Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Flag use in infoboxes

At Template_talk:Infobox_Military_Conflict#Flag_use_guidelines, Himasaram has proposed some guidelines on the use of flag icons—probably needed given the spread of flag use—that I think we could adopt across the entire range of infoboxes we work with. I've taken the liberty of slightly rewording them to apply to the more general context:

• When dealing with a particular time period, use contemporary flags only; for example, use Germany for a battle in 1993 and Germany for one in 1893.
• In a naval context, such as for a naval battle or commander, use naval ensigns, such as Russia.
• In the case of non-state or non-sovereign parties, use either the personal standard of the individual involved or the actual flag flown by the group in question. Do not use the flag of a future state.
• If no flag is available, a coat of arms may be used instead instead, such as File:Duchy of Warsaw 11.PNG Duchy of Warsaw.
• Avoid using flag templates in fields that indicate location.

Comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 14:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, similar to guidance applied to ship boxes. Three points to mention: 1) apparantly there's scope for error over correct use of the Free French ensign, as FF has a restricted definition see here, 2) there's a template that will select the correct US flag (no of stars varies), it's {{USN flag|yyyy|nnpx}}, yyyy is the relevant year and nnpx is the required size, eg 20px (intended for use with naval issues, see USS Antietam (CV-36) as an example) and 3) the "British" White Ensign was used as a common ensign for all Empire navies until the 1960s. There's a reference list here. Folks at 137 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it here Kirill! (And for clarifying my language. =) )

BTW, I'm also struggling a bit with French flags. First, I wonder about the Vichy France flag in very popular use here on the 'pedia () - it being a presidential standard, is it really correct to use it in for example battleboxes? Secondly is flags of the pre-Revolution kingdom. Several different are used all over the project. I tried to make a summary of them over at Template talk:Country data France. --Himasaram 06:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the Vichy flag. It was only in use during the German occupation, by the vichy governement. Free French forces would use this one : . In fqct, {{History of France}} use it, that's why it's barely everywhere... I'll try to see what I can find in my books about the pre-revolution flags ! NicDumZ ~ 08:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered overthere NicDumZ ~ 14:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have we really surrendered to flagcruft without a fight? File:White flag icon.jpg The arguments against them have been oft-stated (here and at WP:Flag): flags in infoboxes usually serve no purpose other than decoration in an already crowded table; they don't work well in many situations, etc. For example, in practically none of the conflicts I write about are flags appropriate, since many of the combatants are non-state peoples (i.e. tribes) or Euro-American frontiersmen (where they're not often acting on behalf of an established state with a flag). Adding flags to some of the combatants but not others draws attention to Wikipedia's most pervasive (but least understood) bias in favor of the European-style state. History is not just the history of states, but I digress....

The problem with having guidelines for flag usage, as Kirill ( / ) has suggested elsewhere, is that this essentially promotes their use. Sure, we can recognize that flags are already all over the place and thus create guidelines for their usage. But people who added the flags have already ignored the guidelines by putting them into the military infoboxes in the first place; there's no reason to assume that they will follow the new guidelines listed above. Does it make sense to change the guidelines to accommodate people who aren't interested in our guidelines?

If we must surrender to those who paste flags all over the place like little kids with stickers (if you're reading this you're probably not one of those people, I hope), let's at least make it a negotiated surrender by keeping something in the guidelines about flag usage being optional, and discouraging flag usage in infoboxes where not all of the combatants used flags. —Kevin Myers 12:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I have no problem with keeping a general discouragement of flag icons as a preface to anything else we say on the issue. As Himasaram has said, though, we seem to be losing the battle to keep them out entirely; so I think having some sort of fall-back to get rid of the worst abuses is a good idea, even if it's not the most desirable outcome from our perspective. Kirill 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we seem to be losing the battle on this one (it's more of a route, really). I do agree, though, that we should preface any guidelines with a statement indicating that the use of flags is entirely optional (with perhaps a little explanation of why, along the lines of pointing out the bias Kevin describes above). Carom 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We could also add that flagicons are only sanctioned for traditional European-style state vs. state conflicts, and even then exclusively for clear-cut state combatants. That would narrow their use somewhat. --Himasaram 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, our policy of passive disapproval ought to continue full force, although we should still tolerate flag use on a limited scale. Commanders do not warrant flags. Naval or army jacks are not a good idea (and, in passing, the Combatant field should read e.g. "Empire of Japan," not "Imperial Japanese Navy"), nor is a mix of modern flags and coat of arms. If Kevin Myers permits the inference, I'd venture to add, per him, that flags should be discouraged or even removed from templates which feature non-state combatants (i.e. if one combatant has no flag, the other should not have one either). Inaccurate or excessive flags ought to be removed on sight. Oversized flags culled or squeezed down to 22px. Simply put, flags should be on probation. Let them fear us. Albrecht 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will be able to maintain the statement that "flag icons are not recommended" because I have been using that to good effect in keeping them out of the American Civil War articles. In the ACW, these flags are completely useless because the battle boxes always show the USA on the left and the CSA on the right. It might be appropriate to limit the use of these flags for only those cases in which multinational ( > 2) combatants are involved. For example, in World War II, multiple nations fought in individual battles and the units involved sometimes had officers from one nation leading troops of another. In those cases, the little flags actually do make some sense because you can tell at a glance who is who without having to click on the links. For a two-party war, they are a waste of bandwidth. (In the ACW there is a further justification in that the various Confederate battle flags are considered pejorative symbols by a nontrivial percentage of the U.S. population, so there is no sense proliferating them in every article.) Hal Jespersen 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring, for the moment, the questions of specific fields in infoboxes and of non-standard flags (i.e. coats of arms and naval jacks), which are relatively minor points, it seems that we can proceed from two basic principles:

1. The use of flags in infoboxes is discouraged.

   We can go into some more detail here on some of the especially bad things that crop up; in particular, the all-or-none point with regards to flag availability (per Albrecht) can be mentioned, as can the clutter factor of flags that don't provide useful information (per Hal).

2. If flags are used, they must be historically accurate.

   This can be annotated with several corollaries: flags must correspond to the correct time period; state flags must not be used for non-state actors; etc.

This isn't really anything that we don't already advocate, I think, albeit not always in writing. If nothing else, I think putting it down explicitly will actually help with reducing flag clutter by providing an "official" guideline to link to when we do so. Thoughts? Kirill 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree with or understand most of the concerns about flagicons raised above, I have the opinion that they do have educational value:

• Gives a visual impression of the development of (mainly European) national flags. In the case of the American Civil War for example, the Confederate States had three distinct national flags ( -> -> ) as well as a naval ensign, () facts that would be illuminated by their inclusion in the battle boxes.

• In the case of naval or war ensigns, lets the casual reader know that a large number of nations in the world use a different flag at sea or in battle. I, for instance, did not know this before I started working on battle articles here on the 'pedia, so it has certainly been educational for me.

I do support strict guidelines for flagicons with strict enforcement, but I also want to emphasize that they aren't purely bling-bling. --Himasaram 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This can be the case, but only incidentally, and it can sometimes cause more confusion than enlightenment.

If the point is to show that a certain unfamiliar flag was used in a particular period or context, better to actually put that flag in a thumbnail box, with a caption explaining that "Country X used the historic flag Y during the Z Campaign", with links to the relevant articles. —Michael Z. 2007-08-11 00:17 Z

Exactly. I think your edit summary says it best: "To teach about flag development, write about it instead of letting the reader learn by accident or through frustration". Carcharoth 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone else have any suggestions? How should we proceed from here? Kirill 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend discouraging the use of flag icons in infoboxes. In cases where it is helpful (the multi-participant battles is a good example), yes, but in most cases, rather than stick a flag in the infobox, it is better to use words in the article and to link to articles containing the flags. This means that when people click on the link, they will see the flag in full at Confederate Army or Imperial Japanese Navy. If you need to tell people reading an article about the flag being used, then you can use words to say this, linking to Flag of the United States if people need more information (for example, if you have an old picture of a US flag). If, instead, you just stick a flag icon in the infobox, it may look nice, but many readers will not be quite sure what the flag is indicating, and will click on the flag, and then reach a dead end. What they should be doing is clicking on the article link, and being told at the article that the combatant fought under such-and-such a flag in the time period in question. If, on the other hand, the information about the flags is trivial, then it shouldn't be shoehorned into the article in the form of a decorative flag icon. Ultimately, it would be best to keep careful track of the use of flag icons by some combination of what links here on the flag images and having the flag icon templates generate categories. That way it is possible to browse and see if the guidelines are being followed. Carcharoth 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm less bothered about use of flags, not even sure of the problem, particularly as it highlights the existence of separate combatants within a single force. I think any qualified use of flags, as suggested above, would lead to repeated debate about application of rules. So, it's "in" or "out". Given that choice, I'd vote "in". With one proviso: use of national flags only - not naval ensigns/ jacks (except in ship boxes). Sorry to break the consensus, chaps. Folks at 137 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring, for the moment, the discouraged/not discouraged issue, are you also against requiring that the flags be historically accurate ones? I would think that we wouldn't want something that's simply incorrect regardless of anything else, no?

More generally, I think there are three sort of distinct points here:

1. Should flag use, as a whole, be encouraged, discouraged, or neither? The majority of people commenting both here and in previous discussions have tended towards discouraging it, I think, with some notable dissenters.
2. Do flags need to be the correct ones? I'm hoping we can get a strong consensus on this point, if nothing else; the worst thing about flags being inserted is that they're quite often the wrong flag for the country/period in question (see, for example, the various sorts of nonsense put up as a flag for the Holy Roman Empire in various articles).
3. How, where, and which flags should be used? This encompasses all the minor points about naval ensigns, use in location fields, etc.; we can debate it to death or leave it entirely alone, I think, as it's the least important of the points, and the one most amenable to per-article decisions.

Kirill 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say discourage decorative flag use in favour of writing something in the article about the use and history of flags. This is after all WikiProject Military History, not WikiProject "identify the flag for bonus points". If you find yourself struggling to write anything meaningful about the flags, well, that indicates that the flags probably aren't needed at all, either as icons or as text. Some clear examples would help demonstrate this. Carcharoth 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I would prefer to discourage it, but I don't know if there's consensus for that, and in some cases I don't mind flags used sparingly. Let's start with a list of where flags shouldn't be used—there's a good start in the discussion above. From this, we could compile a list of exceptional situations where they might be used.
2. Yes, encyclopedically correct symbols for what is being represented, please. We should acknowledge that this may reduce their usefulness to the general reader somewhat.
3. Another unfortunate use of flag icons, not yet mentioned, is in a dazzling array resembling an expressionist flower garden. For instance, to bedeck a list of more than about 5 countries. Real example in this old revision of "T-34" — compare for readability. —Michael Z. 2007-08-11 00:30 Z

Case in point: the link to the MBT 2000/Al-Khalid tank has been removed and restored on the template:Modern tanks a number of times recently, over whether it should bear a Chinese or Pakistani flag, or both. The template looks bad with 19 flags scattered across it, anyway. The edit war continues, and if anyone wants to contribute some wisdom, it would be welcome. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 14:40 Z

I removed the flags. If we need to explain the history of a tank to justify the flag, then it is best to leave the flags off and explain the history in an article or list of tanks by country. Carcharoth 14:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that in this instance, the use of flags is justified. It's not obvious at a glance which country each tank is from, especially for those identified with just a code number (quickly, where do the T-84, T-90, M-84 and Type 96 come from?), and I consider myself at least somewhat familiar with mil tech. Of course, it can be debated whether a flag is that much more identifiable, but it's something. At least you have a tooltip that pops up if you hover over the graphic. -- Hongooi 08:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Equally it is not obvious from a glance when each tank was built (quickly, when were the T-84, T-90, M-84 and Type 96 built?). Surely that information would be more useful in a template showing modern tanks? Carcharoth 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take discussion specific to template:Modern Tanks to the the template's talk page. You're both right, but there are potential problems with both approaches. In particular, the question of which flags has caused revert-warring over the removal of links. —Michael Z. 2007-08-13 19:53 Z

Draft text

Based on the comments above, I've taken a first stab at a (very basic) draft guideline on the matter. I've tried to omit some of the more arcane points about where and how to use particular flags in favor of something a bit simpler to deal with, but also hopefully less controversial:

• In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider:
  • Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?
  • Will adding them disrupt the existing structure or flow of the text?
• When flag icons are used, they should be historically accurate ones. In particular:
  • When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods. Be especially careful to avoid using the flags of modern states for ancient ones; in many cases, the proper successor state of one no longer in existence is a matter of considerable controversy.
  • Avoid using state flags in non-state contexts, such as for groups or individuals not aligned with any state.

Comments? Is there anything in this that people have strong objections to, or can we sort of get behind the basic principles here? Kirill 15:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The question "Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?" is vague because "useful" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. It could be improved with some examples:

• Useful: Differentiate organizations and personnel in lists that contain combatants from numerous locales, in which it would not be obvious from the names what the affiliations are.
• Not useful: Adds irrelevant information, such as the flag of the state/province/city in which a commander is born.
• Decorative: Duplicates information already presented unambiguously nearby in text form (adjacent, column/row headers, etc.).

For U.S. readers, unfortunately, the use of the term "state" will be misinterpreted. I see tendencies to use flags of U.S. states where the country should be used instead. I am unsure what the best solution is, other than the current "the use of flag icons is not recommended." Hal Jespersen 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We can change "state" to "national" easily enough without losing any of the meaning, I think. Kirill 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, somewhat revised and expanded:

• In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider:
  • Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties—where such distinctions are not already obvious—are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not.
  • Will adding them disrupt the existing structure or flow of the text?
• When flag icons are used, they should be historically accurate ones. In particular:
  • When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods. Be especially careful to avoid using the flags of modern countries for ancient ones; in many cases, the proper successor of a country no longer in existence is a matter of considerable controversy.
  • Avoid using national flags in inappropriate contexts, such as for groups or individuals not aligned with any country.

Comments? Kirill 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. But examples will really help show what is intended here. Give extreme examples at either end, and let people work out for themselves where the middle ground should be. Maybe a few seemingly borderline cases if they are actually clear cut and help show the intent of the guideline. I tried to find a few examples, but failed. Surely there should be some easy way to query the system and return a list of "all articles with the WP:MILHIST tag that use some form of "flag" template"? Carcharoth 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any easy way to do it, particularly given that many articles use raw flags rather than templates. Do people have examples of good/bad icon usage? (I'd be particularly interested in usages that broadly anti-icon editors would consider good, as well as usages that broadly pro-icon editors would consider bad. We should probably stay away from anything that's actually disputed if we're going to provide specific examples.) Kirill 00:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some examples (I looked mainly in the WW2 categories and other 'industrial' battles): Battle of the Denmark Strait [1], Battle of the Gdańsk Bay [2], Battle of the Philippine Sea [3], Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) [4], Siege of Malakand [5], Siege of Barcelona [6], Battle of Vélez-Málaga [7]. The permanent links at the time of writing are in the brackets. Carcharoth 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Of those, the Battle of the Atlantic seems like the most appropriate use of the icons, since they're actually useful in matching up commanders with combatants. The others seem more borderline, at best, but I'm not sure if, formatting aside, there's anything wildly inappropriate there. Comments from some other people would definitely be good here. Kirill 12:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The point about flags being useful in many cases (particularly in WWII and other modern battles) to help label the allegiances or national identities of commanders is an excellent one. I also think that the use of flags helps to reinforce the chronological identity of the combatants beyond simply the use of the name of the country/faction. As for naval flags, my two cents is that for the sake of consistency we should stick to national/state/faction flags and not use naval standards; after all, we're not using army/military standards for non-naval battles, and sticking to national flags will more directly and accurately represent the nations being discussed. ... All of that said, most of the articles I work on are pre-modern or early modern and do not involve flags in the traditional Western sense anyway. I think flags are really useful in these kinds of situations where they help to identify the countries involved, and in associating commanders with their country when necessary, but I would definitely advise caution in going overboard with symbols or emblems or other non-flags for those factions which lack them. In other words, I have no intentions of adding kamon to any of Japan's pre-modern battles to represent the warring samurai clans. LordAmeth 14:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Discussion seems to have stalled on this. Does anyone want to comment on the examples I provided? I found another example recently: War of Heaven [8]. It seems faintly ridiculous to have a battle infobox for this (it can't really be called military history by any stretch of the term), but have a look at the flag used for St Michael. It reduces a biblical myth to the level of a wargaming episode. Completely and utterly ridiculous. Carcharoth 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. This one violates much of the stuff above, and large parts of the general MoS to boot, but I wonder if picking a fictional example is going to be useful here. Kirill 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in most of the battles I deal with the combatants don't even have proper flags. For example, in the Battle of Wayna Daga I think the Moslem side had red banners (I know at one point the Imam handed out white banners for his troops to fight under), but the Ethiopian (& Portuguese) really didn't have flags. Probably standards...but does anyone think a parasol would be appropriate? -- llywrch 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it may be worth mentioning that one shouldn't make up flags for groups that didn't have any. ;-) Kirill 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Or at least where there are no reliable sources for one or both sides -- that might help discourage "flagcruft." ;-) llywrch 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

So, any other comments? Can we move forward with something practical here, or are there still major issues that people would like to see addressed? Kirill 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on one point. In some cases it seems that the use of flags in military personnel infoboxes is almost encouraged, particularly in the cases of wars where more than a few countries were involved. On the other hand, the idea of using duplicate information (Allegiance: United States (insert U.S. flag here)) is discouraged. So for military personnel infoboxes, which is preferred? --ScreaminEagle 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't really think of any benefit to using flags in personnel infoboxes, since the visual information will basically always be redundant to the text right next to it. (I'm sure somebody will now proceed to come up with some suitably clever use for them, proving me wrong. ;-) Kirill 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that placing flags in personnel infoboxes is unnecessary and I'm willing to support a formal, written policy on the issue. Cla68 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. Make it really, really clear please, so that when I direct people to that page and point out that it's unnecessary, indeed highly discouraged, to insert country flags in their personnel infoboxes, they won't give me a line of crap about how it makes it look better or it's important for clarification or some such thing. --ScreaminEagle 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another draft

Slightly cleaned up, and with some thought given to examples:

• In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider:
  • Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information (for example, icons used to indicate place of birth for a military commander) are usually not.
  • Will adding icons disrupt the existing structure or flow of the text?
• When flag icons are used, they should be historically accurate ones. In particular:
  • When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods. Be especially careful to avoid using the flags of modern countries for ancient ones; in many cases, the proper successor of a country no longer in existence is a matter of considerable controversy.
  • Avoid using national flags in inappropriate contexts, such as for groups or individuals not aligned with any country.

Comments? Kirill 16:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My point earlier is folks using flags to denote commanders' (or other personnel) country of allegiance, not just place of birth. That's my only clarification.--ScreaminEagle 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much; but since the "good" example is doing just that (albeit in a conflict infobox rather than a person one), I thought it might be a bit too confusing to stress that point. Kirill 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So if it's too confusing to make the distinction, do we care about such things to begin with? Just let it go? --ScreaminEagle 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's something that requires some thought on a case by case basis, so it's not really the best example to use in a guideline, which should really go for something unambiguous; but presumably each scenario has better and worse options for editors to choose. (It's possible to use allegiance flags for something useful, incidentally, albeit in relatively few cases; for example, a general that served several countries and held different ranks or commands in each could have that information indicated by using icons next to the listed ranks/commands in the infobox. So I wouldn't necessarily say that they're always inappropriate even for personnel.) Kirill 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to encourage it, perhaps guidelines could mention sources for the correct and easy to use flagicon/country templates: Wikipedia:Inline templates linking country articles or for more obscure historical/naval flag templates: Find the country from the category Category:Country data templates, taking care to note that some cases have several entries, e.g. Germany:

• Template:Country data Germany
• Template:Country data German Empire
• Template:Country data Nazi Germany

Japan (Template:Country data Empire of Japan) and Italy (Template:Country data Napoleonic Italy) are some of the obvious others with multiple templates.

--Deon Steyn 09:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To repeat what I wrote above (in response to Kirill), should we also have a rule that unless both sides have a verifiable flag or standard, none should appear in the infobox? That would discourage their appearance -- or at least force people to do more research on the matter. I believe this would result with almost all battles before (IIRC) AD 700 & almost all non-European battles would not have flag icons. -- llywrch 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's my personal feeling, but I'm not sure if we really want to elevate it to the level of a hard-and-fast rule. It might be better to mention the potential problems, but leave it up to editors to decide on whether any benefits of having partial flag coverage outweigh them. (As a practical point, it's worth noting that most alliances mentioned in infoboxes don't have flags. For example, if an infobox has "Axis (Germany, Italy)" and "Allies (UK, US)", it would arguably be legitimate to provide flags for the mentioned countries even though the alliances have none.) Kirill 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone else have an opinion on this? :-) Kirill 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm done. (Insert collective sigh of relief.) --ScreaminEagle 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Final? draft

Barring any objections, I'm planning to put up the following on the project page in the near future. It's essentially the above draft with a note about consistent usage among parties added:

• In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider:
  • Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information (for example, icons used to indicate place of birth for a military commander) are usually not.
  • Can flag icons be used consistently? In other words, do all the groups in a given list have usable flags? If only a few have them, it may be better to omit flags for all the items than to have a different layout for each one.
  • Will adding icons disrupt the existing structure or flow of the text?
• When flag icons are used, they should be historically accurate ones. In particular:
  • When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods. Be especially careful to avoid using the flags of modern countries for ancient ones; in many cases, the proper successor of a country no longer in existence is a matter of considerable controversy.
  • Avoid using national flags in inappropriate contexts, such as for groups or individuals not aligned with any country.

Comments? Kirill 20:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the text above at WP:MILMOS#FLAGS. Further comments and refinements are, of course, quite welcome. Kirill 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

New Member

Hello, I just joined the wikiproject; my main interests are medieval weapons and armaments of European/Asian origin. While it seems that the majority of the weaponry task force is concentrated on modern weapons, any pointers on style, categorization, or anything else would be greatly appreciated. Gizzakk 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military_terms

From the talk page of (Talk:Battle of Waterloo#GA review)

throughout the text, links to "Battle of . . ." should not have a capital "B". Please change these to lower case. (Jackyd101 29 August 2007 )

From lower down the same talk page Talk:Battle of Waterloo#Capitalization page:

Capitalization, especially of unit names, is somewhat nonstandardised in the article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't currently have style guidelines for this, so I've proposed some on the relevant MoS page. Please have a look and see if you agree. Once they're stable, I'm going to go through and standardise. -Kieran 23:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs discussing here. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For battles and campaigns, I believe the Chicago Manual of Style recommends that only names that have achieved recognition as proper nouns should be capitalized. Thus, it's the Battle of Thermopylae, but the battle of Obscure Creek. The problem with this approach, of course, is that there's no easy, objective way to determine when a battle name has reached the status of a proper noun. Therefore, Wikipedians generally capitalize all battle names, i.e. "Battle of Foo", which seems okay to me. But they tend to go nuts with capitalizing theater and campaign names, raising descriptive names to the status of proper nouns, like "Lower Seaboard Theater of the American Civil War", which looks fine as an article title, but silly in the middle of a sentence. —Kevin Myers 07:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. I'm glad this is finally coming up. I find this to be a problem especially in the fields in which I work - Japanese has no equivalent for capital vs lowercase letters, and so the question of whether something is a descriptive title or a proper noun is in most cases up for grabs. Some sort of standard does need to be reached, though I'm not sure what. The basic idea of "only names that have achieved recognition as proper nouns" is a great one, though of course I agree with Kevin that there's no real objective yardstick for that. ... I'm sorry I'm not contributing anything meaningful to this discussion, but I am definitely eager to see this develop and for some kind of policy/guideline to be established. LordAmeth 08:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the "recognition as a proper noun" criterion is a good one. This definitely seems to be the spirit of the Chicago MoS. As for problems with borderline cases, I think the best way to handle that is through case-by-case consensus. (General Wikipedia policy on interpreting style guidelines is to go with consensus.) Let's throw it around a bit more, and if we all agree, I'll write this into the style guideline -Kieran 10:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur, with the proviso that if the linked battle has an article here then the default position is capitalise. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it's better to over-capitalize these than to under-capitalize them; the "my battle is more important than yours"-type fights just aren't worth it here. Kirill 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On a closely-related point, what do we feel about capitalised Actions and Raids? Treat as Battles? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume they'd follow the same rule, being capitalized when they're used as part of a "proper noun". Kirill 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Should this be added to the MOS page? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Added. Please edit the style guide if you can see a way to improve it. I've also added a small notice to the section stating that it is under discussion, to be removed once we've worked through as much as possible. Be bold! -Kieran 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Expanded it to make it more all-embracing, added examples, and strengthened the default nature of article titles. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have iadventantly started this debate, I basicially always assumed that the word "battle" was not a proper noun and so should not be capitalised when used in a sentance. I've always found it slightly jarring to see a capital in the middle of a sentance like that but I bow to consensus here.--Jackyd101 22:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, the discussion seems to have died down, and we seem to all agree. I'm going to remove the notice that the guideline is under discussion, and leave them as they are in the MoS. -Kieran —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ship names

It might be helpful to have a standard for fighting ships too. These appear variously as (a) HMS Victory or (b) Victory. I suppose that (a) could be used for first mention, with (b) thereafter but I have no preference whatsoever myself. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 13:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion is normal convention in military usage. The other point might be reference to warships, there seem to be some who refer to ships in a neutral way, rather than using the feminine.

ALR 14:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the use of ship prefixes is addressed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Referring to ships, and the use of neutral vs feminine gender is not addressed in conventions. In practice, ship names with or without prefixes are acceptable, as long as there is enough information in context (i.e., in an American Civil War naval battle, it might be advisable to use prefixes extensively, since numerous ships were captured and changed sides during battles). As far as gender, most at WP:SHIPS prefer and use feminine, but we treat it as contributor preference - neutral is not wrong and therefore not corrected in an existing article. Maralia 15:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Just wanted to get this up before it closes: Category:Recipients of the Ranger tab was nominted for deletion. Looking at the comments there, it is obvious that the nominator and at least one voter has no clue about what the ranger tab and ranger qualification means, so I'm asking people from here to go and comment before it closes - I'm not asking you to say keep - delete if you think it should be delted, but I think people who might know a little more about it should comment on it.--Nobunaga24 00:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

France potentially being delisted as major power in World War II infobox

Hello. Normally I wouldn't think such a minor alteration would warrant a posting on the MilHist page, but there's been a lot of contention around this before and I'd like to do what I can to maintain neutrality and avoid original research.

A few contributors have determined that France should not be listed as a major power of World War II. The details are on the template discussion page. Any feedback is more then welcome. Oberiko 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First they removed France, and I didn't speak up,

Because the French surrendered in eight weeks.

Then they removed China, and I didn't speak up,

Because Chinese contribution was limited to one theatre.

Then they removed the UK, and I didn't speak up,

Because they wouldn't have lasted if not for American help.

Then they removed the Soviets, and I didn't speak up,

Because they were commie bastards as evil as the Nazis.

Then their goals were achieved, and no one was left to speak up,

Because apparently, America won WWII alone.

Миборовский 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's very helpful. The debate is about if France's contributions are more similar in scope to "minor powers" (such as India, Canada and Poland) rather then the "major powers" (U.S., U.S.S.R., and U.K.). If you have something specific, we're asking to hear it, but please don't frame this discussion in the same light as the First they came... speech, which alludes to Nazism, I think that could be taken as being quite disrespectful. Oberiko 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merely stating what I observe to be the trend. American editors, discontent with simply glorifying their own contributions to the war (which are numerous and crucial), have to disparage and downplay the contributions of other countries as well. We've already been through this many, many times. It's also interesting that (just an example here) Chinese casualties may be used to belittle French contributions to the war in this instance, but the same data was discounted when Chinese contributions were in question a while back.

But you are correct, it wasn't helpful. I was just... frustrated. Миборовский 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty broad generalization. And to whom are you referring? I myself am Canadian. Oberiko 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on the issue

An initial straw-poll regarding Allies & Axis vs. Nationalities is going on here. Participation and feedback are most welcome. Oberiko 11:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Identify that tank/gun, Round 3

Well, I have news that is both good and bad at the same time. Per previous discussion here, today I ambled on down to tank row at the entrance to the aberdeen proving ground. You can imagine my surprise when I saw that it was no longer there :(

So I drove a mile down the road to the musuem, and asked what happened. Apparently they took them all back and put them in the field in back of the musuem, with all the other pieces (the same field that I have twice photographed. So the news is good and bad at the same time. Tank row was next to the entrance, and they get *VERY* upset if you are photographing stuff near the entrance (such pictures could help out terrorists planning an attack on the base to get inside), so getting permission to photographs the tanks there was uncertain. The bad news is that they did not keep the tanks together - instead, they split them up and placed them all over the field. So the only way to make sure I get them all is to go through the field and photograph everything (for the third time). This is not something I am willing to do. However, I did shoot some more pictures of ones that I don't think I got the last two times. I'll be uploading them tonight for identification. Raul654 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been a couple of years since I've been there, but I could have sworn the tanks were like that (out in back with everything else) originally. In fact, I recall taking photos of them out back. I don't remember any such Tank Row when I was there. So it would seem it was only meant to be a temporary display anyway. --ScreaminEagle 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that most of the tanks were in back of the musuem - but they put another dozen-or-so next to the visitors entrance. That was tank row. I just asked a colleague who has been there since the mid-80s -- he said Tank Row has been there ever since he started working there. It's just my luck that the day I go to take a picture of it is the same week they get rid of it ;) Raul654 20:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I've never said my memory was perfect. I still don't remember them there, which means I probably missed out on something pretty cool. Oh well. --ScreaminEagle 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

GO!! Raul654 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work by Bukvoed, who managed to identify all but one. Raul654 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to the weaponry task force that the museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground has an extensive, and I mean extensive, collection of historical firearms in their back room which would probably be a good resource to get photos for firearms articles. Although their back room isn't publically open they'll usually take you back there if you ask them nicely and if they're not too busy with something else. Cla68 06:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Organizational Order of Battle

This is one of the project's less helpful articles- a exhaustive listing of the types of wings and other units that Strategic Air Command had at certain times, ie 'Reconnaissance Air Divisions - 1 in 1955 and 1 in 1971' and so on like that. I think by itself this is too esoteric and unusable, and it should be deleted, though some information may be migrated first. What do others think? Buckshot06 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is already in, e.g. Strategic Air Command divisions; so I don't think we'll lose much by getting rid of this particular list. Kirill 12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of unit veterans as primary sources on unit history

I have concerns that veterans of the 3rd US Infantry Regiment, as well as the senior command staff of the United States Army, have been arbitrarily rejected as primary sources contrary to WP:NOR to make a point regarding the history and naming of that unit. As a matter of respect for the unit veterans, the Chief of Staff's office and his subordinate staff officers, I am no longer contributing to or commenting on Wikipedia articles pertaining to any element of the United States Armed Forces, and I have informed my students that such articles are not acceptable for citation in their academic work submitted for publication. I may continue to contribute to the German General Staff article or other articles on other-than-American topics as I find credible sources authored by recognized military historians in the future. Hotfeba 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not being familar with this particular case (so I may be wrong), it sounds from your post like an improper interpretation of WP:NOR. The only way NOR itself would be involved is if you (or any other editor) engages in "original research", drawing conclusions or making interpretations not based on a published source. Veterans and any command staff are clearly regarded as primary sources. There is currently a very lengthy discussion on the talk page of NOR. We are discussing how to remove the definitions, etc. of the various types of sources, so that the policy concentrates solely on "no original research", not on side topics like what kind of source something is. If there are any objections to what I think you are complaining about, it seems like it would be more related to the verifiability or reliable sources policies. Hope this helps some. wbfergus ^Talk 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:NOR section on "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources", a credible primary source includes those persons "very close to the situation being written about". Unit veterans reasonably qualify as primary sources, but their account of the unit's name is rejected in favor of after-the-fact standardization of unit article names by at least one Wikipedia editor. I have provided a good secondary source (written by a 19th century unit veteran/primary source) on the article talk page from www.army.mil/cmh on the unit's official name as it (3rd United States Infantry Regiment) was rendered as early as 1894 under the US Army's commanding general at the time, which should settle the issue but for one's desire for standardization. In any case, the Wikipedia article is merely a tertiary source at best, not suitable for citation on its own. Other Wikipedia policies may apply, but I found the above source policy on another editor's recommendation for avoiding OR in this specific matter. Hotfeba 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of different things then are "in play" here. First, article names aren't really 'standard' representations of what something may actually be called, it's primarily used (especially here in MILHIST) for easier 'sorting' or 'grouping' purposes. This project has many different "3rd" or "Third" on here from a lot of various nations. It was agreed upon a year or so back that browing through the non-standardized names was becoming quite a chore, and standardizing the names would greatly simplify the task. An article "name" doesn't really matter to much, as withing the text of articles, the linkage to the article can still be piped to the applicable name (or real) name. I can see where you would like the actual article name to be the correct representation of what the unit actually is called, but when it's conglomerated in with 30 other "3rd's", it easy to get lost in the shuffle. Within the article itself it could (maybe should?) clearly state what the "official" name is. Depending upon how your edits were worded may reflect on whether or not the other editor correctly assumed "original research" on your part. If, within the article, your edit consisted of something like "In 1894 the US Army's commanding general organized the unit as the '3rd United States Infantry Regiment'", followed by a reference to the applicable 'source', then it is simply a statement of fact and not original research. However, something like "Many veterans of the unit insist that the appropriate name of the unit is '3rd United States Infantry Regiment' and has been called that since 1894" could easily be called OR, as it seems to be making a conclusion or interpreatation of facts not augmented by a published source. wbfergus ^Talk 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference: this is the matter discussed in #The Old Guard above. Briefly: our guideline calls for the official name to be used, there's some disagreement over what that official name is, and people have unfortunately become upset because of the dispute. Kirill 20:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on others' edits -- I have refrained from editing that article after a US Army photo I attributed to www.army.mil was removed as not public domain several months ago -- and I am removing my user name from the MILHIST project per accepted Wikipedia policy on conflict avoidance. Hotfeba 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Issy Smith now open

The A-Class review for Issy Smith is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II now open

The A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Barrosa now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Barrosa is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

the X legio

I was just reading about it and it REALLY needs to be restarted in two different sections it's talking about 4 different legions--Rofur 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Runyon now open

The A-Class review for Fort Runyon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IRA - Terrorists?

An anon ip has removed all reference (diff) to the IRA as terrorists in the article, The Royal Irish Regiment (27th (Inniskilling) 83rd and 87th and Ulster Defence Regiment). This would seem to be a non-neutral edit to me. It is classed as a terrorist organisation by the U.K and by Ireland. Yet terrorist is also subjective from an Irish Republican perspective. Should it be reverted? Woodym555 17:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Quintessential example of WP:WTA. Discourse is preferable to reversion. There are neutral alternatives that should be sufficiently acceptable to both satisfy the various viewpoints and remain descriptive of the organisation. Indeed, the qualifier could just be omitted, thus nullifying the source of contention. SoLando (Talk) 20:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the qualifier in the article does tend to rather over-egg the situation and could quite easily be seen as pejorative in its own right, so I'd be ambivalent about reinstatement. That said I think that the change from Murdered to Killed in one of the statements should probably be reversed. IRA killings of uniformed personnel were at best unlawful and whilst murdered is a loaded term I don't think killed adequately represents the situation.

Notwithstanding all of that I'd question the value of the Roll of Honour section in the article at all. WP is not a memorial and I do not believe that these sentimental memorials have any place in articles, so would quite happily support removal.

ALR 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is a legal difference between murder and kill. A murderer is someone who has been officially convicted of killing someone by the law/state; a killer is not. --ScreaminEagle 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate what you're saying, it can also be determined by due process that a killing was murder without a suspect, or even when someone has been acquitted regarding the offense. The general view is that the killing of crown servants within UK territory and without personal provocation remains murder. Those military personnel deployed to the province were engaged in Military Aid to Civil Authority.

OTOH a killing would revert from the assumption of murder to unlawful killing should a court find the killer guilty of that.

ALR 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal

Hello WikiProject Military history members, I'm Neranei. A few weeks ago, I rescued Portal:NATO from an MfD, and it seriously needs upkeep. As NATO is within the scope of your project, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to take this portal on. If you would like to, either post here or come talk to me. Thanks! Neranei (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Try a do-it-yourself approach. Wandalstouring 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping rescue that portal. If no one else shows up to help you with your efforts with the portal, please don't be disheartened, it's just that everyone is heavily involved already with whatever their present area of interest is. Your efforts with the project are seen, however, and appreciated. Cla68 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing collaboration

I would like to note that the Black Hawk War collaboration is still ongoing. Much progress has been made. With two current GA nominations we have 3 battle articles left to raise to GA, then finish off Black Hawk War, and get it to FA, with the ultimate goal of a featured topic in mind. Any interested editors are encouraged to join up, please sing up in the participants section. Perhaps, if we can get enough interested editors to join up and help out we can become a full-fledged task force, with a nifty userbox and everything, if you're into that kind of thing. :) Anyway, check it out if you have time. Thanks. IvoShandor 11:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cleomenean War now open

The A-Class review for Cleomenean War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Documentary Related Material

Some time ago there was a discussion on this page regarding the use of information obtained through documentaries being cited as source material on articles that fall within our projects perview. A small discussion ensued on two fronts: what kind of documenatry material should be considered a "reliable source", and if they are to be considered reliable sources, how much wieght should be attached to them. Like all material gathered and presented on an audio and/or visual plane, a documentry is likely to be influenced by the side that made the film or show, and may conatin inaccurate information (case in point:Dogfights). Under most circumstances this wouldn't be a major problem, but as the popularity of tv and film documetaries grows the material presented in them is making its way into our higher ranking articles, and that requires our attention bacuase our B, GA, A, and FA clas articles should be free of inaccurate information. At present there is some talk of creating a tagging system for article using information obtained from documentary sources so that the articles can be checked for POV compliance and to ensure that the information presented is correct. At the moment the focus seems to be on creating a new template and/or category for documentary related material (possibly even worked into the MILHIST template itself), but more input on this idea is need before any descion on the matter is reached. Thoughts on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cleomenean War needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Cleomenean War; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Smolensk War now open

The A-Class review for Smolensk War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

Someone familar with WWII era planes please look at this image and tell me if the planes shown on the back are Seahawks or Kingfishers, becuase I do not know the two well enough to tell one from the other and I kinda need to :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I click the link and get a webpage that is blank exept for a bunch of urls including this page... --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Same result. Bukvoed 12:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Once you get to the page with the bad URL, simply backspace (remove) the file name. That will take you up a level to the directory listing of all the files. Since it's a bad file name, I don't know which is the correct image though. There's a bunch there. wbfergus ^Talk 12:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... looks like the original URL was ok, but some database problem prevents from accessing the file directly. The quickest way to access it is probably via this page [9]. Bukvoed 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

...Or, I could just upload it and link to it. That would simplify things, seeing as how I would be using the image anyway :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it'd have to be a Kingfisher, since the Seahawk didn't even make the drawing board until 1942, and that picture was taken in 1941. It's tough to tell, though, since in the picture, they almost look like biplanes. JKBrooks85 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that my problem. I figure they were designed with the Kingfisher in mind, but probably would have been tweaked to handle the seahawk since building a battleship would have taken a few years. I put both in my rewrite since it figure its an accurate assessment, but wanted to know which planes they were pictured with here. Thnaks for the help. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Template for Soviet Armies

The German page at de:http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/1._Gardepanzerarmee_(Rote_Armee) has a great linkplate for the Soviet armies of WW2, which I would very much like to adopt for the Soviet army articles I'm writing. But I can't figure out how to copy the script. Would somebody mind copying/translating it over and depositing the result in Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army? Then I'd be able to modify it for the articles we have in en-wiki for Sov armies. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 12:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The actual page to copy over is de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Verbände der Roten Armee, which can be transplanted into an instance of {{military navigation}} fairly easily. It needs someone who knows enough German to translate the links, though. Kirill 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can translate the GErman, but I don't know how to transplant the links. The page data is now in my sandbox, accessible through my userpage. If someone can 'transplant' the page into the military navigation box arrangement that would be good; afterwards I can establish the new links. Buckshot06 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Kirill 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill; result at Army (Soviet Army), preparing to be roled out more widely... Buckshot06 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm now open

The A-Class review for Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Jackson (Virginia) now open

The A-Class review for Fort Jackson (Virginia) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! JKBrooks85 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Project writing contest reaches six-month mark

For the benefit of anyone that doesn't usually follow that page:

The project's contest department has just completed its sixth month of competition. The overall results for the past six months show JKBrooks85 in first place, with 92 points, followed by Carom, with 45 points, and Blnguyen, with 38 points. Congratulations to the high scorers, and thanks to everyone that has taken the time to participate in the contests!

As usual, all project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries! Kirill 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues with Maavägi

Can someone more knowledgeable take a look at Maavägi? It was created by a new user Karabinier (talk · contribs), and has issues with layout, language, links and more - also possibly images may be copyrighted, I suspect. -- Sander Säde 08:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Information about an old ship

I'm new to this type of research. How would I find out information about a ship that was a member of the Spanish Armada. Details of its activities during the campaign are easy to come by, but I'm looking for its history before 1588. Sancho 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Defense Identification Zone

I've just found this page, which unfortunately focuses on only one ADIZ, the one around Washington DC, without explaining that ADIZs are a frequent part of Western countries' air defence arrangements. Should I move it to something like ADIZ (Washington DC area), set up a disambig page somewhere, or what? And what about the Australians & Japanese etc doing Air DefenCe Identification Zones, while the DC one is an Air DefenSe Identification Zone? Buckshot06 21:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest moving the page to Air Defense Identification Zone (Washington DC) and creating a disambiguation page at Air Defense Identification Zone. The disambiguation page can then be expanded into an article when someone has the time or inclination to do so. I'd include red links to all the American zones and what foreign zones immediately come to mind. A brief explanation is all that's needed. JKBrooks85 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Buckshot06 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. I deleted the globalization tag on the new separated page, since it's now relabled with something a little more accurate. I also reworked the main page slightly and created sections for future international additions. JKBrooks85 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

Featured article Ernest Emerson could use some watching; it just survived an AfD, started when it appeared on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now up at Featured article review, link: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ernest Emerson. Comments are always welcome. Woodym555 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson FAR

Ernest Emerson has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Help me identyfy this vehicle

I took this photo about 2 years ago at Aberdeen proving ground and currently do not know what this vehicle is called nor its home country. Sorry for the bad quality but its been in my room for about 1 year ForeverDEAD 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

BRDM-2? Looks like it anyway. --ScreaminEagle 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a BRDM-2. As far as the "home country," it's orginally a Soviet design, but a lot of countries use it now. From the Arabic numbers on the side ("187") and the desert paint, I'd guess it's a North African nation ... maybe Egypt?Mike f 20:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, if you took this picture of a BRDM-2 on display at APG, it's probably Iraqi, not Egyptian ... likely captured during Desert Storm. Mike f 01:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ForeverDEAD 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

BRDM-2. Looks like it has been repainted, so identifying the owner may be a bit tricky. The Iraqis tended to have colored flags painted on the front as I recall, but I don't know how consistent they were. It may be a Soviet export model or a licensed manufacture in-country. The Syrian units in the CF had these as well. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, repainted in that it has been painted for desert use (Iraqi would be a good guess as to how we came to obtain it in the first place). But just to point out the obvious, some of the colors on that thing are due to degraded photo quality and not some wacky paint scheme (in case someone didn't notice....). --ScreaminEagle 12:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ACW Portal up for Portal peer review

Please comment or participate in helping make a portal that features this project's content make it to featured portal status. It's only a good portal because we're churning out great pagespace. BusterD 01:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)