issue IMO really hinges on the definition of "decisive". Do we use it to mean "deciding the conflict", or do we use it in a wargamer's sense, "clear & obvious"? Or, frex, is Midway inconclusive (since it did not actually decide the outcome of the war)? Or is it decisive (because it clearly was a U.S. win)? I suspect we're going to have trouble either way, especially when non-specialists see "decisive" & think "it didn't end the war", while others think "it was a clear win".... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The articles in question include some devastating results. There's no reason not to call the Battle of Herdonia (212 BC) or the Battle of the Silarus decisive since the opposing armies were completely destroyed. At the Battle of Rhone Crossing, the result "had a profound effect on the war." The Battle of Salamanca saw the Spanish abandoning Andalusia, a huge part of Spain. The loss "irreparably damaged King Joseph's pro-French government." There are battles in which the word "decisive" is apt, and I feel that the reader should be told this right up front. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If look at the meaning, 'unquestionable' or 'undisputable' are relevant. For battles or engagements, we can't work on the basis of the influence on the outcome of a war, it must be the outcome of the battle or engagement. If it is a article on a war, there are examples of decisive victories (some above), but it is harder. I agree with Binksternet regarding the battles, there are numerous battles that match this description, including the ones listed above, but also Battle of Stalingrad and others. Surely no-one is arguing that the outcome of Stalingrad was anything other than decisive, or that the outcome of the 1940 Battle of France was anything other than decisive? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

When it is clear who won the battle, it's "decisive". France lost in 1940, just as Nazi Germany lost in 1945. There is no indecision about those examples. The 1968 Battle of Battle of Khe Sanh, however, does not fall into the "decisive" category, as the matter really wasn't settled between the opposing forces when the battle ended. It's a Subjective term, not an Objective one. So instead of cutting it out of everything, the use of the term needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if it is appropriate. Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood what the "decisive" means, especially when sustaining that with un-encyclopedic generic claims made by anyone. It doesn't means big, great or complete. How to call decisive a battle when the victorious had to retreat all the way long before the end of the campaign, or had the war raged for another ten years and you just ended up loosing.-Ilhador- (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll give a example. Was the Battle of Kiev decisive? It's the most crushing victory of WWII and the biggest mass rendition ever, but the germans ended up loosing the barbarossa and half the authors says it's because this fatal delay. Maybe it was decisive to the soviet victory.-Ilhador- (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This argument doesn't make any sense at all...by that logic, only Soviet victories are deemed "decisive", even through there are several battles in the war that actually turned the tide of war to the German side? I'll give a counter example, the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River has been deemed as a decisive victory by both the book Decisive Battles of the Twentieth Century and the book Disaster in Korea, yet the Chinese didn't win the Korean War. Although I support double checking for the abuse of the term "Decisive victory" in infoboxes, replace abuses with such arbitrary hackneyed logic is not an improvement either. In the absence of a professional military science definition on the term "decisive", I'll support Binksternet's rule of thumb: if a battle's result is a) well referenced, b) demonstrated a overwhelming victory and c) demonstrated "a profound effect on the war", then the term "decisive victory" should not be taken out without some good faith discussions. All I'm seeming right now is a big case of lack of good faith with edits that borderline disruptions to make a point. Jim101 (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think c) demonstrated "a profound effect on the war" is necessary for a battle to be decisive. It is a question of the forces engaged in the battle or campaign or war as appropriate. Clearly the Battle of Kiev (if as described) would be a decisive German victory, just because the Soviets eventually won doesn't detract from the decisiveness of the victory in that battle... Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, losing an entire front (half of total Soviet fighting strength I believe?) does/should have long term impact on the history of Eastern Front (on a elementary level, although the Soviet replaced the man and win, the war still dragged on longer had the Soviet didn't lose), so I believe Battle of Kiev actually does meet the c) demonstrated "a profound effect on the war" criteria. To be honest, I'll be surprised if there are no analysis on how losing half of your manpower could adversely impact your operation planning for the next year, to say at least (even the Chinese in the Korean War need more than half a year to replace ~500,000 men on the front). Jim101 (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article you want is The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. It is a book written by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy back in 1851. Creasy invented the concept of the decisive battle, and championed a form of military history and military theory that elevated the battle above all other aspects of military activity. Creasy argued that the proper objective of any military campaign must be to seek decisive battle. Other popular historians over the years have followed suit, resulting in a number of other books by historians like J.F.C. Fuller. Most military historians no longer believe in the concept, and there has been a move away from celebrating the primacy of the battle. So the concept is problematic even before we begin talking about various battles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all the nonsense I removed were unreferenced and unsourced, and that can be clearly seen on the edit summaries. By wikipedia standards, if someone didn't like it, go find a source to support your personal opinion.-Ilhador- (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hawkeye: almost no individual battles are 'decisive', and the term is greatly over-used in Wikipedia articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be so, but it's not a reason for mass deletion without discussion. Some battles were decisive and - in most of those cases - the volume of historiography (which speaks for itself) around them allows us to consider each case on its merits. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

@Hawkeye and Nick-D. Perhaps, but there is still a significant body of work on the importance of decisive engagements in war see [1] for an example of very recent work on this topic. It is also still taught at higher level war colleges. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a book about decisive wars, which is a rather different topic from individual battles being 'decisive'. Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This equation of wars, campaigns, and battles is pseudo-scientific in my view. Military operations can be decisive at the tactical, operational or strategic levels, and that is the point. You don't say the Battle of France (frankly a strategic campaign rather than a tactical battle) was indecisive because four years later the Allies successfully invaded and liberated the country. Nor [Battle of Britain]]. But they were campaigns, not tactical battles. The Battle of the Little Big Horn was clearly decisive at the tactical level, but operationally and strategically a defeat for the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho. That doesn't mean it wasn't a decisive tactical victory. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

♠Looking at the above disagreement, I can't help feel a bit smug. ;p

♠I do agree with Peacemaker67, it's nonsensical to equate a tactical engagement with a strategic campaign. Was the Battle of the Atlantic not a decisive British victory, even tho many of its individual engagements saw severe losses? (IDK if I'd call even HX228 a defeat, since it got through...)

♠I also agree with Wiki-Ed, the historiography will govern. Even then, you'll find disagreement. AFAIK, Wilmott was the only one not to call Midway decisive, on the argument I mentioned above: it didn't end the war.

♠Obiter dictum. I want to thank Hawkeye7 for mentioning Creasy. That helps explain Mahan, & IJN's obsession with "decisive battle". It also appears to explain the French doctrine of attack. T. A. Kreskin ^{I know what you're thinking} 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree the term is greatly over-used on Wikipedia. Hopefully this discussion can establish some sense of when it's appropriate to use the term and when it isn't.

  I think the "result" field of battle infoboxes makes it very tempting to call something "decisive" (meaning "conclusive"), because it essentially asks editors to boil down an entire article into three or four words.Perhaps it would be best to recommend the use of that field to describe what actually happened—like "Embassy recaptured after six-day siege" in the infobox for the Iranian Embassy siege? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The point of info box is to summarize an entire article into few words. If an info box is made into a duplicate of result section in an article, then it failed in its original purpose (not to mention it is completely unreadable in that tiny space). No matter now you much facts/POVs you want to cram into the info box, by the end of day you still have to sum the result in under two lines (8 words?), otherwise it will look like a paragraph, which just screams the article is a bunch of disjointed arguments slapped together, with the writers unable to tell what is the actual consensus on topic. The point of the result field is to provide an accurate summary in under 8 words (preferable under 4 words in a single line), not to appease everyone's opinions. If an 8 words summary is just so hard to write due to the diverse opinion of Wikipedians, then the only solution I can see going forward is for Milhist project to develop its own winner scale and impose it on all articles (my last idea was allowing "X Victory" or "In Dispute" results only), or just remove the result field from the info box altogether. Jim101 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If it came to that choice, I'd support removing the result field. Milhist shouldn't be making that sort of determination, IMO. Intothatdarkness 16:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we be making the determination? In most cases there are enough reliable sources out there commenting on the decisiveness of a battle. In most cases, decisiveness can exist at a number of levels, so a battle that is decisive in the context of a campaign may prove to be of little note in the span of an entire conflict. And again, it's usually discussed in reliable sources, and we should cite them whenever possible for this sort of stuff. It's not a determination we should make, IMO. Intothatdarkness 15:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should note that mainstream historians characterize the conflict as "decisive", if they do. For conflicts in which there is no consensus of historians, we leave the word out. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

By some standards here, 90% of wikipedia articles could made such a claim, which looses all the extraordinary sense of the initial ideia. When historians started to write about the concept (real historians, not amateurs or some random site) they reserved the term for conflicts which really decided something, as Austerlitz or Waterloo, not just about every clash that had a winner.-Ilhador- (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree there is a tendency to overuse "decisive", I'm not sure a source-based solution will work because I don't think it is a wikipedia problem. Decisive is often used to mean emphatic - one side clearly defeats the other, the victor is not uncertain. Few battles are decisive in Creasy terms (it has lasting historical impact, it marks a turning point). The question is, should there be wiki guidance on the use of descriptors like "decisive", "major victory" and so on, to attempt consistency?Monstrelet (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If level of victory is an issue, just go with victory. We shouldn't be in the business of making more detailed distinctions, and if sourcing is an issue I think it's best to go with the simple victory (where possible). Intothatdarkness 18:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably late in the discussion to be commenting, but I would like to raise a few points having seen a few articles where the result in inaccurately portrayed. The term "decisive" often leads to debates on Wiki, and causes some rather unfortunate results:

• People citing as many sources that support their argument as possible, because historical writers can be biased.
• People criticising each others sources for being biased, primary, or with "X author is know to have pro/anti views" claims.
• War-editing, and it is sometimes the case that opinions over some results are more about national pride than historical fact.
• An ongoing "decisive" debate can lead to a settled split, e.g "Tactical victory; Strategic defeat" result.. and in most cases has no validity whatsoever, it is the result of wishy-washy Wiki-politics finding a safe ground, and is nothing short of historical revisionism which is one of those areas that leaves Wiki vulnerable to attacks by those who claim Wiki is inaccurate or makes up its own rules regarding what sources it is willing to support.
• References become over-weighted in favour of those editors wanting to push their POV by stressing their selected sources views and belittling other historians in a way that makes them appear to have more credit, but is in fact against policy.
• A prime example of where the description of the outcome has been debated to death and manipulated to become a contentious "consensus result" is Battle of Borodino. The article is watched like a hawk and insta-reverted by editors looking to maintain the status quo who guided the article to this questionable resolution. No doubt there are other such articles across Wiki.
• I suppose the question should be asked: Is providing a binding result going against Wiki's policy of not swaying the reader into a frame of mind? Yes, we know Napoleon lost Waterloo.. but how strongly do we need to stress the Allied victory, before the article appears pro-British? Same goes for any battle.. even civil wars, such as the American Civil War, both sides still have strong supporters, yet stressing an outcome can lead to pro-Union or pro-Southern sentiments from objective readers looking for a an overview of the battle, rather than the thoughts of editors who have pushed their favoured authors to stress "who won" rather than "how the battle was fought".

Just my 2 cents. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MarcusBritish, HJ, Bkinsternet and Intodarkness (and probably other people). These terms are well-overused, to the point where they're used inconsistently and meaninglessly. My favourite article to illustrate the issue is Attack on Pearl Harbour. To be fair, it's a thorny one because the one incident represents both a big military success for Japan and a very unfortunate diplomatic decision. But currently this is summed up as a "Major tactical victory" - displaying a marked misunderstanding of the word "tactical". In the past it's said all manner of bizarre things. The Land (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate to go off topic, but Attack on Pearl Harbor shouldn't even be given a "Result" on that format, IMHO. Yes, Japan may have achieved its objectives but there was no "battle" as such.. just a surprise attack and a limited defensive engagement. What's next, listing 9/11 as a tactical victory under the "War against terrorism" because it was the initial "Attack on America"? I think there's a bigger misunderstanding there than just the outcome, even if the action was military and an act of war. I think determining the result of everything from skirmishes to pitched battles is an over-done practice. If a scouting party had a minor running with enemy scouts, a handful of men get killed, why do editors insist on identifying a clear-cut victor for a non-essential action? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's (IMO) a wiki-issue. Skirmishes often have a result that only makes sense (if it does at all) in the context of a larger battle, but with the perception that having an article equals importance that context gets lost. That's why I'm not crazy overall about a Results field, but if it is used it should be kept as simple and clear as possible. And to address the point below, a result may or may not really matter depending on the level of military conflict being discussed. There were any number of trench raids conducted during World War I, for example, that really had no value at any level. Should that military reflex (Raid of 2 September, to make up an example) be assigned a level of victory? Is it victory if the raiding party made it across No Man's Land? If they made contact? If they killed three of the foe? Or ten? If some of them made it back to their own lines alive? Intothatdarkness 19:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to something said earlier, a result field is needed, as that is the single most important detail about a military conflict (who won, or if it stayed unresolved). But I agree that it may be better to get rid of the "decisive" word, we may consider it a word to watch, a mere word that represent an opinion. If the conflict was so decisive, then it may be more clear and less controvertial to point, as much summarized as possible, why the result would be decisive. For example, "X victory. Annexation of Y", "X victory. Abdication of Y", "X victory. End of Y war", etc. Of course, in a completely telegraphic manner. Cambalachero (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with comment above that, if the info box has a purpose, it is to give a quick summary to the user and the user almost certainly wants to know who won. I think, reading the further debate, that if we were to have a policy preference, it should be to lose the adjectives and simply have a result range victory by X, indecisive or unclear (the latter to be used where reliable sources are split on the result). Degree of victory or level of ambiguity of result or impact in the great scheme of things can be left to the text, where things can be explained better.Monstrelet (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If we limit ourselves in the infoboxes to "victory", "indecisive", & "unclear", I'd support that: let the page do the explaining. I do have a concern about "unclear", but if it pushes the user to read a bit further to see why it's unclear, I can live with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On further thought, disputed may be better than unclear. I'm also painfully aware that indecisive is the opposite of decisive :) However, I'm struggling to think of a better word Monstrelet (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see "disputed" being a good choice - in cases where editors simply can't agree on the outcome, that "disputed" is more likely going to be a dispute between Wiki-editors than a genuine reflection of a dispute between valid sources and scholars. Also, based on what I've read at WP:Advice pages, even if MILHIST requires that "Decisive" results be abolished, or used sparingly, unless it has entered into Wiki-policy, there is no requirement for editors to see it as consensus, merely an optional advisement. There are bound to be editors who have strong feelings about using "Decisive" if they feel their sources support them. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good direction to go in. Three options do not cover the nuances - some "victories" are very clear and there is no dispute over the outcome, but the cost is detrimental to the war effort to the extent that failing to mention the impact is misleading. And on that point, it's not just battles we're talking about; articles on wars use the same terminology. Wars are rarely 'indecisive' or 'unclear', but the status quo might be restored or some sort of settlement agreed that changes political boundaries in a way that both sides claim to have gained a 'victory', regardless of the overall cost. Furthermore, I see little point complaining that editors are using sources (shock horror) to support a statement; of course they do - it's a core policy. However, if undue weight is being applied by a cabal of editors then raise the issue here and get a thrid opinion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, looks like we won't get any consensus on this. Personally, I don't have any strong enough views to argue for any particular cause. However, contra Marcus, I do still think producing guidance for editors has value and some conception of what a decisive victory might be might be shared. We all seem to agree "decisive" is a term which needs to be sourced, rather than simply applied by the editor, for example.Monstrelet (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I don't object to guidance if it leads to uniformity and results in articles structured to support the overall preference of editors. I'm just saying, on the flip-side of the coin, are those editors who will go against the grain and do things as they see fit, even with valid and sourced material, stating that guidance isn't policy and can't be enforced, and wikiprojects cannot insist things be done their way. Not necessarily my personal beliefs, but someone has to voice these concerns, as they are expressed within wiki's own guidelines. In essence, I'm saying we need to be careful how we approach dealing with this "results" matter, as it obviously involves a great many articles, some of which have reached their own consensus and might not approve of Milhist stepping in as an authority on how results should be displayed. Backlash may be inevitable, from some articles, is my worry. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

1842 Retreat from Kabul

There has been a minor edit skirmish over the wording of the Result entry in the infobox (or campaignbox) for the Retreat from Kabul article. One editor has been substituting "Massacre of Elphinstone's Army by the Afghans" for "Decisive Afghan victory". Of course it was a massacre and the issue is a minor one anyway but grateful for confirmation that more descriptive Infobox/Results entries than "victory" or "decisive victory" are acceptable Buistr (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

I've used 'see Aftermath section' a few times recently. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That would seem a fair compromise, IMO. Good suggestion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for this input and the direct changes made to the article. All seems satisfactorily resolved there. One of the myths of Empire was that there was only one survivor from the "Army of Afghistan". In fact by the time that you include freed prisoners, hostages, Greek traders, uncounted sepoys etc there seems to have been quite a crowd straggling back to India. Still it did come close enough to being a massacre. Buistr (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition of a combatant for Infoboxes

I am trying (in vain) to find Wikipedia's guidelines concerning what qualifies as a combatant for InfoBoxes describing battles or wars. I have been basing my edits upon Wikipedia's entries for a combatant or a belligerent but I realize that articles themselves are not considered authoritative. Without some specific guidelines, it is hard to interact responsibly with other editors who have differing opinions on the matter (for example, if two official political entities are at war on foreign soil and the local population takes a side and comprises a significant or majority fighting force, may the local population be considered a combatant?). I am not looking for opinion at this point unless the matter is only solved by the consensus of opinion. I am looking for a Wikipedia guideline or, in its absence, clear precedent. Thank you.--Rereward (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is one (editorialising for a second, I would be opposed to its creation because I feel it needs a per-article approach). Also Wikipedia does not run a system of precedent per se, so I think you're going to struggle there to find guidelines laid down in a discussion about a single battle or war. Of course you may be able to find a case similar to your own, but depending on the topic that might not be possible.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, consensus (so-called; it's usually majority rule, in my experience) is the only precedent or unbreakable guideline. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In the example you've given, the populace would be considered a combatant force - irregular, but combatants nontheless. And, as noted, WP:CONSENSUS is the standard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I agree that the populace would be considered a combatant force and all the primary sources of the time agree, on all three sides of the conflict. But one editor continues to object and undo claiming that the ethnicity of the defenders does not matter. So how do I build consensus? And what is the venue for me to post the actual article for discussion? Thank you. --Rereward (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if you were to look at it with examples.. populace being non-military, I would certainly expect people like the French Resistance against the Nazis, or Spanish Guerillas against Napoleon's troops to be considered "combatants" given that they do form a sort of organisational local defence force. I wouldn't say that makes 3 sides though, i.e. it wasn't Allies vs Nazis vs Resistance, it was Allies (including Resistance) vs Nazis - so you would still need to put such combatants into context.. despite fighting independently, they would usually be indicated as contributing to the efforts of one side, as informal allies. I don't think that would require a guideline, or consensus, it's just common sense, and I expect most sources would agree. I'm not sure where ethnicity comes into it, though.. whether you consider the French or Dutch Resistance, they're still non-military Allied combatants, regardless of whether they're French or Dutch, it's numbers that summarise sides in an infobox. So it'd be like, Combatants: U.S. 10,000; UK 8,000; French Resistance 500; Belligerents: Nazis 12,000. That's how I'd expect to see it, in summary form, the prose should go into more detail regarding their actual role, with sources. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nesterov assault rifle

Nesterov assault rifle has been proposed to be renamed light assault rifle programme, see Talk:Nesterov assault rifle -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could someone perform a copy-edit on Lopota Gorge hostage crisis?

It's a brand new article about the recent border clash in Georgia that I just rewrote completely. --Niemti (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

South African rank insignia

Many RSA rank insignias are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_September_3 -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

MilHist's awards and competitions in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's various awards, competitions, and other ways of motivating contributors. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yearly Coordinator elections

... for this project are now up. Anyone can nominate themselves; voting starts on Saturday the 15th. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Operation Downfall FAR

I have nominated Operation Downfall for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.PumpkinSky talk 15:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A-class review update

G'day all, the following Milhist A-class reviews need some attention if anyone is keen:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Joseph Desha: open since 3 August. Needs another couple of reviewers;
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian): open since 18 August and hasn't had a review yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll have a look at Desha. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Monica Lin Brown

Reposted from my talk page:

Hi Dank, I saw you're the lead coordinator for the Military History Wikiproject and I had a quick question I hoped you could help me with. I wasn't sure where to ask in the wikiproject but here goes... I noticed that the Jason D. Cunningham and Neil Roberts wikipages were deleted per WP:GNG, WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:ONEEVENT. I noticed the article on Monica Lin Brown fails those same criteria and more since she only received a Silver Star for one event. Jason even received a more notable award, the Air Force Cross, and had a more developed wikipage but also just for one event. Wouldn't her page also go up for AfD for the exact same reasons? Anywho, thank you for any assistance you can provide. daintalk   17:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This went to AfD in 2009: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Lin Brown, but the consensus was clearly to keep the article. It may be worth renominating this as WP:ONEEVENT appears to apply. That said, female soldiers do (probably rightly) attract considerable media attention when they're promoted to senior ranks or are awarded prestigious medals, so there's also a strong case for retaining the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D. It's not just about the Silver Star, it's also about the fact that a female soldier was awarded one. It is a combination of the two, and should not just be about the fact that the award of a Silver Star may or may not be notable in general, but to the specific facts of the award (ie to a female soldier, which hasn't happened very often). Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok gotcha, I was just curious, I didn't understand why. Thanks daintalk   04:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre is now a Featured Article candidate. Please, review it.

Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre is now a Featured Article candidate. A Brazilian officer with a long career in arms, he fought in the independence of Brazil, in the Platine War, in the Paraguayan War and in other conflicts. He was also a politician, a member of the Liberal party, and he fought for the abolition of slavery in Brazil. Please, review the article and share your thoughts on the page nomination, in here. --Lecen (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Any bored expert editors out there?

I am working on Operation Red Hat, 267th Chemical Platoon Project 112, Project SHAD if any pros who can stay neutral on potentially controversial subjects want to work with an amateur wikipedia editor to make 100% verifiable military historical A class articles in interesting areas (secrets in CW, BW, ships, units, agent orange) where newly declassified sources are limited using the no copyright government owned info, photos and videos that I gather please message me on my talk page. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice you were having issues regarding CSD nominations. Might have been better to work on these in Sandbox, but no matter. I have placed an {{Under construction}} banner atop the 267th platoon page as it seems to be in need of time to develop. Simply remove it when you're done expanding the article. If you need to, use that banner on other articles during the work, to help avoid CSDs, reverts, and other conflicts with editors. 'fraid I can't help further with writing them, Cold War era history is not in my area of interest. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, are 267th Chemical Platoon and 267th Chemical Company the same thing - they currently have the same content? If this is the case, you need to pick the most commonly used term, them redirect one page to the other. If they are different, but you find that it would be better to describe the 267th all in one page, use one article page to cover both company and platoon, then redirect the other to it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, I am about to upmerge the 267 Chem Plt article into the 267 Chem Coy article, as the Chem Coy is more recent. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

TF coverage for Austrian MILHIST articles

G'day all,

I have been trying to keep the TF coverage below the backlog point, but one of the issues is where to put Austrian articles. Can I put them to WP:GERMIL or are they orphans like the Czechs and Hungarians? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I'd say that they don't fit into any of the regional TFs generally, but could fit into a couple of the "periods or conflicts" TFs, for example if the article was about the Austro-Hungarian Empire's involvement in World War I, it could fit into that TF. Additionally, if the article was about a conflict with a nation in the Balkans, the article could be put into that TF. Otherwise, it could just be put into the category of articles with no TF (from memory "|no=yes" in the template call). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with IP user

An IP user appears to be on a vendetta against women in the military. See user's contributions for examples. I've reverted the edits with mass removals. Any help here is really appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Issue a warning in their talk page. Report it for vandalism at WP:AIV. These bulk-text removals without explanation are not helpful edits. ISP: The Catholic University of America... wow, just wow... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already done the former and surely know they are not helpful. Was more concerned about user coming back later... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A block, even a short-term 48–72 hours should put a stop to that.. appears to be a misogynist, whoever they are. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Israeli images

Several Israeli military images are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 6 for having questionable licensing. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

World War II started in…

… in 1941. More precisely, in June 1941.

1. Special:Whatlinkshere/First period of World War II
2. Special:Whatlinkshere/Second period of World War II

BTW, Third period of World War II is also an "interesting" article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we delete all three of those? And June of 1941 as well? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged "June of 1941" for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The creator of those three articles Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has been blocked. Can we speedy delete all three per WP:DENY ? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, as other editors have worked on them (though I'd note its stuff like this which contributed to Mrg3105's block). While the articles are not well named, the underlying content seems useful. Would it be useful to combine them as a Soviet historiography of World War II article? Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend keeping June of 1941; it's a highly symbolic date in Russia, as well as major turning point in military history. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No one would typ June of 1941 to get to the Operation Barbarossa article. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Redirecting is more useful. Intothatdarkness 14:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Merging to a Soviet historiography article seems sensible. If these terms are only ever used in those contexts, the reader presumably needs something which explains what they actually mean (and why); it seems a bit silly to redirect them anywhere else. I note the First Period page now goes to 1939, which is a bit unhelpful! Andrew Gray (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, if someone is going to create a Soviet historiography article, it might be worth merging Great Patriotic War (term) into it as well. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

But obvious divisions of WWII are different to different people, say if you were French, it would be before the surrender, during occupation, and after liberation; If you were Japanese it could be before Pearl Harbor, and before the Atomic Bomb, and after Hiroshima. If you were American it could be before Pearl Harbor, Before D-Day, Before V-E Day, and after. Etc. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) However, there isn't a general practice of using "second period", etc, in those contexts - in effect, someone looking for the "first period of WWII" is very likely to have picked the term up from a Soviet source, and we should try to help them by routing them to an explanation of what it means and to the right article, rather than aggressively deleting the terms or making confusing redirects. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That only works if the redirect is called "xyz period of the Great Patriotic War", not "WWII" -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've now created these, and standardised the Soviet operations article on GPW. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should have moved the three WWII redirect pages to the GPW names, so that the edit histories are attached to the topic the original author was writing about, instead of making new redirects without histories. Then the old titles would not have incorrect data held in their histories. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

These are such titles as "… period of World War II" that constitute the problem, not the content which does not worth much. Regardless of ‹censored› who initially created this, by illiterate translation of Великая Отечественная война into "World War II", each of titles now should be either redirected or deleted – leaving these as articles, certainly, is not a reasonable option. Where should First period of World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) redirect? And what to do with Second period of World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Third period of World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected all three to Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, as that at least puts the term in context. "First period of the GPW", etc, could also be linked here if desired. (Any potential article on Soviet historiographical periodisation of the war, suggested above, will mostly consist of this list!) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a better target would be Timeline of World War II for these WWII named redirects. The edit histories can be moved to GPW titles, while the current names can repoint to the timeline article -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the timeline page is that it doesn't explain what the use of these "periods" might actually mean; the Soviet article does. It's not helpful to a reader. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another try. World War II has an unambiguous translation to Russian: Вторая Мировая война, and vice versa. Any minimally educated Soviet/Russian will not confuse Великая Отечественная война and World War II – the former is only a part of the latter both in Soviet and modern Russian historiography. Why should English Wikipedia redirect "Second period of World War II" to "Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II"? Because someone made an egregious translation mistake which was not instantly corrected? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing they're wrong, but inaccurate redirects are fine if they help people fix the mistake. Anyone who makes the same error in translation, or simply encounters a document discussing the periods using vague terminology, is likely to be wanting a meaningful result which explains what they were actually looking for. If you go to a timeline article, you'll have no idea what these "periods" are and have no idea of what section of the timeline you need. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, this discussion has now apparently been shifted (without any notification) to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 9#… period of World War II. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I've warned Incnis Mrsi about his wind-bag edit summaries. He is clearly very pointy and his remarks are condescending, semi-personal attacks. He really needs to tone down his attitude towards people opposing his position on these articles. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Several milhist images up for deletion

On Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_September_7, several military history related images are up for deletion. Rank badges, and File:Ogden Portrait.JPG, File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG, and this patch File:963 AWACS.JPG -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Several more WWII military personage images are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 5 -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And some more images of German WWII military are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 9 -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cluebot archiving on Z Special Unit

Hello. Any idea why Cluebot archived an open discussion thread after only 5 days - pls see dif [2]? Would someone who knows enough about the parametres here be able to fix this? I don't think CanberraBulldog's question was answered but the question is now hidden prematurely in an archive. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Cluebot setup age= hours, not days like Miszabot, so 120 hours = 5 days. Best option: revert archive back to talk page, delete archived thread from archives, update the age parameter. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. Thank you, Marcus, I've done as you've suggested. I chose archiving at 28 days (672 hours). I trust this works for all concerned. I wonder if the unused archive page should be deleted now, though: Talk:Z Special Unit/Archives/2012/September. Are there any admins in the house? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this page being autoarchived at all? There isn't enough activity to need it. The second archive contains one entry. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out gents. Anotherclown (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone should move the first archive to "/Archive 1", merge the second archive into that one, and delete the three old archives that are named by month. (and fix or delete the autoarchiving to point to standard archive names instead of monthly names) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair call. I've done this now; waiting for an admin to delete the associated blank monthly archives. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The admin didn't agree. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it, there's no links to the page = completely unneeded IMHO. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Ed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wallace Duffield Wright

Someone remind me what the consensus was for British military articles re:Ribbons? They've been added to this article and look awful Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't they just. I will suggest that due to the short nature of the article that that amount of imgery is "Undue" and further that as uncited , the "ribbon bar" is entirely speculative. Further the VC image in the place where the article subject should figure is unnecessary, thirdly the iamges in the medal table are oversize. And I've decided to stand by these words and make the changes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then you might want to look at Nford24 (talk · contribs) edits. they've been adding "h&a" sections to a fair few articles. Though, if I recall, the debate over ribbons lasted a long time with no consensus met due to opinions being too polarised. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the changes looked awful, but it's worth noting that using the VC or MoH image in the infobox is ok in these articles according to Template:Infobox military person (although perhaps not at that size). Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WRT Infobox size issue - this was caused by YOBOT removing the size param from the Image itself - to fix need to add | image_size = 125px to all the VC infobox image. As the ribbons are unreferenced I'm going to remove, there's no evidence that Wright ever wore this combination of ribbons and I'll sort the VC image size as suggested 13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

LCVP moved - what to do

An editor moved LCVP to LCVP (United States), and made LCVP a list of 3 articles on the WWII and modern craft (Australian and British). This left a lot of links to the WWII landing craft an extra hop from their target. I patched up LCVP as a proper disambiguation type page and moved it to LCVP (disambiguation) so I could redirect LCVP to LCVP (United States). However that leaves a fair bit of double redirects. Anyone think it a good idea to move the WWII LCVP article back to its original article name? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that the World War II-era LCVP are clearly the dominant topic here, I think that moving things back to how they were before (with a hat note to the other two uses) would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks alright to me in terms of where they go, for the countries, though the disamb. is currently orphaned. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft ordnance

Aircraft ordnance has been requested to be renamed to ordnance, see talk:Aircraft ordnance -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Pakdef.info

There is currently discussion at External Link noticeboard, on the use of the site www.pakdef.info as an external link. The discussion has got little input from outside, will like to have more input. The site is related to military of Pakistan. --SMS ^Talk 20:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Besides some sources, independent of this site stand removed from the article Frontier Force Regiment, while link to this site was being removed. I have tried restoring and discussing with the editors involved. Would someone be kind enough to review this, please. Thanks --SMS ^Talk 20:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've commented at WP:ELN (which I didn't know existed until today; the number of noticeboards might be getting out of control). I don't think that this is a suitable external link, largely as it hosts blatant copyright violations. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

NFCC deletion nominations

image:Gada82.jpg , image:Gada82-Roland.jpg , image:Thiepval Bombing 1996.jpg have been nominated for deletion for failing NFCC. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Heinrich Hoffmann Images

I am looking for some assistance regarding the alleged copy right violation of Heinrich Hoffmann images. Based on the {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} template, Stefan2 (talk · contribs) considers a number of images unfree (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 5) since the link to the National Archives is missing. Mariaflores1955 (talk · contribs) argues, based on the legal ruling Price v. United States, that the images are free of copyright. I am personally not in the position to assess this properly. However the magnitude of images impacted is substantial. What is the best way to proceed? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day, specific sources are going to be needed to demonstrate that these images are in fact from NARA. I've raised concerns about the way this has been handled though (eg, the multitude of different discussions, rather than a centralised discussion). Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If PD-HHOFFMANN is not sustainable, could we convert the images to {{Non-free fair use in}} rationale? This way they would not be lost altogether. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Stefan2 (talk · contribs) and others are wrong branding these images as unfree. In fact the {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} template is not at all accurate. I would suggest that the people who created this template review the facts of the Price v. United States ruling. All the photos posted by myself on Wikipedia come from negatives owned by Wartenberg Trust and its foundations and yes, these are ALL part of the NARA Hoffmann works (because Wartenberg Trust gave copies of all their photos to NARA). There are no links to the individual images at this time! Also, many more photos, not at NARA, are part of the Carlisle Archive, which is also covered by the Price v. United States ruling. Unfortunately the poorly made and deceiving {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} template does not show this at all. In conclusion, nearly 100% of all Hoffmann photographs (created between 1933-1945) are protected as FREE by the above mentioned legal decision. It is absolutely frustrating that administrators such as Stefan2 (talk · contribs) make these incredibly poor decisions based on conjecture rather than facts. Before he nominated these images for deletion, he should have talked with the uploaders and others (who actually understand the legal matter) to resolve this issue.Mariaflores1955 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you refer to me as an administrator. I would just like to point out that I am not an administrator.

United States copyright law is unusually complex. A list of (hopefully) all valid PD reasons is given at Commons:COM:HIRTLE. In this case, we are talking about the following PD reason:

Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. On Commons these cases also need to be free according to copyright terms in the country of publication. These terms are not part of this table.
Date of Publication	Conditions	Copyright Term	Commons license tag
Anytime	Works whose copyright was once owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian, and whose copyright, if restored, would as of the URAA date, be owned by a government	Not protected by US copyright law	?????

The "URAA date" is 1 January 1996 for works first published in Germany or most other European countries.

The main question is this: was the copyright to the Wartenberg Trust photos ever owned or administrated by the Alien Property Custodian? According to the article about Wartenberg Trust, this is a firm located in Monaco, with roots going back to individuals from German-speaking regions. Somehow, this would suggest that the firm obtained the photos by some other means. If the firm donated the photos directly to NARA, I would assume that the photos only have been administrated by NARA and not by the Alien Property Custodian. It is also not clear if the Wartenberg Trust only donated copies of the images or if copyright also was donated. It is not even clear if the Wartenberg Trust ever held the copyright to the images, or if the copyright holder was someone else. It is not sufficient if there is simply a copy of the copy in the National Archives; it is also required that the copyright once was administered by the Alien Property Custodian.

The article Price v. United States mentions photos which were used for the Nuremberg trials and then shipped to the United States at the end of the 1940s. I take it that those photos were administered by the Alien Property Custodian at some point, at least after they reached the United States, so those photos would appear to fulfill the requirements above, and that this is why there is a {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} template. Are the Wartenberg Trust photos the ones which were used for the Nuremberg trials, or did the Wartenberg trust photos end up in the United States for some other reason? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Waternberg Trust is irrelevant - NARA treats the Hoffman collection as seized Nazi property (see for instance here). The collection numbers well over 200,000 photo negatives, of which the images in question are unquestionably included, along with thousands of other photographs seized from Nazi Germany. According to Price v. United States, the entire collection is PD in the United States, not just those that were used at Nuremburg. That NARA has not uploaded all of these photos for us to link to is not grounds to delete these images. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Stefan2 (sorry for calling you an administrator) and thank you for your input Parsecboy! Parsecboy is right on the money. As I said before the entire collection (currently at NARA) is FREE of copyright. Wartenberg Trust donated all the images in their collection attributed to Hoffmann to NARA after the WWII (in 1950s or 60s). It was not until 1995 that the Price v. United States ruling came into effect. At that point the images and negatives were long part of the NARA collection, thus were directly affected by the decision, in addition to those photos taken from Hoffmann studios in Munich and elsewhere (including the offices of SIgnal). Also, the the Carlisle Archive is covered by this! No one is seem to mention this!! Please note that the Alien Property Custodian issue is irrelevant here. The ONLY legal ruling that affects H. Hoffmann works is Price v. United States. Thank you!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've read the text at NARA's website. I see two problems:

• The page tells that the works in this collection were seized. The article Price v. United States also talks about seized works. The use of the word "seized" implies that the previous owners gave the material to the United States unvoluntarily. However, the uploader wrote that the uploader's images had been donated to NARA by Wartenberg Trust. The use of the word "donated" implies that the previous owners gave the material to the United States government voluntarily.
• NARA's website has a lengthy explanation of the source of the seized material:

The National Archives established this record group in 1947 for records in federal custody that had been captured from Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War II, or seized from the defeated Axis Powers at the end of the war. Included among the German records were not only those of the national socialist ("Nazi") regime, but also those of predecessor German governments and of other European governments that had been acquired by the Germans during the war. The National Archives augmented this World War II collection by accessioning microfilm copies of other seized records from the Department of State, the Department of the Navy, and other sources. In addition to the World War II collection, this record group now includes records acquired by U.S. armed forces during operations in Korea, 1950-53, and on the Caribbean island of Grenada, October 1983.

The quote implies that all German material was handed over to the United States government during or after WWII and definitely no later than 1947. However, the uploader wrote that the Wartenberg Trust material had been handed over to the United States government in the 1950s or the 1960s, i.e. a lot later.

These two issues lead me to believe that the uploader's material is some other material, not covered by the case Price v. United States and not covered by the template {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} but instead fully copyrighted in the United States, unless published before 1923. Most if not all photos were taken during the Nazi era, i.e. after 1922, so pre-1923 publication can be ruled out. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Maria has stated that her images are from the Wartenberg Trust. If I understand your comment correctly you are questioning whether the material of the Wartenberg Trust falls under the case Price v. United States because Price v. United States applies to "seized" material before 1947 only and not to donated material after this date, such as the Wartenberg Trust? Is this what you are saying? Following your line of thought, only a subset (those seized before 1947) of all Hoffmann images are PD in the US. Indeed most of the images had been taken during 1939 to 1945 (all persons depicted wear their WWII war time decorations). MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, all Hoffmann images from the WWII era were seized at one point or the another. Wartenberg Trust had copies of these images and simply donated them to NARA. Many of the images were in NARA already anyway. The qualifying issue is that Price v. United States refers to all Hoffmann images in their collection as of 1995. Their assumption is that they were all seized (as they were). Also, please note that the template {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} is WRONG!!! In more ways than one... it is deceiving and it does not include any reference to the Carlisle Archive (which is huge). All the photos that are uploaded by myself are FREE!! I really do not want to argue with you about the same thing (I am sure you have other things to do as well). The facts are as follows: The template {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} was made by someone who knows nothing or very little about the US law and if they do do, then they are very bad at it! Also, read the details of the Price v. United States ruling! Not just the article on Wikipedia. The Hoffmann archive at NARA and Carlisle is FREE of copyright. The above mentioned ruling (from 1995) assumes that all of the Hoffmann images in these two collections (and other items) are covered by the copyright exception.Mariaflores1955 (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are writing a lot of text, but you provide very few sources, and your arguments look strange. If I have got everything right, you are saying that this happened:

• During WWII, the Hoffmann images were seized.
• Wartenberg Trust donated copies of those images to NARA.

Obvious follow-up question: Why did Wartenberg Trust donate copies of the images to NARA? NARA already has access to all seized material, so a donation of the seized material from a private party doesn't make any sense. Why obtain an extra copy of something which NARA already has?

You are writing that the images are kept in the National Archives, but provide no evidence of this. I decided to look at a random image (File:Heinrich Bleichrodt.jpg). I checked google:Heinrich+Bleichrodt+site:archives.gov, but got no hits. I also went to NARA's own search page and searched for Heinrich Bleichrodt, but got no hits. Meanwhile, a search for Adolf Hitler using either method returns lots of hits. Looking at this page, I see that the search query searches through approximately 75% of all works in NARA, but this particular photo is nowhere to be found. True, it could be part of the remaining 25% works, but I'm wondering if Hoffmann images wouldn't be very useful for scholars and thus be some of the first images registered in the online database. The search result suggests that it is likely that there is no image of Heinrich Bleichrodt in NARA.

Various issues:

• You wrote that the photos were taken by Heinrich Hoffmann. How do I verify this?
• You wrote that Wartenberg Trust donated images to NARA at some point. How do I verify this?
• You wrote that these particular images were seized during WWII. How do I verify this?

Looking at your other uploads, they seem to suffer from the same problems: there is no way to verify your information, and the images seem to rely on an ipse dixit situation. Take File:GeorgdonatusHD.jpg as a typical example. You write that the file is in the public domain in the United States because it was published outside the United States before 1923. The obvious question is then to ask where and when it was published, but you provide no information about this. How do I verify that the image really was published before 1923? Normally, an image like this would be tagged as having no source.

Next example: File:Eugenofbavaria.jpg. You wrote that "I was given permission by the author to post it on my and any other web-sites at my discretion". When I pointed out that this statement only refers to Internet use of the image (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 5#File:Eugenofbavaria.jpg), you removed the section from the discussion page and changed the permission statement to say that "I was given permission by the author to post it on my and any other web-sites and use this image at my discretion. The author also gives a permission to anyone to use this image freely wherever and whenever she/he want." How do I verify this? (Answer: You have to comply with WP:IOWN and WP:CONSENT.) Also, permission should be given by the photographer, not by the person on the photo. It says that the photo was given to you by Prince Eugen, not by Petra Koss. Was the permission also given to you by Prince Eugen instead of Petra Koss? Normally, an image like this would be tagged as having no evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, carrying conversation with you is like talking to a wall. The result would be the same. You simply do not get it, or just do not want to. Also, your research abilities are fairly poor. I just checked the NARA and there are over 20 images of H. Bleichrodt, in addition to his personal service file (at NARA at College Park). So, there is something wrong here! Of course, A. Hitler will give you a lot of entries... I would be very shocked if it did not. Several years ago, I have spoken to the people at Wartenberg Trust and they gave me the permission to access their archive. That is how I know that all of these pictures are from their collection and were transferred to NARA. Furthermore, H. Hoffmann DID NOT MAKE PHOTOGRAPHS after 1945. He was in prison until 1950 and later lived in retirement. Do you think that he was making photographs of the Nazi hierarchy after 1945? Once again, and for the very last time, his ENTIRE Third Reich archive was seized by the US government in 1945. That includes the famous Hoffmann postcard archive (that includes photos of KC winners and Nazi politicians - Hitler and Bleichrodt included - see the image - back of the photo posted on Wikipedia, clearly author is Hoffmann). Many of the photographs also ended up in other archives such as the Bundesarchiv (ALSO FREE OF COPYRIGHT) and Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

B) All the photos of European aristocracy were published as prints and postcards before 1919. As you probably do not know, that is the year that most German-speaking monarchies ceased to exist and postcards as these were no longer produced. Many of them were posted before more sophisticated copyright rules took place.
C) As for the photo of Prinz Eugen: Photo given to me by H.R.H. Prince Eugen of Bavaria. I was given permission by the AUTHOR to post it on my and any other web-sites and use this image at my discretion. The AUTHOR also gives a permission to anyone to use this image freely wherever and whenever she/he want. The AUTHOR is Miss Koss! Not Prince Eugen of Bavaria. Miss Koss gave me the permission and Prince Eugen gave me the photo!
In conclusion: I can now see that your attention to detail is below average. I am not sure if it is a language issue or something else. However, you should not be allowed to nominate images for deletion in the future. I asked you to read the Price v. United States ruling... you did not do that. Instead you are posting some stubborn and unhelpful comments. I do not know what else to do!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's calm down please. The legal implications are not that easy to understand as one might assume, at least for me. The point Stefan is making is that the claim needs to be verifiable which is a central element of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. I personally have no doubts about what you are saying but the discussion would be much simpler if what you are saying can be verified with one simple click of the mouse. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That is true. Problem is that not the entire archive can be accessed via the Internet. Also, the Carlisle Archive has a similar issue. You have to go personally to access many of the exhibits. However, it is incredibly frustrating to read Stefan's responses. He does not look at the legal ruling at all. The Price v. United States on Wikipedia is incomplete and the {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} box is outright wrong... yet he does not pay any attention to that. The ruling clearly states that the entire Hoffmann archive at NARA and at the Carlisle Archive is free of copyright... I do not know how else to make it clear to Stefan.Mariaflores1955 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How about addressing this step by step? Is there a way for me to verify that the Wartenberg Trust has made a donation to NARA? Do I have to read a book; was there a newspaper article, a page on the internet which states that a donation was made? By the way, I tried finding a hit on Bleichrodt at NARA as well. I went to this page but got no hit as well. Can you please point me to the correct search engine or settings? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Americans seized "photographic archives that were compiled by Hitler's personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffman, and Hoffman's son" (see Price v. United States page 1), but as far as I can tell, not all archives. Some images are kept at the German Bundesarchiv and are as far as I have understood copyrighted in the United States. Many or all of the Bundesarchiv images were published in low resolution (no dimension greater than 800 pixels) under a Creative Commons licence and can be seen at Commons:Category:Heinrich Hoffmann. The Bundesarchiv images require attribution which includes an image number in Bundesarchiv's catalogue. Although no source is given for the statement, the Commons category also states that some images were seized by the United Kingdom and that these images are in the public domain, although it is not clear where those photos are in the public domain (in the UK, in the US or both). It is easy to duplicate photos, so it is very possible that some of those archives overlap. It is probably easy to dig up photos from other sources, for example from publications from the 1930s or 1940s (e.g. File:Jugend um hitler.jpg), so photos don't have to come from an archive.

I do not require an online source. Any kind of source which is reliable is fine (for example: page 123 in some specific book, page 12 in some specific newspaper or some specific box in some specific archive).

I do not question when the images were taken. I only question whether they were seized or published. In the case of permission from other people, the permission should be sent to OTRS per the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether they were published or not is irrelevant. The entire Hoffmann collection, which numbers some 1.5 million photographs, was seized by the Allies in the aftermath of World War II. Per Price v. United States, the entire collection is in the public domain in the US. I don't know why there is still confusion over this. See for instance this book (see pages 173 through 176), which describes the route the images took from Hoffmann's possession to NARA (though it was published before the Price ruling). Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That book doesn't seem to be available at any library in my city, so it isn't trivial to check. There are only a few hundred thousand images in NARA, much less than 1.5 million. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to preview it in Google Books, but if you cannot, I'll provide some relevant quotations: "...the Hoffmann photographic collection, which contained more than 1,500,000 items...The gigantic mass of photographs and other miscellaneous items was removed from the castle and shipped to the Munich Collection Point." After his conviction on 6 March 1946 in a German Denazification Court and had his property seized, "The United States took advantage of the German decision and seized Hoffmann's photo and art collection...the bulk of these materials ended up in the National Archives and Carlisle Barracks." Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How do I view the preview? It clearly says No eBook available. The National Archives clearly don't have "the bulk of these materials" (200,000 or 300,000 out of 1,500,000 isn't much), but the text you quoted also mentions Carlisle Barracks. I tried looking at the websites at the bottom of the Carlisle Barracks article, but couldn't find any mention of a photo archive. It says that there is a library, but the name "Heinrich Hoffmann" returns no hits in the library catalogue. It also sounds like a strange place to keep large quantities of photos which would be of very high use for historians but of very little use for the military. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The link I gave above should go directly to the Google Books preview. As for the Carlisle Barracks, in the context of the modern US military, that generally refers to the United States Army War College, not the base itself (just like how West Point refers to the USMA, not where it's located). Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, the sources contradict each other. Your quote suggest that all works were moved from the Munich Collection Point to the United States. However, this page tells that they come from the Munich Office and the Berlin Office. Sure, the Munich Collection Point is probably the same thing as the Munich Office, but Berlin is a bit far away. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I am the Wikipedian in Residence at NARA, and could possibly offer some assistance. For instance, I could talk to our lawyers to find out about Wartenburg Trust donation and whether those materials are considered seized records in the public domain. There has been a lot more heat than light in the discussion above, though, and having looked at some of the files, I am still confused about some basic facts. It is true that not everything has been digitized, but we could still manually check the materials in the collection—that is, if there were any citation information at all provided by the uploader, like unique identifiers, titles, or dates. Which leads me to wonder where these files come from, if not the National Archives' catalog? They were personally scanned by the uploader from the originals? Dominic·t 15:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder, while verification is indeed required, there is no requirement as to ease of verification, at all. If you have to jump through twenty flaming hoops, ride a jet-powered motorcycle over a tank full of megalodons, and then battle the Black Knight until he admits it's not just a flesh wound in order to verify something, that's acceptable under the verification policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• • GUYS, why don't you just write to Wartenberg Trust for explanation: administration@wartenbergtrust.com or sophie.dechateauroux@wartenbergtrust.com SIMPLE!!Bolekpolivka (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the uploader could tell us where they obtained the images? The material above states that they came from negatives in possession of the Wartenberg Trust. How did they become digitized and uploaded? Did you create images from the negatives and then upload them, or did you scan original photos, or what exactly? A second question: What proof do we have that Hoffmann took these pictures, and not some other photographer? Without answers to these questions, the images will have to be deleted, or tagged for fair-use. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Caveat: NFCC #4 specifies that images have to have been previously published or displayed outside of Wikipedia to qualify for fair use.

Could the uploader provide us with a NARA catalogue number for each of these images? Here's an example from Flickr of the level of detail I would like to see for every image: example. Then it's verifiable who took the image and whether or not it's PD, because we could then use the ARC identifier to verify that the image is in the archive and is PD, Here is the data on my example image, which was found quickly and easily using the numerical identifier (540160). Here is a link to a digital copy of the example image. Not every image has a digital copy, but 75% of the images in the possession of the NARA have been added to the online catalogue. -- Dianna (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Images that are not yet added to the online catalogue will still have been catalogued, and a catalogue number needs to be supplied.

The uploader implies that some of the images under discussion came from the Carlisle archive, not from the NARA. If that is the case, the provenance of those images will have to be identified, and catalogue numbers should be supplied for these images as well. -- Dianna (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that some images were uploaded by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) and possibly also other users but overwritten with a different copy of the same image. I just realised that User:MisterBee1966 provided sources, but it seems that these sources were removed by Mariaflores1955 (talk · contribs). If you decide to delete any versions as unsourced, first consider checking the history of the file information page if the upload history indicates that other users also have uploaded revisions of the file.

I'm not sure if all of User:MisterBee1966's sources are enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#10a or if they provide enough evidence that the images don't violate WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFCC#4.

If not proven to be free, I believe that many of the files would pass WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. However, WP:NFCC#10a is a problem, and I'm not sure how to verify that WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFCC#4 aren't violated. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User Mariaflores1955 has just been blocked for reason of using multiple accounts. This is surely not a trust establishing move on behalf of Maria and does not help much in retaining the images uploaded. May I suggest the following:

1. create a list of every image uploaded by Maria
2. verify each image against NARA
3. for those images not in NARA investigate if we can retain them under free use rationale?

I would like to see us retain as many images as possible. Is this acceptable? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the images are needed. Many images are photos of dead people used in the infoboxes in the articles about these people. This is usually acceptable fair use. However, some of the images are also used in lists, such as List of the Pour le Mérite (military class) recipients, and this is typically unacceptable fair use (see WP:NFG). However, fair use images need a source (see WP:NFCC#10a) and we need to know that the image has been published outside Wikipedia (see WP:NFCC#4). Unfortunately, sources are rarely specified, and it is not possible to verify that an image has been published outside Wikipedia without a source. Thus, in order to keep them as fair use items, we would need to find sources for them.

If you can prove that an image is in the public domain (for example, available in NARA and indicated as seized Nazi property), please add {{NARA-image|id number}} and make sure that the licence is listed as {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}.

You may wish to read the discussion at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 22#Hoffmann images. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me, and I am prepared to get started on this right away. There's a related thread on my talk page. I will check every image uploaded by Maria (454 images), Bolekpolivka (114 images), and Weissundblau (2 images). I will verify whether or not each image is in the NARA catalogue; examine the history to locate images over-written by Maria that were originally uploaded by Mr. Bee or others; check out any links provided on the files as to sources; and check online for any indication of prior publication that would allow retention as fair-use. I will create a sub-page and list each file and the identity of the person in the photograph if it's a portrait (as most of them are), and use that as a way to track what's been done to check the copyright status of each image. In the meantime I will ask Stefan2 to check new uploads for similar kinds of material, once the autoblock wears off. If they've been socking and uploading since 2006 there's no reason to believe they won't try to continue. I will post here once the subpage is created in case anyone wants to volunteer to help with any of the tasks. -- Dianna (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The first batch (Bolekpolivka - 115 images) has been loaded into a wikitable at User:Diannaa/Problematic images. I will get the rest added to the table as soon as possible so we have all the items together in one place. We can post further discussion of the investigation at the talk page of that page. -- Dianna (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A warship named Kashitna

I've come across a reference to a warship named Kashitna which was active off Italian Somaliland in August 1921. What type of ship was she and who operated her? Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me like a common typo for Kashima. Manxruler (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be unlikely to have been Kashima; according to the article at least, she was supporting the Japanese intervention in Siberia in 1918-21, and as far as I know, there were no reasons for Japanese battleships to be operating around the Horn at that time. Have you looked up lists of Italian destroyer names, Mjroots? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked the 1850-1905 and the 1906-1921 editions of Conway's All The Workd's Fighting Ships, and neither one had an entry for a warship by that name. It might be a small ship from a minor navy not covered in those books. Is there any context you could give us that might help us identity the ship? Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Kashima article notes that in 1920 she carried Hirohito to Europe; however, his article gives dates in 1921, and eg this seems to confirm it as March-September 1921. Is the "active" reference simply to Kashima being in the area? If so, it might be her passing through via Suez on the way back to Japan - the dates fit very neatly. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That's actually what I was thinking. It's certainly in 1921, not 1920 (see for instance here, on page 104). I have corrected the date in the Kashima article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait Naval Base

I've just bumped into this article - it currently is in SEVERE need of attention - it consists solely of an infobox with no text and no references. There does seem to be some coverage on the internet [3] , so it may not be a hopeless case, but as it is, the article is virtually worthless.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Landmark moment approaching...

By way of a mild morale boost, I was doing the maths on the current state of FA, FLs and GAs covered by the Fortifications task force; by my reckoning, we now have 97 of these in total, bringing the project very close to the 100 mark. Meanwhile, the proportion of stub articles has slowly fallen - albeit with quite a way to go! So, if anyone fancies making a final push, that first century is almost in sight! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There are also 26 good article nominations that could do with attention. Secretlondon (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Hi, do you need to be a member of WP:MILHIST to vote in the coordinator election? Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the relatively low number of editors who have voted thus far, this year, I don't think there would be any objections to non-member votes, from registered editors.. it's all part of Wikipedia, in the end. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

More WWI Europeana content - French official documents

Hi all,

In today's Europeana updates list, I noticed a scanned series of WWI documents from the Bibliotheque National de France; all are, happily, marked as fully PD and they are not asserting any rights.

It seems to mostly consist of official papers - reports from the armament industry, the official bulletin of the War Ministry, etc. Dull but potentially useful! There's also a small handful of quite nice-looking maps. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Other highlights (via the BNF site, which Europeana indexes) - L'image de la Guerre; La Guerre aérienne illustrée; Pages de gloire; La Guerre mondiale - all illustrated papers/magazines. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the links to these papers. I imagine that the maps will be particularly useful. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I will have a much more exciting collection from Europeana to tell you about in a month or two. There's a lot of good things in the pipeline ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

POV issues at Enlisted Retention Board (US Navy)

I caught Enlisted Retention Board at WP:UNCAT, and though the topic is interesting it's written rather "exposé style" rather than NPOV. Apparently it's some attrition program to boot out mid-NCOs, and has gotten some press. If anyone is familiar with Naval policy issues, this might be an interesting one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

James Stewart

Can someone please have a look at James Stewart#Military Honors and James Stewart#Rank and possibly have a play about with them.. these sections do not appear to convey anything, being over-sized graphics wedged between sections... but I have no knowledge of these military ribbons, nor do I have a particular strong opinion either way on their usage, other than that they look very out of place here, mid-prose. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Military Honors" is common (though often disputed whether it's appropriate or not, and I personally dislike them strongly) but the "Rank" section is a new one on me. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The ribbons are also more or less duplicated by List of awards and nominations received by James Stewart, which may have some bearing here. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Although Stewart's military career was a very important part of his life and he was proud of his service, I think a list such as List of awards and nominations received by James Stewart probably covers the subject visually. The information in the infobox covers it well enough for most readers, if they are interested in pretty stuff then link the list. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Changed it myself, was getting on my nerves how bad it looked.. anyone wants to expand on what I've done, feel free. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute at Ahmad Shah Massoud

There is a dispute at Ahmad Shah Massoud on weighting of material. I have fully protected the article and strongly suggested a structured debate to resolve it. There is alot of discussion on an archived page so it seems a complex issue. This would be good to settle conclusively before things get more heated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Buffalosoldier.jpg

image:Buffalosoldier.jpg has been nominated for deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Our Featured Article candidates

All of our current FACs need reviews; I've done my bit. As usual, there's something for everyone: an Australian lieutenant general, an early aircraft carrier, a hockey legend and American war hero, a Brazilian war hero, an abandoned Nazi missile site, a kerfuffle over Rhodesian independence, and two masters of British military deception in WWII ... one of whom also wrote some thrillers in his spare time that sold rather well and spawned 24 films, the second-highest-grossing film series of all time. Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. There have been zero FAC promotions so far this week, so "Featured Content" in the Signpost is going to look pretty shabby unless someone steps up. The four that are probably closest to promotion are Ian Fleming, HMS Furious (47), Manuel Marques de Sousa and Dudley Clarke. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC) ... and Hobey Baker. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Furious, Ian Fleming and some other FACs were just promoted ... two down, three to go! - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Foreign military ranks

When an article mentions members of non-English armed forces, is it best to:

• give the foreign name of the rank alone;
• give the foreign rank with an English translation in parentheses;
• give the English translation alone?

and if an English rank has a different name in US and UK usage (as air force officer ranks do), is it best to give any translation just in the ENGVAR in use in the article, or both variants? --Stfg (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My inclination is "not translate". Can you just link out to the rank or equivalent? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In an article I'm writing, using 18th century French and Austrian ranks, the first instance an officer is mentioned I use the foreign term, italicised and wikilinked, plus their full name also wilkilinked, with the English translation in brackets. Further uses will be the foreign term and surname only. E.g.:

"The Austrian army, commanded by Feldzeugmeister (General) Johann Beaulieu, and Sardinia-Piedmont army by Feldmarschall-Leutnant (Lieutenant-General) Michelangelo Colli, engaged French forces in a rapid series of battles."

Later becoming:

"Feldzeugmeister Beaulieu and Feldmarschall-Leutnant Colli" – though only if their mention is infrequent, in cases when they are being mentioned frequently throughout a paragraph it is best just to refer to them as "Beaulieu and Colli". This practice might work for other articles. I think once you give a reader an initial translation, and link, it doesn't hurt to use the foreign term.

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Simon, it's a tough question. I generally prefer Marcus's approach ... particularly the part about switching to just the last names if that's not likely to throw the readers. Generally, just translate to whatever English variant the article uses. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Marcus & Dan, I'll do that. Makes sense. --Stfg (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And thanks Trekphiler. Sorry I missed you before. --Stfg (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No apology needed at all. :) If you read it, that's all I ask. :) Dr. Griffin ^{if you could see me now!} 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking for help

Has anyone used a template to cite the House of Commons or Hansard? I have used one in the past, a bit like the London Gazette template as far as I can remember, but can not find the page or documentation now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

{{cite hansard}}? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks tried everything to find that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Photos of Polish military personnel up for deletion

Several Polish military personnel have been sent for deletion as unsourced. file:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski 1.jpg , file:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski.jpg , file:Henryk Pietrzak.jpg , file:Henryk Pietrzak niesiony.jpg , file:Stanislaw Skalski 1.jpg , file:Witold Urbanowicz.jpg , file:Wladyslaw Anders2.jpg -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda and scope

Would war-time propaganda such as Berdjoang fall under this project's scope? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think so Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. Tagging. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Military awards and decorations categories at CfD

I don't see any mention of it here, so thought I would leave a note to say that that more than 20 categories relating to military awards and decorations have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 20. the nominations are grouped in several separate discussions.

I think that the categories concerned fall within the scope of this project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a ton of Milhist cats there. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are and I just railed on the submitter for not telling the project or the creators. I dropped comments on some of them but there are a few that I agree aren't needed although I don't really know what they are so I just didn't vote either way. I don't know what it is so I don't know if we need it or not. Knowing how things work here on WP I'll probably get blocked for scolding and disagreeing with an admin. Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• If we do keep these, can we make sure to add {{medal category}} to them? (and to any others that may be out there) We used to get a lot of emails/comments/queries about these, and it's if anything more needed for the more commonly awarded decorations. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. Kumioko (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Bearing in mind the wording - we want articles for the most notable awards such as the VC, so 'It is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of all recipients' is not applicable Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Coordinator election is in its last days

As a reminder, the annual election of the project coordinators is in its last days, and all votes have to be in by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September. You can vote and/or ask the candidates questions here. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

photos up for deletion

FYI, several photos are up for deletion as unsourced. File:Boeing E-4 With Leon Penetta.jpg , File:USSJuneauCL119.jpg , File:AmonGoethPortait.jpg -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

An invitation to comment

There's an open discussion at WT:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war that might make use of some expertise from members of this project. The specific question at hand is what criteria should be applied to determine whether an entity (Russia, specifically) is sufficiently involved to be listed as a beligerent in the infobox. Mostly I'm hoping for some input on how other articles have handled similar situations, with the objective of consistent presentation of material. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Image:COMMAND PILOT WINGS 2.png

file:COMMAND PILOT WINGS 2.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Place names

I'm not sure I'm at the right place, but here goes:

Over the last few months I've been writing an article on every WWII German U-boat. I've limited myself to U-1 to U-600 (I think that is enough for anyone; I've just completed the article for U-454).

My query is to do with place names, mostly in Scandinavia and the Baltic.
I have been using 'uboat.net' as the chief source of information; unfortunately it gives little clue on the whereabouts of places and necessitated several trips to the atlas. (Indeed, that was not always helpful, as on more than one occasion, the red line that shows the U-boat's course on any particular patrol, shows the vessel having started/finished its patrol in the middle of a city, or far from the nearest sea!)
But I digress, I have a growing list of place names, which when incorporated into the article, have 'south of', 'northeast of' and so-on after their first mention. But there are three places that stand out because I have no information on them: Marviken, Mösholm and Risholm. I'm particularly peeved with Marviken, as the only place where I can find (Google) a Marviken is in Sweden. And that country was supposed to be neutral during WWII and would be rather surprised to know that it was accommodating U-boats! So I don't think that is it. The Marviken in uboat.net is shown to be in Kristiansand which is in Norway.

So, can any of you fine people help as far as the two 'M's and one 'R' places mentioned above are concerned? Any help would be most appreciated.

RASAM (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a look for Marviken, and all I could find is several books on U-boats, where it is very much identified in Norway and as a "base" (as I'm sure you found). Very odd not to have any mention I can find outside U-boat books. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have been a Norwegian naval base at Kristiansand. Here is something I found on the internet which isn't U-boat, or even WWII, related. http://www.frammuseum.no/Polar-Heroes/Crew-Heroes/Kristian-Prestrud.aspx Monstrelet (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You may find more info on u-boats on the history and milatery channels. Nhog (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of encyclopedias: Aviation

Assistance needed in building this. List as many encyclopedia/biographical references books on this subject as possible. Also help on Bibliography of encyclopedias: history is needed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with a Featured Article candidate

I'd like to ask anyone who has any interest in military history to review Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre. So far Malleus Fatuorum and Dank have reviewed (and given their support) it. However, an extra pair of eyes would be really, really welcomed. The candidacy page is here. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with SNCF article WWII section

Hello to the members of this Wikipedia project, my name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. The entry for the company includes material of interest to this project, and which I have questions about, so I have come here for help. My colleagues have been aware for some time that sections of the SNCF Wikipedia entry related to WWII contain a number of inaccuracies, and reflects a distorted view of events. The sections in question are "World War II involvement" and "Reactions to World War II involvement".

It's a very difficult and sensitive subject, as the entry is correct that the SNCF had a role in the deportation of Jews and others from France to Germany and to Nazi camps. However, I'm afraid the facts as presented are not quite right. I would appreciate it if independent editors from this project would help me correct the record, in the interest of historical accuracy. To begin with, I have raised a concern regarding one relatively small issue in the entry, which you can see via this link: Talk:SNCF#Problems_with_the_WWII_section... Is there an editor here who is willing to assist? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for the open manner you've raised this in Jerry; if all corporations did this we would *all* be a lot better off. User:Nick-D has already commented on your first issue at Talk:SNCF, and if you would like further help do not hesitate to ask me either here or on my talkpage. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: this is a textbook-perfect example of how to raise concerns about material which covers a topic you have a potential conflict of interest with, and reflects well on both Jerry and SNCF. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A-class article needs Article History template

If anybody knows how to work this template, please add it to Talk:Hill 262. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Piotr. Could you please clarify your request? As far as I can tell, the article history template is already present on the talk page and it is currently showing a link to the article's A-class review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Greater Wrath article contents

I started editing this article since it was the closest i could find to the topic - that is the actions that took place during the Great Northern War. Especially actions between Sweden and Russia. There are several, perhaps minor, actions that took place during the war for which i do not really find a proper place for. The Greater Wrath article does handle the events which led to the actual terror and military occupation so it seemed like the best fit - however it is out of the scope of the article. The actions are likely to be too minor for inclusion to sections of the main main article handling Sweden or Finland and may not have enough material to make up an article of their own. Even more so since part of them, like Swedish expeditions to Neva before 1710 are even out of scope of the mentioned sections. So recommendations on how to proceed would be welcome. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident infobox

Could somebody flesh-out the {{Infobox military conflict}} on USS Liberty incident please. I tried to do it myself, but this is my first time editing an {{Infobox military conflict}} and there's only so much I can do. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of the Eighty Years' War with the Dutch Revolt

See Talk:Eighty Years' War#Merge discussion

It has been proposed that the article Eighty Years' War be merged with the article Dutch Revolt. The {{merge}} templates were placed on the two pages by two different IP addresses.

One template has been there since May (the other since 2 September) so something one way or another needs to be done.

Could someone with more knowledge and interest in the subject than I decide if a merge is appropriate and Shepard any discussion to a conclusion, or if the proposed merge is inappropriate then remove the merge templates from the two articles. -- PBS (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Opportunities to get involved in reviewing

If anyone is looking for work to get involved in, there are a few opportunities to do some reviews over at WP:GAN. Within the war and military seciton there are about 17 project-related articles waiting for review. Some of the oldest ones are: Kosta Pećanac, Stefan Czarniecki and Stanisław Żółkiewski, but there is a diverse range including a couple of battle articles from World War I, some battleships, an article on radar and even on a military school.

Additionally, there are opportunities for reviewing at WP:ACR. The following ACRs need another reviewer:

• Isidor Isaac Rabi;
• South West Pacific Area (command);
• John Adair.

Finally, the following Milhist FAC could possibly use some attention:

• Dudley Clarke;

Of course, both at GAN and FAC there are non-Milhist articles also that need attention and I'm sure that any input in those areas would also be greatly appreciated. If anyone is new to reviewing and has any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident infobox 2

There's a discussion on Talk:USS_Liberty_incident#Infobox on weather to have a full-fledged {{Infobox military conflict}} or not, largely based on weather it qualifies as a battle. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Election results

The yearly election is over, and we've got a great team of coords. There will probably be some discussion about whether you guys would like any extra coords, since only 13 reached the plateau of 20 votes; input is welcome. Very improbably, there was a 3-way tie for lead coord. Rupert and Nick and I have an idea what to do about that over at User_talk:AustralianRupert#Lead_coord; input is welcome on that too. Finally, if anyone has any questions or complaints about the election, this would be the time to say something, before you get stuck with us for a year :) Thanks much for all the kind comments and all the thoughtful attention to this year's election. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Can never know how busy a year will be in advance, so seems best to me to have 15 coords from the off, rather than trying to coopt later and lose time when things get hectic. Think we should coopt RSKP and Arius1998. It would also give them a year's experience under the belt and chances of getting 20+ votes, should they stand again next year, as it seems, based on the votes, that people were more comfortable voting for past coords or very experienced editors. RSKP and Arius1998 did have the most votes of the remaining candidates and are frequent editors. Unfortunately the other two just didn't seem experienced or active enough, at present, to handle the roles. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that the attrition rate for the coordinators was pretty low last year and all the coordinators elected this year are long-standing members of the project who are unlikely to withdraw, I don't think that it's necessary to preemptively coopt other coordinators at present, especially as there were no close runners-up in the vote tally. Nick-D (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A little more than a third of the voters who voted for more than a few candidates voted for Arius, and less than that for RSKP, so there's clearly no consensus to promote immediately; that doesn't mean that we couldn't get consensus if we work with them for a few months. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea of sharing the lead coord role four months each is a good one. I don't have quite enough experience to have an opinion on the co-opting issue, but I am happy to leave that decision to the three lead coords to propose if co-opting becomes necessary down the track. Congratulations to all elected coordinators for the next year! Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I would support co-opting if it was a matter of only a couple of votes, but unfortunately it wasn't the case. If a couple of the new team drop off during the year, I think we should probably explore the idea, but at this stage I think it should be okay. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

NB: Congrat's to the new team, and everyone who stood - a good election, I thought! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of our two missing slots, I vote that we go ahead and coopt for the last two places so that these newcomers to the circle can can valuable insight from the veterans. To quote the Zerg Overmind, "Behold that I set you among the greatest of my cerebrates, that you may prosper from their wisdom and experience." By allowing the two new comers to join us now we send out two different signals: first, from a WP:BOLD and WP:IAR position, we advertise that we are not so attached to the rules to be inflexible, and therefore we can be trusted to act in the best interest of the members we serve rather than to abide strictly by our due process in this case. Secondly, by allowing the new members to come, we show that we are not so dependent on a small group of veteran editors to handle coordination task that we are unable to consider the benefits of having new members in our circle. If people see that we are open to allowing the newcomers to the coordinator circle even if they are little below the nominal cut off point then it may help us start our year off the right way by showing that we are still open enough to consider the unorthodox as a legitimate approach, and that mindset is something that IMO Wikipedia has lost. We traditionally lead the way for other wikipedia projects through the examples we set, so lets show them how we can start winning the editor pool back and enticing more people to register/return with this act. As far as sharing the position of Lead Coordinator, I'm all for sharing as outlined above. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest respect I disagree Tom. Co-opting seems difficult to justify given the limited number of votes the two editors in question achieved. IMO the voting pattern of a number of the successful candidates IRT these two editors is also telling (and is a matter of public record - including my own). Anotherclown (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Defo agree with Tom.. the first sentence especially.. a year for two newer editors to learn from veterans could be especially important, in light of poor editor retention every bit of manpower helps. In light of our backlog sizes, it helps even more. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom and Marcus, what would be the disadvantage to seeing if there's consensus (either among the membership or among the coords ... probably among the coords, since that wouldn't require another election) on these two candidates 3 months from now? There clearly isn't now, unless you assume bad faith among the voters, that is, you assume that they just voted in their friends and ignored the new guys. Milhist voters haven't behaved that way (as a group) in the past, and I doubt they did this time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't see the point in waiting.. in 3 months is Xmas/New Year, offering coopt to people during that busy "family" period is not really offering them a fair advantage, to the rest of us getting 3 months head start to settle into the role.. for those of us new to it, that is. And 4 months is a third of the year down.. I think coopt should be offered whilst the election is still fresh. Nothing to do with "bad faith", not sure why you even suggested that.. no one knows what influences each and every voter.. some may have a somewhat biased opinion (self-selection bias as one editor suggested), but to me it's simply a matter of people voting for long-term experience, people they are comfortable with, friends or not.. with the way Wiki is atm, veterans are what holds much of the project together. But you don't get veterans if you don't give them a chance, so per what Tom says about showing that we can be flexible, I think having a full team of 15 members from the kick-off makes more sense than having 13 coords. In a previous thread we said the voting deadline would not be extended, as we might coopt instead to make up the numbers. Now the option is open, it's being rejected without much deliberation. Doesn't seem right. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm worried Tom and Marcus are talking co-ordinatorship into being a big deal. The reason we have experienced people is not because their views matter, but so they can do lackey work more effectively. We've never turned away non-coord opinions anywhere. If you start co-opting people so their views can be represented (a noble enough aim) that rather suggests that only co-ords' views get heard, which isn't the case – you rather pre-empt the problem, and since the division exists mainly in people's minds (how they treat co-ords or non-coords) quite possibly create it.

In a second point 15 is an entirely arbitrary number. There are no co-ordinator backlogs. A-class reviews are handled fine, other backlogs are for the project as a whole and we actually shoot ourselves in the foot if we suggest they're only for co-ords to help with. No number of co-ords could make up for having everyone involved. 15 isn't even historical, as the records show, we are in no way tied to it. It hasn't been a problem in the past - we've literally made these rules up as we go along just fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"The reason we have experienced people is not because their views matter, but so they can do lackey work more effectively." I disagree.. I'm not interested in "lackey work", if people want to work through backlogs and such that's fine, but a coord is "in a position" to progress something more assuredly than a member. i.e. I presented a motion to introduce List-class grading system last year, it was discussed my coords and members, and enacted, with Kirill doing the coding of the banner and such. I couldn't have just come along and done it myself, and if none of the coords found it practical even if say a dozen members did, do you really think it would have progressed with zero coord support? It's a matter of coords being in a position to introduce and/or make changes to the structure of the project, to improve, optimise and reform the project to work better. We can't sit back and expect everything agreed back in Trache I (2006) to work 12 tranches and 6 years later. So yes, in some respects it is a big deal, because coords are more in a position to push for change than most members, unless they keep up the lobbying, as I did.. took 3 thread restarts to get that List grading through the relatively slow talk page channels. I think Milhist is in need of lots more tweaks and changes to help it shape up, and I don't think there are many members who are going to offer such ideas, so it is up to the coords as an unofficial project committee to see these things get done in the best interests of the project. Don't be "worried" about how others take to their role, some coords are bound to be more vocal than others, whilst others will sit back and try to rely on old methods.. even if those methods don't work well in today's wiki climate. Change doesn't come easy to everyone. I hope to work with coords and members eager to develop "the project" and not just its content and backlogs.. the project is like an engine, through which articles flow.. each part needs fine-tuning to make it run efficiently. Who looks to achieving that, the driver or his passengers? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"I'm worried Tom and Marcus are talking co-ordinatorship into being a big deal." I'm not talking it into being a big deal, as nothing on Wikipedia is a big deal (as proof, I cite the do nothing attitude people have towards Wikipedia's continued downhill slide, which should be a big deal but for some reason isn't). We are users first and coords second, its always been that way and will always remain that way. I asked to include the new people solely so that we could say in good faith that we were attempting to assume good faith with election results (and to be fair, here, if we count the position of lead coordinator as 1 coordinator, then we have 11 coordinator and a recommended current total of 15, meaning that from this point of view on the matter all four of those who were not elected could be seated in the coordinator's circle for this tranche).

The fundamental issue here, the issue that me and AnotherClown have disagreed on is whether we should honor the letter of the coordinator election or the spirit of the election. The letter of the election is 15 coordinators, the spirit is those that were entrusted to run the project by the members of the project. I took one position, he took the other, but regardless of the side neither one of us is attempting to turn the coordinatorship into a big deal. In my case I'm merely looking into the future - specifically this time next year - and I am worried that if new people - genuinely new people, not long time contributors running after a hiatus - are not present among the group than our broadcast position is going to be that we only want those who have a multi-year service record holding a position whose only real responsibility is closing A-class reviews.

In my opinion - and remember this is only my opinion - adding the other two users from that list sends a message that we can act in the best interest of the community members, and that we still value those who show some initiative. If no one valued the initiative we never would have had working groups, a two-tiered award system, special projects, coordinator's insignias, or any of the suggestions listed here. As proof of how divorced every single one of us in this project is from our members we haven't even thanked the four who did not make it this time round for at least trying, nor have we encouraged them to try again next year (and this scathing criticism extends to me as well, so do not think that I am preaching to any of you from the pulpit cuz I ain't). Is this the sort of message we want send to the community? I should think not. If we are going to start changing things then we need to start by returning to what made us great in the first place, and that is/was our ability to try new things. Additionally, everyone seems so hung up on the cooption issue that they have forgotten one very important fact: its voluntary, and therefore dependent on the recipient to accept or decline. Extending the offer as I have suggested could still result in the offer being declined on behalf of the party offered the position, in which case we have lost nothing by asking.

Finally, I'll point out that 15 is only a generally accepted number for how many coords the project should have; to be brutally honest, with the incredibly low level of participation we've been seeing across wiki lately, you could probably run this project on 5 coords and 1 lead and lose nothing in the process. Fifteen was our hayday, our 200-division army, our 600-ship navy, our S.A.C. Now we would be lucky to have a genuine need for so many coords, so may I suggest that we revisit that number at some point in our tranche? It may be time to face the cold hard truth that we really can do more with less these days, although any attempt at top tier reform in the project should be decided not by those at the top but by the community that we exist to assist. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam War RM

• (Discuss) – Phuoc Long Town → Phước Long (town) This Vietnamese town was the site of a decisive battle in 1975. The battle itself has a separate article. Kauffner (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:WikiProject California#184th & 185th Infantry Regiments

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:WikiProject California#184th & 185th Infantry Regiments. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

CFD that may spill over to an article

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 1 as to whether it's Croix de guerre or Croix de guerre. There's an inconclusive debate at Talk:Croix de guerre that may want to be re-opened. NtheP (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:B-23-1991.jpg

File:B-23-1991.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.79 (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

British soldier number 1

Hi while looking for something else I stumbled across this man. Battery Quartermaster Serjeant E.S. Jacklin of the Royal Horse Artillery. [4] What caught my eye was his service number '5' then I started wonder who was number '1' and do we have an article on him. Anyone with any knowledge of one or him? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Prior to 1920 there wasn't a single uniform Army numbering system - there were parallel numbering systems for each regiment or corps, sometimes duplicated for individual battalions, so there will have been a lot of #1s! My understanding is that the system in use during WWI had begun in 1881, so Jacklin was probably assigned this as a relatively new recruit, and was in his fifties when he died.

There will have been a "new" #1 in 1920, though - per this it will have been assigned to someone in the ASC. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks well found. Jim Sweeney (talk)

Aah, but whose last 3 were "007"? NtheP (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Images from the National Library of Scotland

Hi I have just come across the National Library of Scotland image database, First World War Official Photographs. Others may already be aware of it but its a good source of images and most can be used under a Creative Commons License. Using the source {{NLS Collections}} and permissions {{PD-UKGov}} The link is here [5] have a browse you may find something useful.Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, they are predominantly BY-NC-SA, which is a problem for us. On the other hand, most are almost certainly expired crown copyright... Andrew Gray (talk)

US Army Infantry Battalion Organization 1943-45

Apparently this article has been nominated for merger a year and a half ago. Any thoughts on the proposal? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Divisions Active in the Normandy Campaign

Looks like this article has been nominated for merger since November 2009. Any thoughts on the proposal? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Axis named operations in the European Theatre

Looks like this article has been nominated for merger with multiple other articles since July 2009. Any thoughts? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

People's Militia (Soviet Union)

Looks like this article has been nominated for merger since August 2009. Any thoughts? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No discussion, clearly notable, merge notice removed (was not even present in proposed militia article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Spear article

Hi everyone, my major contribution to Wikipedia is the article spear. It is the most ancient and most widely used weapon throughout human history and is still used to this day. Sadly the article is very much in need of expansion. The article is structurally a lot better than when I first called for a rewrite in 2009 but I desperately need editors to help! There can't be a single area of history that doesn't involve the spear or the bayonet so every single editor here should have something to offer. I'm really trying to drum up some support for this and I was hoping that the coordinators could help. Thanks Master z0b (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Casco class seaplane tender

Looks like this article has been nominated for merger since July 2009. Any thoughts? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done already. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

List of United States Army divisions during World War II

Looks like this article has been nominated for merger since July 2009. Any thoughts? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Merger It looks like several folks have been vigorously editing the page since the 2009 nomination. Despite the title, this list includes not only United States Army divisions, but also United States Marine Corps Divisions, so I would recommend changing the article title to delete the apparent limitation to the Army (perhaps also something that would note the article does not include Air Divisions) and remove the merger tag.

--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

!votes and comments would be noticed better if placed under a heading of "Proposed merger" at Talk:Divisions of the United States Army, as it is likely anyone closing the proposal will look there, and not here for comments. This thread may even be archived long before a decision is made, and would probably end up unseen or ignored. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have done so (although posting the first comment on the proposed merger when the article has been edited around 150 times since the merger was proposed makes me wonder whether it will be seen there either). After a decent interval, if none of the regular editors do so, I'll probably just delete the tag. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the date... 2009, heck, might as well give it a week or two to see if anyone opposes your !vote, and if not untag due to no consensus after a considerably long time. Who even remembers 3 years ago..? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Operation Vijay (1999)

Looks like this article has been proposed for merger since October 2009. Any thoughts? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion there of sorts already. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Project Manager Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below

Looks like this article has been up for merger since December 2009. Any thoughts? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no rationale for, and the talk page already had reasons against, so i've deleted the tag. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1865

I am hoping to get this article up to GA class and am wondering what would need to be done to do this. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say decide if it's a list or an article before anything else. That lede is a monster wall of text, and after that it really does turn into a chronological list. Intothatdarkness 16:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I wrote most of the lead back when I was getting it up to B-class. I wasn't sure how much of an intro this would need first. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would work if you did a shorter lede (something setting the stage without detailing each action...something like "actual troop engagements during 1865 peaked in month X, then tapered off as the year progressed" - not set on that wording, obviously, but something like that would set the stage well for you), then pushed the text down into the article body and broke it up with headers based on region or department. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So should the intro contain one paragraph per theater, summarizing the action in that theater? Or should it have one or two pragraphs about the actions of the entire year, and each month section contain a summary of the engagements that happened in that month? Wild Wolf (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion would be the intro should have 1-2 paragraphs about the entire year, with the additional info pushed down into the month sections. Others may have a different take, though. Intothatdarkness 16:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I will start working on this soon (although due to my work schedule it might take a week or two). Wild Wolf (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The article I wrote – Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington – is a prose/list article which passed GA. I built up the list first, as complete as possible to provide a "data" list, then wrote the prose based on it to provide context and background. Lead sections are best written last, to summarise the prose, as per-GA, a lead should be a "taster" of the content beneath and should not contain exclusive information. The reviewer I had for the GA reviewed it by stating that he would read the lead last so see if it summed up the article. As long as the prose is sufficient you might get it to GA, just bear in mind that GAR don't normally do lists, so if it does become more list than prose based, you might need to go via the FL route, something I choose not to do as there is probably insufficient "list" and too much prose for a FL. Depending what you list in that article, you might change your mind halfway through development on how you want it to look, so I wouldn't set firm plans if I were you, just a rough idea, then go with the flow. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I thought that this would have to go through GA and A class before being considered for FL. (I noticed a while back that the project was considering added Good list and A class list criteria but I lost track of it and don't know if these steps were added.) I will probably have to wait until next week before working on this. I was hoping to get all five engagement lists up to FL but chose to do 1865 first. Do you think that any of the other four is in better shape for FL? Wild Wolf (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the new List scale has been implemented and so goes Stub -> List -> CL -> BL -> AL -> FL. We never considered GA-List as GAN's are external to WikiProjects and a Wiki-wide grade, as far as I know the new List-scale is unique to MilHist. See Wikipedia:MHA#SCALE for the full overview of how an article can go via either the prose-based or list-format assessment route. As a result of GA being external, an article can be graded as both A-class and GA, though if you push it to FA it excels above both classes.

They all look identical to be in terms of content and quality, none seems better than the rest, they're all pretty much level, seems like you could start with any to develop, or work on all 5 in sandboxes then submit them all sequentially to ACR or GA for review, that way you might find a reviewer willing to work through all 5 as a set, rather than different reviewers with different ideas about standards, where you might get one or two who are more difficult, and then the articles become less uniform as you tweak them. Depends how you want to go about it, as 5 at once would certainly be more time-committing, but certainly very rewarding to publish all together, rather than weeks or months apart. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I probably won't have time this week, but I can start them next week. My main concern at this time is that usually I can only log in once or twice a week, so I'm not sure if I can keep up with the AL review process. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've checked several task force pages and noticed that they don't have CL, BL, and AL classes listed in their assesment tables. Does this need to be added manually to each task force? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

AL class reviews

I have submitted the articles for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review. Any help would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added a couple of reviews, but I would like to encourage you to review a couple of the other articles that are currently at ACR also. This will help ease the burden on the reviewers and hopefully free up others to review your lists. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries at Pritzker Military Library

I think I am going to host a Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries event some time in October or November at the Pritzker Military Library in Chicago. Do you have any suggestions for military topics related to the Chicago Area? Fort Dearborn Massacre happened within about a mile of the library, but seems to be a decent article. Navy Pier, which may be partially visible from the library also seems to have a decent article. I am not sure how much more there is to add about its use as a Navy training center. I don't know what the popular topics are for you MILHIST guys. Any suggestions for an editathon at this library?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked any of these out to see what's actually in good shape, but you might consider:

Camp Douglas, the infamous Civil War PoW camp.

Ft. Sheridan

Great Lakes Naval Training Center

Glenview Naval Air Station

Abe Lincoln National Cemetery, down in Elwood

The Cantigny Museum

Robert R. McCormick

National Guard units associated with Chicago

33rd Infantry Division

1-178 Infantry Regiment

2-122 Field Artillery Regiment--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have found decent articles for Camp Douglas (Chicago), Fort Sheridan, Illinois (which shares a page with Fort Sheridan Historic District), Naval Station Great Lakes, Naval Air Station Glenview, Cantigny, Robert R. McCormick and 33rd Infantry Division (United States). I have not found articles for Abe Lincoln National Cemetery, 1-178 Infantry Regiment and 2-122 Field Artillery Regiment. What I need is advice on what would be an interesting objective to Chicago Military folks for an event?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, each of the military units should be under their respective regiments, not the battalion designations that I gave you. Not that matters much as they're redlinks as well. I can't think of any other military topics related to Chicago. I don't know exactly what the Pritzker specializes in, if anything in particular, but maybe you can ask about what they consider their strengths to be and do something related to that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I wrote about the Nike missile sites a year or so ago around the Chicago area which may be interesting. Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Another article I helped create was about O'Hare Air Reserve Station Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Now that I started thinking about O'Hare, I believe it originally was either built for or used by Douglas Aircraft during World War II as an aircraft delivery airfield for their large manufacturing plant located there. C-54 Skymasters I believe were manufactured there. Hope these suggestions can be useful Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also USS Chicago, various Chicago units at List of Illinois Civil War units, Illinois National Guard (stub), Illinois Naval Militia (stub, Chicago-related), and various missing articles at Illinois Army National Guard. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think we should choose an article or two and pursue something like A-Class and FA or should we just tell people to come research any of the local topics?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen, these projects work best when they're focused on starting and improving articles within the scope of the sponsoring/host institution's specialties, so shooting for A/FA class is likely to be unrealistic. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll get back to you tomorrow about the host institution's specialties, but I am not sure that A/FA is unrealistic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• I have gotten a response from the Pritzker Military Library: "We have strong holdings in the following areas: World War II and the American Civil War. We also have a few collections of unusual depth that you may find useful while here. They include: the Parrish Collection on Soviet History (includes books in Russian & German on the Bolshevik Revolution through 1989), James Wengert Military Medical Collection (includes books and papers on military medicine from Civil War through Vietnam, especially the Red Cross), Lt. Col. Robert C. Peithman Collection (books and papers on the Marine Corps), and the Dr. Charles E. Metz Collection (books on military aviation, particularly WWII). We actively collect books and items on the following topics: submarines – esp. U-505, USS Chicago, Americal Division, 33rd Division (Golden Cross), Fort Sheridan, and National Guard units from the Midwest. You can search our catalog at: http://prml.ent.sirsi.net" --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• With this information in mind, could you guys help me determine an appropriate topic for an editathon on November 10 (Is this Veterans Day weekend).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The 33rd Division and subsidiary units (eg/ 123, 130, 136 IR) would seem to be a good-sized topic - while our article on the division's a decent length, it's almost entirely copied from this 1948 book, and really has nothing on WWI or anything post-war. Ditto the individual regiments; they're just a dump of information with no real prose content. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

MILHIST event

Is there a Chicago MILHIST member or two who would like to coordinate this Pritzker Military Library event on November 10? I imagine one of you could direct this better than I could. It could be a joint WP:CHICAGO-WP:MILHIST event for WP:WLL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can the coordinators AustralianRupert, Dank, and/or Nick-D comment?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't have any active Milhist people in Chicago. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

G'day, from memory I don't recall any of our active members identifying that they are from Chicago; however, I have a bad memory so apologies if I've forgotten something I should have remembered. The list of active members doesn't seem to offer any help either. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not aware of any members of this project who live in Chicago (though, in statistical terms, I'd expect that there might be one or two). Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Same here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Spanish submarine G-7

Looks like this article has been proposed for merger since October 2009. Any thoughts? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No rationale given; page is a stub with plenty of room for expansion ( a vessel with a 30 year career), and we could do with more information on the Spanish Navy, not less. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that G-7 and German submarine U-573 are one and the same. So the content of "Spanish submarine G-7" should be merged (and redirected) into "German submarine U-573" (or vice versa). Look at USS Branch (DD-197)/HMS Beverley (H64) it is a similar situation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to propose it for a merge again, with that as a rationale, then fine, it can be discussed there; especially which way the merge should go. But having separate pages on two incarnations of the same hull isn't unusual; look at USS Phoenix/ARA Belgrano as a similar situation there. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Castles need milhist talk templates

I've noticed that a lot of castles don't have talk milhist templates. Could perhaps use some drive to remedy that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check into this. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way of automatically generating a list of articles with castle/chateau/schloss in the title which aren't tagged? Could be a long task otherwise. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just reading a discussion at the Insect project from which it appears that user Tom Morris (talk) operates a bot that does such things; it seems it can also insert default ratings.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've left him a message. Agree - something like that would be ideal. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

All of those things are doable. My bot just finished the tasks I set it to do insects, fish and amphibians. I'm up for helping with castles if that is needed. Getting a list of castles, chateus, schlosses etc. is easy enough: just run a query on Toolserver, then feed that into the bot. I can also provide a list of articles that I've tagged so people can go through them manually. Right, I'll go off and noodle some SQL to get a list of untagged castles. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And the moment I log into the Toolserver, it tells me it is shutting down. It's going to be down for a few hours. No biggie. I'll run it this evening. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers - thanks Tom! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Messines peer review

The Battle of Messines article has been listed for peer review. All interested editors are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Messines/archive1. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Which one...? It links to a disambig page. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Must be Battle of Messines (1917) based on the text on the PR page. And the other article, Battle of Messines (1914) is a stub. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's correct. The article was disambiged after the peer review was opened. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the links on the peer review page be updated? The template at the top still points to the disamb page. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, but I'm not sure if that would muck with the way bot there archives the page. I've placed a note on the peer review for the nominator, but if someone has more knowledge of this, please feel free to step in. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

War Office vs. US Army Seal

Another editor removed the United States Army seal () from the George S. Patton page without explanation. I reverted the edit, but then realized that at the time Patton was serving the correct image would have been the War Office Seal (). The US Army Seal was implemented in 1976 with the bicentennial. Should we be using the seal which is contemporary with the individual's service? I suspect a "substantial" number of edits would be involved.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the War Office seal should have been the one used in the first place, but you are very correct that there would be a bazillion edits involved. The solution as I see it would be to make the corrections as one runs across them, however, I don't see the task getting done in all cases. Then there is the instance where an editor who didn't get the word will change it back...maybe it really doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed the Patton page; we'll see what happens.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need the seal at all? We already have the Army flag - and to be honest, that itself is probably unnecessary. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Landmark reached...

And we're finally there. We've now reached the 100 mark in terms of the FA, FLs and GAs covered by the Fortifications task force. I think the 100th was achieved through HJ Mitchell's nomination of Caludon Castle, a once fine castle just outside Coventry. Plenty more to go though! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, guys! You've been doing some great work in this area! Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done all, it's important to celebrate milestones and great to see a task force achieving them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks excellent; congratulations. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Great news. Not wanting to put any pressure on the editors, but I wonder if something could be added to The Bugle about it? Cheers, --AustralianRupert (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 October 2012‎

May Revolution

The article May Revolution has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. Please read the article and provide reviews here Cambalachero (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ground Combat Vehicle

If nobody wants to take up the brave task of updating Ground Combat Vehicle, I will move to have it de-listed from GA status. I have a collection of online sources dating back to mid-April 2012 I can email to anyone who wants them. Farewell project! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't follow "Farewell project!". - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate tags should be added to the article and/or stated on its talk page before starting a GA review, imo. How about listing the sources on the article's talk page? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the article maybe up to date, minus one large piece of news, see the Defenseindustrydaily article regarding an article in Aviation Week, so perhaps it is to soon to call for delisting, and maybe more important to improve the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Old GA reviews needing a reviewer

Hello all. Although there isn't currently a large backlog of outstanding GA reviews there are a number of requests that are a number of months old, including some from June, July and August. I'm currently reviewing an article that has sat there since May waiting for a review! If you are looking for a way to contribute perhaps have a look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#War and military and see if any of the articles interest you enough to do a review. It seems to me that the stagnation at GA may be affecting us at ACR as there seems to have been a drop off in the number of articles being submitted there recently as well. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks for noticing, Anotherclown (it was mine...). And thanks for the review! I'll pick one out to do myself to help the process along. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sovereign Base Areas merger

Hi folks, some time ago I made a request for input on the proposal to merge Akrotiri and Dhekelia into Sovereign Base Areas at Talk:Sovereign Base Areas#Merge discussion. Its still ongoing, with a slight lean towards merging at present, and further input would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, SalopianJames (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mexico and weapons of mass destruction

I've just prodded the article Mexico and weapons of mass destruction as a possible hoax.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

the title is misleading--it's only about nuclear weapons--but there is clearly enough material so it's not a hoax. see for example this news report. Rjensen (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The title is correct though; there is a whole series of <country> and weapons of mass destruction articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the article was PRODed on the 7th of October. Those interested may want to DeProd the article, and improve it. Presently the majority of references used on the article are Youtube videos that may violate copyright laws.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Major renovations to IWM London getting underway

Soon to be a thing of the past

According to its blog, Imperial War Museum London is starting to move items out of its building in London so work can begin on major renovations which will last until 2014. This would be a great opportunity for editors in London to take some 'last-ever' photos of the current displays for Commons ;) Based on the drawings on the blog, it seems that the current rather dramatic display of military equipment which confronts you when you enter the building is going to be replaced by a more formal lobby, which seems a shame. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, always loved seeing the tanks in the entrance hall. I think there was even one of those dinky little Hetzer's in there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dead references incoming.

This was spotted by User:Rumping so credit goes to them. BT Internet are closing their customer webspace and deleting the content. Which means that all references that end with btinternet.com or btinternet.co.uk will become dead links on 31st October 2012. This project has a lot of references that are based on btinternet sites, so it may be worth getting busy with www.webcitation.org. The following are lists of all the articles that use btinternet.com and btinternet.co.uk. - X201 (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture File Transfer

I was doing some digging for images on other Wikipedias of obscure weapons and found an excellent picture of a Glisenti M1910 here. Do I transfer this to the commons for use or have to put it on English WIkipedia? --MOLEY (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Different sites can have different rules on licensing. That picture just seems to have a big copyright tag on it, so you probably shouldn't upload it to Commons. Is it possible to contact the owner and ask very nicely if they'd consider a more generous license? bobrayner (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that too but my French is poor and I think it says the owner permits all altering of the work. --MOLEY (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol, aint French, is Italian, and says: "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows use for any purpose, including reproduction, commercial use and editing unrestricted." Also, "Commons after verifying with certainty the validity of this license file can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons, making it available even to Wikipedia in other languages and other Wikimedia projects." Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see

I am informing you about one move request related to this project.

• Requested move

If you are interested, it would be nice to participate, we need uninvolved editors. All best! --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong commons description? 1946 Allied Victory Parade in Berlin

I wrote an article on the Berlin Victory Parade of 1945. For such as interesting event, there are almost no sources, but I found a weird Commons category: commons:Category:1946 Allied Victory Parade in Berlin. Now, the only source I was able to find for this event is [6]. As far as I can tell, there were no other parades in Berlin, and I think I recognize some Berlin landmarks from the pictures. Description suggests participation of four nations (USSR, UK, US, France), it would be nice if somebody could confirm this. If this is the case, I think it is very likely that the commons category are mislabelled, as they refer to the September 7 parade. The photos caption suggests May 8, 1946, and they are all from commons:Commons:Deutsche Fotothek project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As some of the pictures show the Soviet War Memorial that was not completed until November 1945, I believe the description of the images is correct. From what I recall, there used to be annual parades with full allied participation in the early years after WWII. --Madcynic (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Several German-language sources [7][8][9] seem to confirm that there was an allied parade on 8 May 1946 for the inauguration of the Soviet war memorial, which is the structure shown in the background both in the video you found [10] and in several of our photographs (e.g. File:Fotothek df pk 0000178 020.jpg) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim that this parade has not received much coverage in the west is dubious - I've seen references to this in quite a few books (including some unit history-type books; for obvious reasons it was considered a highlight of the participating units' war). I'll try to dig up those references. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The persons in the commons:Commons:Deutsche Fotothek photo are Maj Gen Frank A. Keating (USA), Maj Gen Eric P. Nares (UK), Brig Gen Charles Lançon (France) and Aleksandr Kotikov (Russia). PS: many more photos of the parade are visible [here].Farawayman (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Can a source be added to the 1945 article, noting that another parade took place in 1946? Also, can we find any good pd photos from the 1945 event for the inclusion in the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Using two (infobox military conflict) in one article

G'day all, I have a conundrum. I want to merge two articles due to a number of WP policy factors, one being a follow-up operation to the first. Problem is, the forces used, AO etc etc are different. Can I use two infoboxes in the one article, or will it stuff up the syntax/categorisations or something? If I can do it from a practical perspective, can anyone offer any pointers? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fill out the two infoboxes in your sandbox, and preview to see if it looks right.. the quick preview sometimes shows auto-categories applied, but if not there shouldn't be any harm saving it, seeing if any are listed for the sandbox page, then blanking it after testing. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the two-infobox problem is more æsthetic rather than technical.

• Also: Sometimes infobox fields get abused because people feel they have to fill in every field but the available data doesn't fit the field neatly and then they just cram something in haphazardly...
• The encyclopædia is mostly read by human beings who digest one article at a time; we're not populating a database where every field must be populated in exactly the same way, damn the consequences.

It's worth asking yourself whether or not you need an infobox at all. What would serve readers best? Readers who just want to learn about the topic, who aren't necessarily familiar with our internal norms. :-) bobrayner (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to go back a step; what exactly are you wanting to merge?

I’m having trouble thinking of an instance where you’d merge two articles "where the forces used etc are different". If you have two different engagements then they’d be better examined in separate articles, surely? Or if you have two articles about the same incident, but containing different information, then the infobox stuff should be merged with the rest, not left in two different boxes.

Also, (in trying to answer this for myself) I can’t see any merge discussions you’ve opened, or contributed to, or merge tags you’ve placed, recently: Have you even discussed this on the pages concerned? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Battles of Narvik is one example of a multiple infobox situation covering several engagements in one article. The 'Battles of Algeciras' was another, before it got split into the Algeciras Campaign and the First and Second battles. Roquebert's and Troude's expeditions to the Caribbean are examples of overview articles containing smaller actions with their own infoboxes (mostly minor actions that don't usually get more than a paragraph or two in most histories). The latter two are good articles incidentally. So Wikipedia certainly has good and well developed articles which use more than one infobox per article. Benea (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone find pd photos for the New York City Victory Parade of 1946?

I found some photos, but the LIFE photos may not be PD, and the LoC linked one is poor quality. Anyone can find something decent? I see nothing in commons:Category:Parades of World War II. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Chaytor's Force

There is a content dispute at Chaytor's Force can anyone interested contribute. The dispute is over the description of the force and if that description should be included in the article as text or in a note or even at all. Historians/authors have had problems describing the force and I believe that should be noted another editor is against it and questions that this should be even mentioned in Wikipedia.

Its described as a small mobile force.[Jukes, p.307] Basil Liddle Hart described it as the "ANZAC Mounted Division, reinforced by a few infantry battalions".[Hart, p.27] In An Outline History of the Great War its described as the "ANZAC Mounted Division, with a contingent of infantry equivalent to two brigades".[Carey and Scott, p.238] Woodward in Hell in the Holy Land describes it as the "ANZAC Mounted Division, the 20th Indian Infantry Brigade and some other units".[Woodward, p.199] Paddy Griffith in The Great War calls it "a reinforced cavalry division",[Griffiths, p.96] Bou describes it as "nearly equivalent to two divisions."[Bou 2009 p. 194]

Looking for more opinions to break the deadlock. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perrett (1999) p. 26 (I know, it's Osprey) provides a full orbat for the force [11], including A&NZ Mounted Div, 20th Indian Bde, four independent infantry battalions, an artillery brigade and sundry other artillery batteries. Looks like the best part of two divisions to me. There are no cavalry regiments listed, they are all LH, mounted rifles or infantry, so I don't know where Griffith got the cavalry from... Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that but the ORBAT is not the problem its the description and should it be included. Another problem unrelated is Perret's being questioned as a reliable source.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a cavalry division in any case, I've commented further at the article page. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Aside: no comment on the issue at hand, but thx to Jim Sweeney for bringing this here, 'cause I'd never have heard of this outfit otherwise. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Forward operating base

Good Evening

I have been working on the Forward operating base article for a few days now and have hived off the "FOBs in Afghanistan" section to create List of forward operating bases and made List of closed British Army installations in Afghanistan from tidying up the first hived off article.

There is a section on the first article (Forward operating base) called "Other installations in Afghanistan" which contains names of camps, patrol bases, combat outposts and strong points added by both myself, anonymous editors and editors with an account over a while and since the main article is about FOBs the information does not belong there but i do not know where to put the information or if i should just delete it because of the withdrawal soon.

Any suggestions? Gavbadger (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES *delete* ANYTHING because there is a plan to withdraw *combat* forces. Wikipedia IS NOT a rolling news report about Br/US military deployments in developing countries. The data in the FOB article can merely have its header changed : 'Reported FOBs in Afghanistan during Coalition deployments 200X-2012'. Then it can stay there and hopefully get referenced slowly.

I also want to argue with your proposed title 'List of closed British Army installations in Afghanistan'. Have you included everything from 1880 onwards? The British and Indian Armies have been in Afghanistan at least during three major deployments. Much easier to move the whole thing under Operation Herrick, Operation Jacana, or the other appropriate operation names, because otherwise how do we know that they won't open again, or, as frequently with Coalition FOBs, change their name? We should not be using 'Closed' in categories unless we are 99% sure that *everything* is closed and *is going to stay that way*. Regards to all (and sorry for the semi-rant; it's just that we are *very* recentist). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just about to upmerge your helpful table in the 'Closed bases' article to Operation Herrick; another possible merge target would be Task Force Helmand; either would do. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Silver Star

Good evening. I am having difficulty over at the article on the Silver Star. I am having difficulty with another editor and am trying to avoid engaging in an edit war. I could use the advice/assistance of a more diplomatic and experienced editor. I am at wits end and feel like I am dealing with Randy from Boise. Thanks. EricSerge (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that one of the editors maybe attempting to improve the formerly FA article Medal of Honor as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you are correct. I have been assuming good faith for many months and have stepped away from some articles that I cannot seem to work with this editor on. A few of them are quite a mess. I seem to have failed in my encouragement of this editor to look at available Wikipedia resources like the Manual of Style and other helpful things. EricSerge (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

New article - SS subcamps

I have just translated the article Subcamp (SS) from de.wiki on the topic of subcamps of the Nazi concentration camps. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox military conflict}} on friendly fire incidents?

There's a discussion on Template_talk:Infobox military conflict#Should_this_be_used_in_Friendly_fire_incidents.3F on weather {{Infobox military conflict}} should be used on friendly fire incidents. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting articles

I understand WP:NOTFORUM, however where can one discuss interesting articles that we come across that fall within the scope of this WikiProject, and the possible inclusion of them as reliable sources into a potentially related article? Here are two that I am presently interested in sharing, and potentially incorporating somehere:

• USNI blog
• Front page magazine article

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Shidane Arone.jpg

File:Shidane Arone.jpg has been nominated for deletion. Additionally, the FairUseRationale ({{non-free use rationale}}) is also missing. Since the Canadian Airborne Regiment Somalia Affair is fairly prominent, I've tried to add an information template to it, so could someone also check that? -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Military ship categories on Commons

This is an issue that always pops up which is a small group of editors on Commons have created a "naming convention" for ships. There has been the issue of HMAS (USS and HMS have also been raised as well) ship categories being moved (e.g. HMAS Protector to Protector (ship, 1884)) however it has gotten no where, I'll be interested to here in the thoughts of Military history project as this isn't just an issue with current Military ships but those that served in the past. Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a poor choice of name since few readers of Commons are going to put something like "Protector (ship, 1884)" in the search box. However, I'm no Commons guru and it's possible that guidelines there are subject to different forces which we haven't thought of here. Is there a thread on Commons where this has been discussed? bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Template help

I added School of Advanced Military Studies to the A-Class Review page IAW the instructions. But the article and nominator's name does not appear. Perhaps I did something wrong. Can anyone advise me on this? Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I've managed to fix this manually. Essentially when (or if - but you should have done) it should have preloaded that part for you along with an indication of where to list your rationale. Somehow this was never added or perhaps you accidentally replaced it with your reasons for nominating. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Battleship Navarin photos

image:RUS Battleship Navarin underway.jpg and image:RUS Battleship Navarin.jpg have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Standardized naming of Canadian WWI battalions

I wanted to get an outside opinion and confirmation of approach before actioning any moves regarding article titles of Canadian WWI batallions listed in Category:Battalions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.

• All the article titles contain the diambiguator CEF. I suggest it be eliminated because 1. it is not a uncommon acronym in every day English and 2. that level of disambiguation is not required.
• That the articles employ either 1. the official name "XX Canadian Infantry Battalion", 2. Parenthesis disambiguation in the middle of the name "1st (Western Ontario) Battalion" per their common name or 3. The format already employed by Australia battalions from the same period (ex: 3rd Battalion (Australia)) and employ XX Battalion (Canada).

I would certain appreciate some input on the matter.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't get too hung up on consistency between articles; what sources call each subject is more important. What do sources call them? I doubt that "CEF" was universally used but hey, maybe some of them were commonly called that. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been considering this problem (or whether it’s a problem at all) on and off for a few years. I would like to have the articles at the “official” titles of the battalions, but that is not easy to determine. I once did a mass of moves to add subsidiary titles, but soon regretted it, as I lost faith in the reliability of the source I was using (René Chartrand). The various lists of the battalions on the Internet and paper publications are inconsistent in the subsidiary titles and where they are placed within the title. Maybe the subsidiary titles had no official status at all. Additionally the subsidiary titles probably fail the WP:COMMONNAME policy and the shorter-is-better principle for article names.

However, I don’t think that “nth Canadian Infantry Battalion” is common or official. The Canadian Forces lineage documents are consistent in using “nth Battalion, CEF” for units formed in 1914 and “nth ‘Overseas’ Battalion, CEF” for units formed 1915–18. If this format is chosen I would drop “Overseas” for Wikipedia purposes. On headstones, the Imperial War Graves Commission seems to have occasionally used this format as well, but more commonly “nth Battalion Canadian Infantry”.

I think “nth Battalion, CEF” is the way to go, with no subsidiary titles. Although “CEF” might initially be opaque to people new to the subject, it does have a lot of use in reliable sources. It also uniquely identifies First World War units. The short-lived units created for the Pacific Theatre in the Second World War used “nth Canadian Infantry Battalion” and so did two units of the Korean War era, so that format would need disambiguation. Indefatigable (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

nth Battalion, CEF seems fine to me, with things like (Western Ontario) included inside the name where suitable - there are probably some where it's part of the common name! It would not be unusual in not having a bracketed disambiguator - compare the RAF/RCAF/etc squadrons, which also use the suffix - as long as we're consistent (and preferably consistently provide redirects as well...) Andrew Gray (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

xth Infantry Battalion is what appears on all of the unit war diaries. This makes sense as there were construction, engineering battalions (4 brigades totalling 12 battalions) and machine gun battalions (4 battalions) and reserve battalions, all of which were part of the CEF. The Official histories is inconsistent, The appendix lists both an order of battle in Appendix B and a full list of the infantry battalions and their Subsidiary title in Appendix D. The went through the Insignia and Lineages of the Canadian Forces (Volume 3, Part 2) Infantry Regiments and what is employed in the formal list is xx battalion (page 1B-6 onwards). [12]. I personally don't see an option that does see CEF from the titles. I am personally fine with either XX Canadian Infantry Battalion or the parenthesis disambiguation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! New editor to help your group's effort

Hi all: Will start editing. First up: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Introduction Please clarify -- simply grammar and sentence structure review/edit, is all you need. Correct? CHHistory (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed.

Greetings! The following disambiguation pages fall within the scope of this project, and have many incoming links. Any help in clearing them out would be appreciated.

• Battle of Fort Fisher
• Battle of Jiangling
• Battle of Kharkov
• Battle of Seoul
• Battle of Tobruk
• Battle of Corinth
• Battle of Gaza
• Battle of the Philippines
• Battle of Chattanooga
• Battle of Ypres
• Battle of the Nations

Cheers! bd2412 T 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done most of the Battle of Tobruk articles however there are three that i could not point to the correct article, these are:

• The World at War
• Antoni Gałecki and
• Helwan Riots (1945).

also should i edit the portals that appear as well? Gavbadger (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I did, anyway. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Move/merge question

While working on the HMS Medway (F25) article, I've discovered that its pennant number was 25, not F25. Not being a fan of using pennant numbers as disambiguators as they changed at various times, I'd like to move the article back to its original HMS Medway (1928) title, but that's now a redirect. Copy-pasting the current article onto the redirect would be the easiest solution, but would lose the history. What should I do?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Done for you. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Appreciations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about civil wars

In what circumstances is it okay to name the title of a conflict a civil war on WP? Specifically, I wanted to move "Colombian armed conflict" to "Colombian civil war" (Notice that civil war is not capitalized). Here's the page: Talk:Colombian armed conflict (1964–present)#Requested move. Hardly any news media calls the conflict by a proper noun such as "Colombian Civil War", but many reliable sources to mention a civil war in Colombia. Also the Red Cross calls the conflict a "non-international armed conflict", the legal term for civil war, thus applying international humanitarian law under the Geneva Conventions to Colombia. This situation seems similar to that for Libyan civil war and Syrian civil war. I was wondering if the decapatalized "civil war" can be applied for Colombia as well.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NAME we go with whatever the most common name used in reliable sources is. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about the use of military infoboxes

Here is a dispute on the War on Terror article concerning whether or not a military infobox should be used for the article. My question is: for what kind of conflict can WP use a infobox? Is there a definition for this kind of conflict? Does the War on Terror count as such a conflict? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Last call for Signpost article

Additional voices would be appreciated for our Signpost interview focusing on WikiProject Military History's awards, competitions, and other ways of motivating contributors. Simply add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to User:Grandiose, User:secretlondon, and User:Nick-D for contributing, but we could use a few more answers. Feel free to add your voice! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nom needing input

Hello all, some input is needed over at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Olongapo on article scope and titling. Feel free to jump in and disagree with me :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on film One Hundred Years of Evil

• One Hundred Years of Evil

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Władysław Raginis

Władysław Raginis, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Were the clashes between Libya and the United States Part of the Cold War

Should we classify the conflicts listed on Template:Campaignbox Libya-US (minus the 2011 bombing of Libya) as being part of the Cold War? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That really depends on whether reliable sources on these battles describe them as being part of the Cold War. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the Soviet Union supported Gaddafi. However, like Nick said, sources like history textbooks or old news articles need to mention that the U.S.-Libya conflict is part of the Cold War.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just re-read Reagan's foreign policy of my American history textbook (written by Alan Brinkley). It describes Reagan's strong stance against communism, and the operations in Latin America. Then it talks about events in other parts of the world, especially the Third World, It discussed the Middle East and terrorism. In the part that mentioned the Tripoli bombings, there was no hint of the USSR, communism or Cold War. So I think the answer is no. The US-Libya conflict was not a significant part of the Cold War. Including it is probably undue weight Of course, if you find reliable sources countering my point, by all means include it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm primely referring to how we classify them in their infoboxes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We can classify each of the articles by writing in its infobox that the event was part of the "U.S.-Libya conflict", not the "Cold War". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

During the Cold War (period) but not of the Cold War ("conflict"). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are are thousands of conflicts and events that occurred around the world during the Cold War period. We can't classify an event as part of the Cold War unless it's actually part of the conflict. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But the banner's CW-TF says it's for an era, while the {{WikiProject Cold War}} banner is for the CW conflict. ... or are these not eras at all, and the TF/banner identifications all wrong? Is this about the banner's era TFs, or the category tree for the article? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The banner says nothing about whether the Cold War refers to an era or conflict. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WWII aviation photos up for deletion

Many WWII aviation photos are up for deletion at Category:All Wikipedia files with unknown source -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Type 1 47 mm Anti-Tank Gun

A help from anyone knowledgeable in Japanese military history would be much appreciated in resolving this confusion. I'm currently working on an article on this gun (in another language), and this bit of potentially important information proves to be quite a stumbling block. --Saə (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict

The above article has been nominated for merger to Gaza–Israel conflict since April 2012. Mad Man American (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

List of United States Army divisions during World War II

Looks like the above article has been proposed for merger to Divisions of the United States Army since July 2009. Mad Man American (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposal was made in 2009 with no comment until early this month when I suggested removing the tag and retitling the article to remove "Army" since the list includes Marine Divisions as well. This has been unopposed since October 3, so I have removed the merger tag and retitled as List of United States divisions during World War II. The former page is now a redirect. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Axis named operations in the European Theatre

Would a knowledgeable editor be willing to take a look at the above article. It is currently one of the oldest tagged articles for a merge. As far as I can tell only one editor (the proposer) has commented on it. It is quite a comprehensive list and has a few targets, so it might be better if someone from this project decides the best course of action. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be multiple WPMILHIST articles in the "articles for merger" categories going back all the way to July 2009. The oldest category is here, with additional links to other categories. Perhaps we should make a quick check of these categories for any other MILHIST articles and take care of them. Mad Man American (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. It is much better if editors with subject knowledge do the merge. AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Related requested move

The usage of Arrows is under discussion, see Talk:Arrows, where the page is suggested to be renamed to Arrows (F1) so that it can be redirected to Arrow as the plural form. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Arrow (missile)

The usage of Arrow (missile) is under discussion, see Talk:Arrow (missile) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Decorations in bios

In some military bio articles. such as the US generals Frank J. Grass and David M. Rodriguez, there are section listing all their awards, with images of the badge or ribbon for each award, and of all the ranks they have had, with images of the insignia for each rank.

Certainly the list of awards is necessary content, and the list of ranks, with dates of appointment to each rank, also. But what about these inherently repetitive images? In my opinion, they detract greatly from the articles. They interfere with reading, and give in my opinion a childish air to the encyclopedia, as if the users would not find the words meaningful unless they also saw the pictures. In general, there's a principle that we use images to provide information, not merely for decorative purposes, and I think it would apply here.

To my amazement, I see this (in slightly more compact form, though a form much more purely decorative) even in the FA on George Andrew Davis, Jr. and Thomas J. Hudner, Jr.. Before I do a FA review, I'd like opinions from the people on this project. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding awards/ribbons, this has been discussed extensively before here. As will be appreciated from a review, there were different opinions on the merits of ribbon images in articles. Zawed (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing your justification on how a dozen 90px images near the bottom destroy the quality of these articles. Per my discussion linked above, I feel strongly that a list of decorations is worthless without some image assistance, as a list of names like Korea Service Medal, Korean Presidential Unit Citation, United Nations Korea Medal and Korean War Service Medal adds next to nothing, while the layman is more familiar with the images of the decorations, because the ribbons appear in photos constantly where the names of them do not. Anyway, MILHIST has discussed this issue extensively over the years and has come to a pretty thorough non-consensus about it every time, and it's been left to preference because of that. In the reviews I've seen, some include them and others don't, and it hasn't been an actionable reason to oppose as long as they're referenced. —Ed!^(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Help requested identifying New Zealand artillery piece

Gday. Hoping for some assistance identifying the artillery piece in the infobox at New Zealand in the Vietnam War. To me it looks like an M2A2 Howitzer, yet the caption currently reads: "Members of 161 Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery, carry out a fire mission during the Battle of Long Tan in August 1966." 161 Battery, RNZA initially deployed to Vietnam with L5 Pack Howitzers and used them at Long Tan, only switching to M2A2s in March 1967. As such the implication is that it is an L5; however, if one notes the straight trails on the piece it looks more like an M2A2 ([13]). The L5 had bowed trails ([14]). My gut feeling then is that the photo is not from 1966 but from 1967 onwards. I'm no expert on this topic though so I'm wondering if anybody would be able to confirm the identity of the weapon and amend the caption if required? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on artillery, but L5s look quite different to M2A2s, and are much smaller (I've seen examples of both at the Australian War Memorial, and they're easily distinguishable from one another). That's clearly a M2A2. The photo obviously wasn't taken during the Battle of Long Tan given that it's well and truly daylight, and the caption from the source says only that it depicts "MEMBERS OF ROYAL NEW ZEALAND ARTILLERY carry out a fire mission." I've tweaked the caption. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes that works better. Thanks for confirming that. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No use for the encyclopedia per se because of WP:OR, but FWIW I can attest that the RNZA piece shown is extremely similar to the M2C1s on which I was trained in the RCA in the early ’80s. (We called them “gun/howitzers”, because they were designed for both direct & indirect fire, but I doubt that’s significant.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This one is definitely a M2A2 with the modified gunshield. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers all. Anotherclown (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Patriot Revolt, 1787

Looks like the above article has been proposed for merger since July 2009. Mad Man American (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If nothing has been done about it since 2009, then obviously nobody wants it merged, so just remove the tag. 76.7.235.118 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Which task force covers period between "Early modern" and "WW1"?

There is a gap in the Period Task forces - except for the American Civil War, there's no task force covering the 1800 to 1914 era - this gap leaves many articles unassigned as far as Era TFs are concerned. Roger (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The coordination team is discussing the current Task Forces setup and evaluating whether to reorganise, remove or retain it. For now, might be worth putting up with that "gap" until discussions move on, as any attempt to fill it may be short-lived. That said, you are welcome to join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Task forces from active to categorizing as responses are few. NB: There is a Napoleonic task force, which covers 1800–15. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So African colonial conflicts are orphans - for now. Thanks Roger (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Not wiki-linking an article from other articles results in an orphan article. Task forces simply allow WikiProjects to administer articles better.. they're an internal process for editors, rather than a tool to aid readers in finding articles. Besides, there is still Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force, for now. Not all current task forces are conflict or period based, some are geographic. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not a newbie - I do know what WP:Orphan means, but that is quite obviously not what I was referring to. I understand that the Task forces are grouped into What, Where, and When (I've been a member of the African TF for years) - I was enquiring about a gap in the Period TFs. Ideally each Milhist article should be assigned to one of each of the Task Forces in the "General topics", "Nations and regions" and "Periods and conflicts" groups. Even a major European conflict such as the Franco-Prussian War is not covered by any of the "Periods and conflicts" task forces. Roger (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Historically, the task forces were created (and merged/deleted, etc.) based on editor interest. If there is not enough interest to sustain an interest on 19th century conflicts, then there won't be a task force on it. That's simply the nature of the task force structure. Parsecboy (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you didn't need to take that so personally. Generally, when I respond to a query, I don't have time to dig into the Wiki-history of everyone posing a question. The answer you got was generic, regardless of whether you've been here for 1 week or 5 years. And as Parsecboy has said, Task Forces are usually created where there is sufficient demand to do so.. 3 task forces per article is far from ideal, it would be overdoing it and stretch out resources to maintain a whole array of minor task forces that would result. We are possibly stretched now with the 50 or so that we have. It would be ideal to categorise each article into 3 or more categories, to maximise access, but for the purposes of editing, members usually approach a topic from one or two directions.. they're either going to be interested in a particular nation, conflict or period, or a combination of a couple of those, such as 18th Century Britain, 12th Century China.. in which case any conflicts are inherent of the place/time rather than the defining interest. For some it's as straight-forward as "WW2 entirely" regardless of who, where or when within it.. I'm sure you can understand that with the number of major and minor nations involved in any world war, that creating a Nation task force for each, as well as general topics, and periods becomes very difficult and cumbersome to manage, given that task forces are not simple lists like categories, but entire work pages with assessment tables, to-do lists, etc that were once aimed at promoting interaction between editors. In most cases you'll find editors not paying attention to the establishment these task forces and they become dormant, as is the case now with pretty much all of them. That is why we're discussing some form of reorganisation, to either make the task forces broader and fewer, rather than more specific and many, or possibly ditch them entirely. If you have any strong opinions about this, either way, please join in the discussion I linked earlier, as this page archives quickly and comments may not be noticed as easy. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the entire era task force tree needs some reworking... much of it is based on regional terminology. But if we look at just post Early-Modern, if we divide everything as "substantial gunpowder era" (ie, the replacement of missile troops and pikes with musketeers), "industrial warfare" (ie. ACW), "substantial aviation-age" (ie 1910+) , we could create an industrial-age task force for industrial war supported by rail lines and standardized weaponry (ie. Napoleans) or automatic weaponry (ie. Gatlings) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To support Marcus here, we can organise/reorganise which task forces articles fit under in many ways but task forces are not categorisation schemes - they are supposed to be in some way supportive to editorial collaboration. Our first priority should be to get them to work, which would involve presumably organising them along the lines of having some critical mass of active editors interested in the subject areas. If we can under that criterion produce an Early Industrial Warfare task force, then go for it.Monstrelet (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)