Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 122

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Eyes on an article?

An IP is working on the article Alfa (rocket); and while most of their work appears constructive, they keep re-inserting the claim that 40 examples of the missile were built. This fails both WP:V and WP:COMMONSENSE to my eye, can anyone check this and/or zap it since I'm at 3RR? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Photos of the RAN International Fleet Review - assistance needed

Hi all. I've been taking and uploading photographs of the ongoing RAN International Fleet review, but I need the help of other editors to categorise, sort, and caption them all, because at the moment I've not got time to do more than upload and run. I've been collating the image at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships, or alternately, look at my Commons contributions (which at the moment is nothing but IFR uploads). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Also, if I've failed to upload photos of any of the attending vessels, or if there's a particular ship or piece of equipment you want a shot of for an article, let me know and I'll do what I can. -- saberwyn 20:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for these excellent photos Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, I've added a few categories and tweaked a couple of captions where I could. I've mainly just been putting them into the category "International Fleet Review 2013". I trust this is ok. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just run through this photos and categorised most (but not all) of those depicting Australian ships, as well as the easily-recognisable HMS Daring. There's lots of photos of ships belonging to Asian navies which I don't recognise though. This event has dramatically improved Wikimedia Commons' coverage of the Royal Australian Navy, and provided excellent photos of many other navies (as well as the always-stunning Sydney Harbour - anyone who hasn't visited Sydney should check out photos such as this and this and then book your flights!) . Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, while the overall standard is very high, I think that this is my favourite. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Farroupilha Revolution or Ragamuffin War?

There has been ongoing discussion on Wikipedia as to whether the major republican rising of 1835 in southern Brazil should be designated as the Farroupilha Revolution or as the Ragamuffin War. Ragamuffin is a loose English translation of a Portuguese term which could also be worded as "ragged people" or "tattered ones". The issue was debated in detail in September 2012 and the majority consensus then was that the original Portuguese "Farroupilha" was most appropriate for the English WP article (see the archived discussion under Farroupilha Revolution. The issue has now been raised again with a formal request that the article be redesignated as "Ragamuffin War". To me "ragamuffins" with its usually accepted meaning of unkempt urchins in 19th century London reads very oddly as a description of adult revolutionary fighters but perhaps I have read too much Dickens. Any views? Buistr (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ragamuffin" leaves me with a sense of a minor skirmish between streetgangs or something. I'd oppose changing. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

On spec

I was wondering if there's a specification template for vehicles? In particular, something that would be useful for this, capable of including everything from turning circle to gradient performance. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The only two templates I can think of ({{Infobox Weapon}} with |is vehicle=yes and {{Infobox automobile}}), do not appear to go into the level of detail you desire. -- saberwyn 00:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I used infobox weapon for the Long Range Patrol Vehicle article, but it was a bit of a kludge. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest if it's important to have such info as turning circle - and I'm going to suggest that it isn't a necessity - that you create a separate section in the article and use the table markup to format it eg as in Tiger II#Specifications. Infoboxes are for overview more than detail; the more you shove in the less the reader gets back. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of this for a table of specs, not an infobox. (I'd use table markup, but I manage to bugger that so much, it's a headache I really don't want. :( ) As for "need", maybe not; if anybody disagrees, it can easily be removed, too. My fallback last time, on PTS IIRC, was a simple list, which wasn't ideal IMO, but easier on my brain. ;p Since even Weapon, on the LRPV page, is missing some specs, that may be the only option, until (unless?) somebody decides to write something. :) In any case, thx for the replies. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with easy access to the library of the University of California?

Hi, is there anyone here with easy access to the University of California? I'm looking for a book that is there. --Lecen (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Berkeley campus? --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Sinking of the Lusitania Featured Article canditature

I've put up The Sinking of the Lusitania (the film, not the event) as a Featured Article canditate, and would appreciate any and all feedback on the article. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sinking of the Lusitania/archive1. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Grand Fleet sails.jpg

G'day all, File:Grand Fleet sails.jpg is currently being considered at possibly unfree files because it is lacking source information. Given that it is used in several high profile maritime articles (including Battle of Jutland), I wonder if one of the many esteemed editors we have working in this area might be able to find a source for the image? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As near as I can tell the photo is PD and was taken in 1914 by a member of the Royal Navy [1][2][3]. Can't determine where it was first published though. Not sure if any of this will satisfy the image pedants though. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Certainly in terms of UK law, the image could well still be in copyright, depending on who took it and when they died (under the life + 70 rules, there are plenty of 1914 works that won't be out of copyright until 2030 or so); it might be worth exploring if it was ever published under Crown Copyright though, which is more generous in this regard. US copyright law is (IMHO) hideously complex and, if memory serves, is heavily dependent on the publication date. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the World of Warships and Shmoop are reusing the image and probably from Wikipedia, the blog is definitely reusing the image from here - they give the uploader's handle. I've done a couple of likely searches through the IWM collections and no similar photo there. I'd have thought one of the weightier tomes on the Royal Navy or battleships (Parkes?) or Jutland might have it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, gents. I think it would be in a book somewhere; so hopefully some of our maritime editors will find it on their shelves. If the book was published prior to 1923, I presume it would be PD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If it was taken by a member of the Royal Navy in the course of their official duties, it would be Crown Copyright (afaik). Has anyone considered emailing the Imperial War Memorial to ask if the image is hidden in their archives? Also pinging User:Andrew Gray, who has some experience in related images, to this discussion. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep - if it was an official Royal Naval photograph, it would now be out of copyright in the UK - there's a useful chart here. We'd need some sort of evidence of authorship though I suspect. I also agree with Rupert - US law would have it as PD if it was published (with appropriate permissions etc.) prior to 1923. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't know why I didn't get the ping, but just spotted this! You're right - if navy, then Crown Copyright and definitely expired. If not CC but the author is definitively unknown, then a pre-1957 photograph will expire 70 years after it was created (if never published) or 70 years after first published (if published within the first 70 years). However, "we've lost the author" doesn't make it "unknown"; we'd have to show that it was never known and published before 1942. So three options would make it free:
  • Navy took\commissioned & published it
  • Image taken by a known private citizen who died in or before 1942
  • Image published anonymously in or before 1942.
Personally, I strongly suspect it was published during the war - this version (scroll down) is a very WWI-style photomontage, which suggests the source image was in common circulation at the time. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A list or a regular article?

Hi all! I would like to have some input on Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95, specifically should it be considered a list or a "regular" article. I recently posted the article at the WP:GAN and an editor was kind enough to post on my talk page and point out that the article might be more of a list than not.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no clear demarcation of when an article with an Wikipedia:Embedded list ends and a WP:Stand-alone list begins. If you were to remove the list sections of this article, it would still be a great read. So I say it's an article with embedded lists. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
If the lists were removed, it would only be five paragraphs long, and would not meet even the broadness criteria of GA, much less be thorough... The lists take up over half of the space, and the prose is mainly there to introduce the lists, rather than the lists being there to enhance the prose. It's definitely borderline, but it's a list in my opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
List for me. Orders of battle have, typically, gone to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with TRM and Dana boomer; it's a list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I find it to be a list. 23 editor (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
List for mine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for your responses. I trust a consensus is now here that this is in fact a list. I have requested instructions on removal of article's GAN at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and added list=yes parameter to MILHIST tag at the article's list's talk page. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you could still take it through GA, given that there is a ton of prose in there. Bear in mind that GA is not a part of the WikiProject system, but a separate assessment altogether for promoting decent Wiki articles in general. There are probably GA reviewers who would be willing to review it. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
GA is for articles. The above has been determined to be a list, therefore it would go through WP:FLC. It appears that Tomobe plans to take the list through A-class, then FLC (if I'm not mistaken), which is the proper trajectory for lists, rather than the GA -> A -> FA trajectory for articles. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
My comment does not take any potential Featured review into question. Some editors don't go through the hassle of a Featured review, but will go through a GA review as it's less trouble. My advice is that if Tomobe plans on going no further than A-class, then there may be a GA reviewer willing to asses it. The GA process does not require a pre-determination by a Wikiproject of whether it be a list or regular article, as GAN is independent of Wikiproject and the consensus here does not prevent a GA reviewer from accepting it based on having enough prose to make it worth assessing. FYI I'm speaking from experience, I have had an article of borderline list/prose content reviewed as GA and it passed. Having a large embedded list or two should not make an editor feel restricted from approaching GAN if there is also sufficient prose, the worst they can do is say no. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Marcus, I really don't care that much if it's a list or a regular article. In this case, I plan to take it to A-class (already submitted for an ACR), and if the results of that are favourable, and if the ACR reviewers do not see major obstacles to a FLC nomination, I indeed plan to submit the list there as Dana correctly surmised. Myself, I was entirely unsure where the article belongs - to lists or otherwise - and I'm ok with this entirely. I have limited experience in FL development having tried my hand at it once (successfully) and would welcome the opportunity to improve my skills in the department. This is especially so because I intend to develop at least one other orbat article which might conceivably become a FLC in near future. Regardless of this, I tend to agree with Marcus in terms of submitting GANs for borderline cases. A reviewer may always fail the GAN on the basis that the article is indeed too listy. I just wish I asked this question a month ago and got things moving in proper direction sooner. There's no great harm in passing a borderline (in list issue respect only) case GAN either - after all it requires a line between sandy water and wet sand to be drawn and may not be easily distinguished at all times - so long as GA criteria are fully met.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Category bloat

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field (1929) is a short article but the number of categories at the bottom is huge because many counties in existence at that time signed up for it. The article on the Fourth Geneva Convention has many more, but it is not so obvious because the article is longer and the categories will probably not appear without scrolling the page. Has anyone given any thought to how to handle category bloat? -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@PBS: You might want to also ping Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations in regards to this type of thing. I'm not sure quite honestly since a lot of treaties with a ton of signatories always have the same "category bloat". —  dainomite   03:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I'll do that although I suspect that they will not consider it a problem (like asking foxes how to secure the hen-house). -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
That is pretty ugly-looking, but the thing is those are all appropriate categories. Unfortunatly this sort of thing is unavoidable now and then I suppose... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC medal count of Audie Murphy and Matt Urban

Please feel free to join RFC Audie Murphy v. Matt Urban medal count. The discussion is to determine the correct medal count of both. — Maile (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

From A-List to F-List

Hello good mil-hist folks. Just a quick note to suggest that those who assess list articles for A-class here might like to re-appraise themselves with what we're expecting to see at WP:FLC, just in case that's the next step for some editors. I recently checked out Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia which, while a nice article, was nowhere near ready for FLC, and would have benefitted from a peer review with a list-article bias. Don't forget, FLC isn't a replacement for PR. I was surprised to see that the A-class review here missed so many fundamental issues that we'd expect as normal at FLC, not "nice-to-haves", literally failures to comply with the criteria.

I suppose I'm just saying that I'm so used to excellent quality content from this project that I was surprised that you guys and girls haven't tried to align your A-class review criteria with FLC, that'd make life a lot better for the various nominations. Simple things like compliance with WP:ACCESS, compliance with WP:DASH, WP:HASH, WP:MOSBOLD etc.

Having said all that, keep up the great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, Milhist's A-class criteria are not meant to be the same as WIAFL. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
In fairness, this project normally turns out superb articles and lists, I'd advocate the list criteria here reflect the FL criteria. It's not a big ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I should have added that the A-class criteria were, if I remember correctly, based on the FA criteria (which hasn't included WP:ACCESS for two+ years now). Adding a separate section for lists would require a project discussion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It's probably a discussion worth having; now that we've separated articles and lists into two distinct assessment hierarchies, there's nothing preventing us from having slightly different criteria for one versus the other. The Rambling Man's suggestion that we orient our AL standards towards WIAFL rather than WIAFA seems like a reasonable one to me, given that A-Class lists aren't going to be going to FAC anyways, and thus don't necessarily need to ever meet the featured article criteria. Kirill [talk] 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, FLC demands higher technical adherence to MOS because in general the articles use more complicated markup, like sortable wiki-tables. Getting your A-class list reviews closer to FL criteria can only be a good thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Since I don't tend to write list articles I'm not particularly familiar with the criteria for A-Class Lists or Featured Lists, but in principle I'd agree with RamblingMan and Kirill that if we want to continue to maintain a minimal gap between MilHist A-Class and Featured content then we should be aligning ACL criteria pretty closely with that of FL. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, yes I think it would be a good idea to discuss a separate criteria for AL. I also have to admit to not having much experience working on lists, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The Rambling Man refers to my current nom (my first crack at a FL), and compliance with MOS:DTT was a significant issue that required a fair amount of work to rectify (essentially the tables needed to be completely re-formatted). the other two main Oppose issues he raised in the review were that the lead needed expansion and he considered it had more than "minimal redlinks". There certainly were a few fairly minor (in my opinion) MOS issues that I needed to address, but I was quite shocked that TRM opposed it on first look. In my experience that is not how we as a project tend to approach reviews, and I pointed that out. He quite rightly pointed out that "this is not MILHIST", but I still have some reservations regarding the way WIAFL is currently explained, and this impacts on any action we might take in response to his suggestion. I note that WIAFL does not explicitly state the table accessibility requirements, so you have to know what you are looking for and click through several pages before you find MOS:DTT. I only knew about it because TRM pointed to the link. I also think that "minimal redlinking" is a pretty subjective concept, especially when there are FLs that have had more than 10% of their "listed things" redlinked at the time of promotion, and the Yugo ORBAT list had less than that when it was nominated (even less now as I have created numerous stubs to address the issue). They were concentrated in the Navy section, but that does not detract from my point. I take his point that our AL criteria should be closer to the FL criteria, especially if we want to maintain the minimal difference between A-Class and Featured that we tout as one of the strengths of this project. However, I would want to see the criteria spelled out much more clearly than WIAFL does, especially if, as TRM asserted on his review of the Yugo ORBAT list, accessibility on more technical articles is "absolutely key". If this is a key requirement at FLC then it should be explicitly stated in WIAFL. As most of our lists are pretty technical, I would expect this to be clearly stated in any MILHIST AL criteria, not buried under a general mention of MOS compliance with tables. I recommend we create our own AL criteria, but I would want to see MOS:DTT and the accessibility requirement mentioned and linked directly on the AL criteria page or section. MisterBee1966 has extensive experience with getting MILHIST ALs to FL with his Knight's Cross series, so I'd be interested in his opinion on this one. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
If TRM is telling us that our AL criteria are not properly preparing lists for FLC, then I would say we need to change our criteria to correspond more closely with the FL criteria. To do otherwise would be failing nominators who bring their articles to our A-class process expecting that they will be close to FL standard once they've reached A-class. I think we should be grateful to TRM for alerting us to the deficiencies (from an FLC point of view) in our criteria, and hopefully he will be willing to work with us in drafting criteria that better prepare our lists for FLC. I do agree with Peacemaker to an extent that the summary of the criteria is over simplified, making it difficult for first-time nominators to know what to expect (the same is true of FAC in my opinion). Perhaps the criteria could be explained in more detail perhaps they are on a subpage somewhere?), but there's no substitute for the advice of somebody who has taken articles through the process before. Hopefully our A-class process can provide that, and our AL criteria can perhaps better explain some of the things that are expected of high-quality lists. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I knocked up User:The Rambling Man/FLC things to check a while back. It's probably dated, certainly incomplete but maybe a good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
One point to remember is that our A-class reviews are more content oriented than fixing the niggles regarding MOS, etc. or even prose. Now some of that sort of stuff will be picked up by reviewers, but it's pretty hit or miss.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that, nor am I discouraging that. The project should be focused on content. Having said that, you guys have a specific "A-class" for lists, so it surely makes sense to take into account the "niggles" (which, incidentally, in the case above included a fundamental issue of a weak lead, a failure to comply with WP:ACCESS etc). I'm more than happy to advise this project on things to look for, my "things to check" list is a start point. If the milhist project takes an A-class list concept seriously, it'd be wise to pay heed to what Wikipedia as a whole considers important for a "best of breed" list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Adding all of the ACCESS requirements to A-class lists, or articles and lists, would be a big enough change that I don't think an informal discussion would suffice; we need some kind of well-attended discussion on the specific new requirements. I'll be happy to be one of the closers; I've stayed neutral on edit-screen questions in general, and I can't see a pro-Milhist bias being a problem for a closer for this particular discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point; we need to come up with some specific proposals to discuss. @The Rambling Man: Looking our current criteria, what would you suggest we add/remove/change to align A-Class lists more towards the featured list criteria than the featured article ones? Kirill [talk] 02:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on my experience lists are for most parts written using wiki tables. These tables cover a wide range of functionality, challenging the editors on a technical level. When creating high class lists one has to consider aspects such as enabling these tables for screen readers for the visually impaired or for readability on mobile devices. These are additional requirements which pose a more "technical", or call it behind the scenes, challenge then the traditional more content rated articles. I believe we as a project have to acknowledge this. I would very much encourage the project to embrace these aspects more heavily and to help guide our editors through the process of creating high quality articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, MisterBee1966 hits the nail squarely on the head. The technical issues of list articles are fundamental to the success of a FLC, so row/col scopes, correct use of colour/symbols etc. I have to confess, I was shocked that an article could be passed as A-class when the lead was a single paragraph and certainly did not summarise the whole article.
In answer to Kirill, the problem with "criteria", just like the FLC criteria, is that they try to succinctly describe the requirements in a few words without going too much into detail. That's true across all of Wikipedia. For a more effective Milhist A-class list review, much more adherence to MOS is required, specifically WP:ACCESS, but then there are general issues such as WP:LEAD which do need to be picked up, probably before GA, let alone A-class. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The list-specific stuff is the biggest PITA when preparing a list for FLC and remains the primary reason I don't write up more lists, even after copying the formatting from successful FLCs. I think that it would be useful to let our A-list candidates know what's ahead of them at FLC, but I would oppose adopting FLC's criteria for our reviews, because I think that our primary focus should be on the content, not the formatting/MOS-type stuff so prevalent at FAC and FLC. This is the place where an article is going to get the closest review of the actual content of an article by the people who have the best chance of actually being subject-matter experts (SMEs), not GAN, FAC or FLC. Those places are exceedingly useful because the reviewers there aren't SMEs and can catch editors making assumptions about base levels of knowledge, holes in logic, jargon, etc. I haven't looked at TRM's list of things to look for, but we should at the very least add a pointer to it for A-list reviews, if for no other reason than to warn editors about what they need to do if they're bound for FLC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, FLC is another step beyond A-class, but how can you consider passing articles for A-class when, for instance, they blatantly violate something as fundamental as WP:LEAD? If you have a specific set of criteria for A-class lists, it makes little-to-no sense to have them independent of the FLC criteria. Where's the logic in that? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, WP:LEAD is explicitly referenced in our existing A3 criterion, so it is (or should be) something we check for as part of A-Class reviews already. Having said that, different reviewers (and consequently different review processes) can interpret the requirements differently, so I wouldn't necessarily focus too much on individual cases where ACR and FLC arrived at different results unless there's reason to believe that we're consistently interpreting some guideline differently.
Looking at the issue more generally, I wonder if the easiest thing to do might be simply to adapt criterion A4? While the other criteria are equally relevant to both prose articles and lists, the current version of A4 is really only applicable to prose articles:

A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.

Perhaps, when we're dealing with lists, we can change this criterion to remove the references to prose, copyediting, etc. and instead talk about the corresponding elements of a list (e.g. table layout, etc.)? Kirill [talk] 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's worth making the point that the technical aspects of a list need to be considered, i.e. MOS talks about WP:ACCESS which isn't such a big deal for prose-heavy articles, but is important for list articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation template

Does this project have a template to invite potential new members? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two: Wikipedia:MILHIST/I and User:The ed17/MILHIST. The code for both is {{subst:Wikipedia:MILHIST/I|~~~~}} or {{subst:User:The ed17/MILHIST|signed=~~~~}}. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, neither is listed under Templates in the navbox at the top right of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible copy violation

Compare dates and content of Naval Battle of Vella Lavella vs http://www.combinedfleet.com/vlavella.htm Hcobb (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio edits have been reverted and deleted from view, thanks for catching this problem. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Featured topics

As an fyi, several Milhist-related featured topic nominations are awaiting comments at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ship flags

There's a discussion on the use of flags in ship infoboxes at WT:SHIPS#Ship registry flags. Members of this WP are invited to comment. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Axis and Soviet air operations during Operation Barbarossa

I having trouble with the layout of the info box on this article. It seems to be bunched together on the Axis side of the table. Any suggestions for solving this problem? Dapi89 (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. Dapi89 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Got another one for you, albeit not sure if it's relevant to this Project, but it's close. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MK-VI 'Wright Class' Coastal Patrol Boat. Thank you as always, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, had to tag this as CSD for copyvio. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, that patrol boat is being made by a company that happened to be my first article... SAFE Boats International. —  dainomite   22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"Veterans Day"

The usage of Veterans Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Veterans Day (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and {la|Veterans Day (United States)}} is under discussion, see talk:Veterans Day (United States) -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Flight International

How can I find the volume, issue and page numbers of Flight International editions post-2004? Those that were released before 2004 have been archived and the process of finding those numbers are easy. However, for those articles that were released from 2005, such as this, I have difficulties finding volume, issue and page numbers; does anyone have any ways to obtain them?

Anyway, for anybody interested or anyone who uses FI as a source, the following is the reference formatting that I use:

{{Cite journal |title= |url= |magazine=Flight International |date= |issue= |volume= |page(s)= |location=London, UK |publisher=Reed Business Information |archiveurl= |archivedate= |issn=0015-3710}}

--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to ask at WT:AVIATION ? They're more likely to deal with this publication. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If the source is published online without volume and number information, leave that information out. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet: Thanks for the link. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Eilean Donan

I'm not sure of naming conventions, but I don't recall seeing the pounding of Eilean Donan referred to as a "battle" before. Comments welcome on the talk page. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Military Music Related Help

I have just found these "articles" and "some" help would be appreciated:

Gavbadger (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What a mess - I've cut back the more blatant politcal editorials, but the articles are openly based on Original Research, which makes it hard to know where to start really. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Other languages

Is it OR to use a non-English source?Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be seen as OR so long as those sources still follow reliable source standards. There is a little more info. on it here Wikipedia:Foreign sources#Non-English sources. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pierrefeu, J. (1919). Les cahiers de la victoire. L'offensive du 16 avril. La vérité sur l'affaire Nivelle (PDF). Paris: Renaissance du livre. OCLC 491611806. Retrieved 11 October 2013.

This is what I have in mind as it's the only source I've found which deals in any detail with facts and figures. The English sources Nivelle Offensive Second Battle of the Aisne don't delve very deeply. Obviously if anyone can suggest sources in English I'll be grateful. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Clayon's excellent book on the French Army Paths of Glory has three pages on the Nivelle Offensive, and is a very useful work on the French side of the war. There are various studies of Nivelle which discuss this disastrous operation in some detail. More generally, there's nothing at all wrong with using non-English language reliable sources, and this should be encouraged on topics such as this. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I've got the Clayton book which is a help and I'm hoping to get Prelude to Victory from the library soon. There are two good interweb sources to fall back on, the Frwiki page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_du_Chemin_des_Dames#cite_note-2 http://champagne1418.pagesperso-orange.fr/index/hindex.htm and some well sourced narrative here Schneider CA1 but next to nothing on air operations and the Germans. I'm hoping to pull together the three pages on the French battles with Arras 1917 like The Dude's rug. This is what I get for procrastinating over Delville Wood. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Are there any computer wizards out there? http://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/image/AC01860055/1/LOG_0003/

This site has Der Weltkrieg but it's in German and in fraktur. Does anyone know how to change the type face and to make a translator like Google translate work? I assume that it isn't copiable for a reason but not knowing much about computers I thought I'd ask here. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

When I click the “Full text” link to the left on that page, I get the content of each page of the book (the first few are blank) in a form that can be copied, and while displaying in this format the URL can be fed directly to Google Translate. Does that not work for you? (It’s not the Fraktur per se that makes the “Image view“ pages hard to work with, but that the text hasn’t been extracted from them.)—Odysseus1479 17:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much!Keith-264 (talk)


Panorama showing the view from the Dragon's Cave

While I'm about it, I tried to rip this off the French wiki but it didn't work. Does anyone know if this was a failure of technique or that it isn't allowed? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Change the beginning to File: ? Also there's a dedicated {{panorama}} template on the English Wikipedia that you may want to take advantage of. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks it worked, the panorama template page didn't though, it's written for people who want explanation not description.Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is strategypage.com a blog or a RS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Next-Generation_Bomber&curid=13118834&diff=577020680&oldid=573922955

I've seen strategypage.com as more of a blog, but it doesn't seem to be blocked. Hcobb (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it reliable, personally, none of the articles are cited, no bibliography, etc. The About page says the editor pays anyone $20 to contribute to the site but makes no mention of how those contributions are vetted to prevent inaccurate submissions. Not a blog, but not really trustworth would be my view. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a blog/military gossip-style site. I've seen woefully inaccurate articles published there concerning the Australian military. For instance, this entirely wrong-headed article confused the decision to convert the Australian Army's only parachute infantry battalion to light infantry and integrate it more closely into the Army's light infantry brigade (which left the special forces units as the Army's only parachute-capable formations) with that battalion retaining its parachute status and being moved under the special forces command. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, as a note, we don't "block" blog links. The WP:BLACKLIST is for spam sites. Being unreliable doesn't land a link on it - the reason Examiner.com wound up there (to use an example) was because it was being spammed by people who were getting paid for hits. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)

This article's currently undergoing FA review and it would be greatly appreciated if some users could offer their in-put on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)/archive1. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to those that hopped in! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the word hypocoristic too challenging for our audience?

I find myself in a bit of dispute with an editor who finds the word hypocoristic too challenging for our readers (among other things). He has suggested overwriting the word with "shortened" which I oppose because it neglects the element of endearment, which is quite vital to the subtleties of the German language and the context in which it is used. The editor also argues that "'hypocoristic' which even my spellchecker doesn't know". I am not fully convinced that this line of reasoning upholds the standards of an encyclopedia. What do other editors think? I appreciate some feedback. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

While I wouldn't consider myself special or anything, I'm relatively well-read and have never seen that word in my life. In my opinion, it might a be a small step too far. Best of luck, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The word has seen very little use by authors, per Google ngrams. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Like Ed, I'd have to admit to being ignorant of the meaning of the word as well... Hchc2009 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. There's no problem with long words as a rule, but I don't see this one actually adds anything. Technical terms are, of course, different. Brigade Piron (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Add me to the list of those who have never seen anything like that before. A link to Wiktionary could work, although I'd seriously consider an alternative term. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Since even I haven't encountered that word, I'd define it possibly in brackets ... hypocoristic ("shortened" with connotations of a measure of endearment, a subtlety of the German language and the context in which it is used.).Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I don’t know that I‘ve had occasion to use it in conversation, but hypocorism is at least in my passive vocabulary. I would consider it to be technical jargon, though, and I agree it could use a link or a parenthetical definition—particularly since it’s not readily susceptible to analysis.—Odysseus1479 03:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It was an unknown word to me until I turned the word into a link and clicked the link, and got a wikipedia article which explained it to me. And now I know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
In German linguists the topic we are discussing is Verniedlichung, in the English language the diminutive. In this example the German word in question is "Bub", in English boy. The German language has a few words denoting boy, among them the most common Junge or Bursche, Knabe or Bub(e). The word "Bub" has a regional background and is not commonly used throughout Germany. In the English language, the closest thing that comes to my mind to compare the "Bub" with, are the words football and soccer (probably not the best example). In the topic we are discussing Erich Hartmann was given the nickname "Bubi", which is the concatenation of the word "Bub" and the letter "-i" (diminutive suffix). Since diminutives are often used for the purpose of expressing affection, linguists have given this effect the name hypocorism. Back to Erich Hartmann and his nickname "Bubi", in English literature his nickname "Bubi" is often translated or better explained with "young boy". As I tried to explain this does not correctly capture what is being transported in the German language. The linguistic effect is best explained by the term hypocorism. However if the readers feel that all this can be summed up by the word "shortened", then I rest my case. I did not realize that George Orwell's newspeak was so near. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. I would suggest using the phrase the diminutive of "young boy" to describe it. BTW, I also have never heard of "hypocorism". Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
This argument may be long over, but I actually appreciate TomStar's wikilinking, and think that at this stage it's perfectly understandable and reasonable. For what its worth this is my first encounter with the word as well. Wikipedia articles should educate about more than just their subject matter, and I would hope that anyone who reads that sentence learns the same new vocabulary word we all learned in this discussion. Cdtew (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell whether this thread indicates dissatisfaction with WP:Checklist#clarity, which (as far as I have been able to tell) describes pretty accurately how these questions usually get resolved. Does anything there need to be tweaked or expanded on? - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made a tweak that may help, check it out. - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the term, and don't think it gets used enough. It's a tough call on Wikipedia. In a GA review, I was told that "serendipity" and "serendipitous" were too uncommon for the average reader. We compromised with a link to Wiki-article on Serendipity. Perhaps you can link to a Wiktionary entry. Good luck. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the term "Bubi" need to be explained at at all? Why not not just say "nicknamed "Bubi" by his comrades" and leave it at that? Not everything needs to be translated/explained. - BilCat (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure we can leave it out if you wish. Erich Hartmann was nicknamed Bubi for his childlike appearance when he first came to the front. I thought it would help the English reading audience to better understand how he came about this nickname. These subtleties in the language, this game of words, are a means to communicate the comradeship and affection among his peers. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, that wouldd be original research without direct cites to support all those assumptions. Not all hypocorisms/nicknames/pet names are meant to "communicate the comradeship and affection among his peers", or at least may not start out that way. If reliable sources do exist for all that, then it should probably be explained somewhere in the main text, if there is proven relevance, but not in the Lead. - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Have you read Walter Krupinski's biography by Kurt Braatz? Read it and it tells you everything you need to know. Oh it was Krupinski who came up with the name MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Braatz, Kurt (2010). Walter Krupinski - Jagdflieger, Geheimagent, General (in German). Moosburg, Germany: NeunundzwanzigSechs Verlag. ISBN 978-3-9811615-5-7.

OK, thanks, but I don't read German - It's too bad one-quarter German blood doesn't come with German language fluency! I was just asking about the sources, no accusations of OR intended. I see now that it is explained and cited in the main text, so it's probably unnecessary in the Lead. In the main text, it might be better to use "diminutive form" instead of "hypocoristic form", but pipe-link it to Hypocorism. - BilCat (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What is a chain for naval defence called?

I've seen multiple references to a chain being placed underwater to prevent wooden warships from entering an area, similar to an Anti-submarine net. These include Hudson River Chain, Raid on the Medway and Fall of Constantinople. Does anyone know what these are called, and might anyone have further information to put in a possible article on the subject? -Oreo Priest talk 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Its always been called a boom as far as I know.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
eg these boom towers GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
-(e/c) Boom is a disamb page. The most relevant articles there are Boom (containment), Log boom, and Boom barrier. Close, but not naval or military, for whatever that's worth... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
"Boom defence vessel" was, as I recall, the Royal Navy's term for a net laying ship. It's the same thing as an anti-submarine net, just the two nations once again seperated by a common language. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The boom bit is certainly interesting. On the other hand, it seems odd that all of those sources should use the word 'chain' and not 'boom' if boom is the normal word. The article Raid on the Medway even seems to refer to a chain and boom as separate things, while in Hudson River Chain, there is explicit reference to both a chain and a boom. Oreo Priest talk 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that it depends on the actual construction of the boom/chain/whatever. I've read about sections of logs chained together to block access to a harbor and I've also seen references to actual chains 100s of yards in length that performed the same function, presumably buoyed in some manner to reduce the difficulty in raising the chain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The OED gives the definition of boom as "bar or barrier consisting of a strong chain or line of connected spars, pieces of timber bound together, etc., stretched across a river or the mouth of a harbour to obstruct navigation." (first use 1645 or so). So a chain deployed as a water barrier is a form of boom, it seems... GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, no I don't think it is. OreoPriest has already mentioned one of the primary sources in the Raid on the Medway article and a quick Google search pulls up a few more references which make it clear they are different things (e.g. here [4] under entry 83). I had always assumed the boom was built of floating of fixed obstacles in the water (perhaps connected by a chain), but that a chain alone required a much larger set of links that lay on the harbour bed until winched up to the surface (or just above the surface). This site [5] tends to support that idea, but I have to admit a lot of what I have in mind has come from a certain George RR Martin's books. More research required? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I would call it a harbour chain; a quick search turned up this, for example. I too think of a boom as a floating barrier, whether tethered, towed, or drifting, but I picture this as submerged, being suspended from both ends. (And I haven‘t read any George R.R. Martin that I can recall.)—Odysseus1479 02:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason they should be called anything other than a chain? A quick google round perhaps the most famous example, the chain across the Goldern Horn in Constantinople finds most people calling it a chain, or perhaps the great chain. The article Walls of Constantinople refers to it as a "chain or boom" but this is because it is said to have been constructed as a chain suspended between barrels, which would have the floating qualities already associated with a boom above. A "chain boom" would be a legitimate description of this design, IMO. Most google references to this term do seem to refer to Game of Thrones, but I don't think that lessens the value of the term.Monstrelet (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Andrew Saunders refers to them as 'chain boom' in his books, although he groups them under 'boom defence' in the indexes. Ranger Steve Talk 18:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose my main question now is what to call the article in which we can collect this information. I figure it makes sense to include both the floating booms and the chains, sunken or otherwise, in a single article because they are so similar. Boom (navigational barrier) seems ok, boom (naval defence), boom defence or harbour chain might neglect their use on rivers and/or for commercial river traffic, chain boom would probably preclude the inclusion of non-metal versions. I think boom (navigational barrier) and boom defence are the best of these, but I'm open to others. Thoughts? Oreo Priest talk 18:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd go with boom defence. Saunders is a very reliable source so following his lead seems sensible. To clarify, he uses boom chain in his texts for any chain version (including Tilbury) and appears to just use boom by itself for any later or floating designs. Ranger Steve Talk 18:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"I'd go with boom defence." I don't think I would. Every boom defense I've ever heard of suggests a waterline or underwater obstacle (nets, in particular). Boom (navigational barrier) might work. I wish I had a better option. :( And it's going to need redirects from every other term we can think of, from antisubmarine net to net defense, I think, because they're all reliant on booms in one fashion or another. Plus IMO a dab for shore & shipboard uses... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your issue with boom defence - aren't all of the types Oreo is looking to describe waterline and underwater defences? Granted that this may not account for environmental booms and the like, but I'd have though defensive booms warrant their own article. Ranger Steve Talk 20:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
To add to the interesting combinations of words, one book refers to a "boom chain". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I think boom defence or boom (naval defence) would be the most accurate. Boom (navigational barrier) would include the things used to catch logs floating downstream - quite a different purpose. Also, I think we do need to clarify (assuming we can find sources) that there is a difference between a chain and a boom; a chain is raised and lowered (vertically), a boom is opened and closed (horizontally). Also, the latter requires vessels to operate, the former does not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
My hesitation with using a strictly military term like 'defence' is due to the fact that booms and chains were also used to collect tolls and manage non-military traffic on rivers. See [6], posted above. Also, log booms and boom (containment) aren't designed as navigational barriers (though they would incidentally have that effect). Oreo Priest talk 02:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(←) Ok, so I've created the article in my sandbox: User:Oreo Priest/boom (navigational barrier). I'll move it to the namespace once a suitable title's been chosen. It's far from perfect, and it could use some more content (especially regarding booms) and references. It also completely lacks categories at the moment. Feel free to take a look or add on to it! Oreo Priest talk 04:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So I've moved the article to the namespace now, at boom (navigational barrier). I've redirected everything I could think of as an alternate name to the article. I've also done a bit of searching for the term in existing articles, and I found about a hundred mentioning booms or chains, so I've linked them to the article. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 03:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still working on it OP, just an observation to offer – the claim "Booms or chains could be broken by a sufficiently large or heavy ship, and this occurred on many occasions." should be cited with a few notable examples from the "many", as there will be sceptics prepared to challenge that. Plus you could add a point of interest to the context if you discuss one briefly, i.e. "...as happened in 1863 at some place during the American Civil War", or whatever suits you best. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've added a pair of examples. Thanks for the suggestion. Oreo Priest talk 14:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, nice, but I also meant supporting the claim with references from reliable sources. :) Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Done that, but can't find anything more general. It's a good start to something WP was missing (I was quite surprised) and I guess it will have to wait for full references as and when people find some comprehensive/reliable sources on the topic. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
No mention of boom chains or towers in The Oxford Companion to Military History that I can see – perhaps it was overlooked, or they didn't consider it important enough to warrant a mention. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've stuffed a few more sources in, found better pictures and expanded the article a touch. I've also nominated it for DYK. Oreo Priest talk 05:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Interactive, more detailed org structures of US military units

I am interested in input on this issue that deals with significantly improving the quality of the user experience in the "current structure" or "order of battle" sections of US military unit pages. The static org chart images typically do not display units below the battalion-equivalent org level. As the majority of US military personnel are actually assigned to these lowest company- and detachment-equivalent org units, I would posit that the user experience on WP could be much improved here. Military personnel tend to be most strongly bonded to their immediate org at these lowest level. Also, as the US DoD is one singular, giant org, I would posit that WP users would benefit from being able to interactively explore not just their immediate org, but more informatively where every DoD unit fits into the overall DoD org puzzle.

Please consider the example of 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division's current structure section. To substantiate my hypothesis here about user experience, follow the evolution of this unit's org chart below and evaluate your own user experience and edification:


I am interested in hearing about your user experience while comparing your options for personal edification using the current WP org structure content, and whether your experience was improved by being made interactive, more detailed, and significantly more holistic. Thank you. RallyPoint Military Project (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The linked examples are interesting, but seen from the 10,000-foot perspective, I'm not sure they add much to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Noclador's organization charts normally show the lowest echelon of units with unique identifications -- at company level in combat formations of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, most of the units are identified as HHC, A, B, etc. Perhaps exceptions could be made for numbered companies if such formations were truly notable. I think the concept outlined here has merit, but it would seem to be more suited to implementation on a Wiki internal to the .mil domain. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your feedback, but I respectfully disagree with the logic behind your statement. Inside an infantry battalion, for example, let's say you have A, B, C, D, and HHC companies. You seem to be implying these are not unique, when in fact they are. Suggesting they are not unique (and thus not compellingly informative) simply because they are "A" and "B" is flawed. I would respectfully ask you to substantiate your reasoning. So, for example, please clarify on what grounds you are making this judgment -- especially since many battalion-level units are asymmetrical in structure as compared to one another. Some have 1 company, 2 companies, 3 companies, or even 8 companies, including detachments that are temporarily assigned to them. In the military sub-culture, a service member assigned to "A" company will claim and take pride in that fervently, versus just saying he is part of the larger battalion, where loyalty is weaker. Also, why experience content as dynamic as this in a static environment, when a more informative interactive experience is possible? Thank you again, and I look fwd to your further responses to my questions. RallyPoint Military Project (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not certain how this linked information (which appears to be opt-in and as such could easily become outdated) is preferable to a link to a unit's actual web page or official .mil information. It gives you an interesting overview of the people in the unit how have chosen to list their information, but tells you little to nothing about the unit's actual history and heritage. And while personnel may identify more strongly with their company (although it's debatable whether that's especially common in peacetime when units tend to be concentrated and train on a battalion level as opposed to more dispersed combat postings), history tends to track at the battalion and higher level. Intothatdarkness 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The unit information shown at these links is updated daily as real military personnel from those units provide refinements regarding how the structure is changing. This includes ADCON and OPCON assignment situations. I agree that this does not display a unit's heritage and history; this is why I posited that these links could supplement the already-rich heritage and history content on WP. Experiencing the org structure via the links is not an opt-in situation, as this information is not gated in any way, and is publicly available. To your point about military units' own org webpages online, those are often outdated and their information is often haphazardly presented. I am also curious as to whether you find any value in being able to explore a specific unit as part of the whole, such that a brigade's (for example) organizational context is more robust and makes for a better experience for WP members. Thanks. RallyPoint Military Project (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Template formatting question

How do we reduce these to {{xxxx}}? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Create a suitable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:xxxx page by placing your wiki markup, then use the word/s found after "Template:" in your {{xxxx}} placement. So you may want to try Template:Paris Peace Conference. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Keith-264: Are you asking about the layout of the template (i.e. which format looks better) or its implementation (i.e. how to actually set up the navbox code)? Kirill [talk] 23:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The formats are ok but I don't know how to do something like {{Campaignbox Somme 1916}} this and {{World War I}} I had a try but managed to link them to a sandbox page....Keith-264 (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This one seems ok {{Template:Paris Peace Conference}} but not this one Template:Navbox Paris Peace Conference which I want to look like {{Campaignbox Somme 1916}} this. Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
One way to do this is to use {{military navigation}} (which has built-in narrow and wide versions) rather than {{navbox}} as the base template. I've made that change to {{Paris Peace Conference}}; the template defaults to the full-width version, but you can add a narrow version (which matches the campaignbox width) by using {{Paris Peace Conference|style=narrow}}. Kirill [talk] 12:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much!Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Improving Raid (military)

Had occassion to stop by this article and was saddened by its incomplete nature. Not a complete disaster - there is cited content - but could be so much better. I looked on the talk page and there, forgotten, were some suggestions written by me over two years ago, most unacted upon. Rarely for a article on strategy and tactics, this one lacks modern (i.e. 20th and 21st century) material. The Air-landed section is lamentable. Given the availability of the Osprey raid series as a start point, there should be no difficulty in adding pertinent examples. Also, more on the strategic and tactical aspects of raiding would not go amiss. Anyone up for adding a little around their favourite topics? Thanks in anticipation.Monstrelet (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I've added a little, but I might have overbalanced the article a little towards a Second World War focus. Apologies. There's still plenty of room for expansion. Hopefully others will get involved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for coordination

I'm not a member of this Wikiproject, so apologies for not knowing how you operate. However, I was reading the FDC funding requests, and see that the Nederland chapter plans a major initiative regarding World War II and the Serbian chapter plans a major initiative related to World War I, so there might be some value in coordination:

Thanks for posting this. I've left some feedback on the Dutch proposal Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

I chose to nominate List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) for FLC a second time. The first time the review went stale due to lack of interest in the topic. Hopefully it draws some more attention this time around. Regards MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if I reverted this, I don't know how I managed it.Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel Nasser ACR

Hello all. This article has been at ACR since 24 Aug 13 - its in fairly good shape in my opinion and a large amount of work has clearly gone into it by the nominator so it would be shame if it doesn't make it through purely due to a lack of reviewers. Currently has two supports so just needs one more. If there is anyone out there interested in assisting with the review pls have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gamal Abdel Nasser. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, noting that my support is provisional as I'd like to see a more extensive spotcheck of sources than I was able to undertake, before I give it a 100% thumbs up. N.B. I left a message a while back with Tim Riley, who isn't a MilHist member but does great work in the area of both political biography and spotchecking, to have a look and I'm sure he will if he has time. Failing that I'll check what I can find on GoogleBooks when someone else has reviewed the article over all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Progress with Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Just to track our progress. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Click on [show] for progress bar

Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Goal: 0 articles
Current: 29 articles
Initial: 17,000 articles
(Refresh)

closing in on 11% done. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Still closing inon 11% done. The category always seems to increase whenever I'm away. 65.64.177.101 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Over the 11% mark. Hurray. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Back below the 11% mark. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Managed to push it back below 11%. How long it will stay that way is anyone's guess. 65.64.177.103 (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for another backlog drive. I'm kind of wearing out from trying to clear out this category by myself. Hopefully a drive will increase participation. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm willing to get involved in another drive. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This category is going right back up again. Three or four days ago it was at 15,080. Now it is 15,200 and climbing. Doesn't look like the new drive will be like the June drive, so it will be down to one person to clear out this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.227.224 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost back to the 11% mark, where it was last week. Not sure if I will have a lot of time to work on this category during this week. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day anon. Thanks for keeping us up to date, but with a little less martyrdom please. Everyone appreciates the work you're doing on this, but we all have different priorities on Wiki and ours may not be the same as yours, but just as important. I am sure we will get a drive up sooner or later, there are just some details to work through. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Continuing on to 11.5%. Unfortunately, this category continues to grow while I'm away. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The number of computers used to edit Wikipedia by one editor is startling here especially because more than one IP discussed the reversion of User 64.6.124.31 edits. I feel you might want to familiarize yourself withsocking especially if you have an auto-confirmed account editing as well.--Molestash (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone got a good idea for TFA on 11th November?

You have? Excellent, glad to hear it. Pop along to WP:TFAR, and tell us what it is. Perhaps "Goodbyeee" or Southern Rhodesia in World War I? Or perhaps a WWI VC winner in Thomas Crisp or Edgar Towner? Or perhaps something even better? Look forward to seeing your bright ideas. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as something a bit different I think "Goodbyeee" would make a very interesting choice... (Disclaimer: I reviewed and supported it at FAC, recusing my usual delegate duties). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
John Treloar (museum administrator) (former director of the Australian War Memorial) has been nominated by Nick-D (link). If people want to put forward other suggestions for discussion, or to support Treloar, then pop on over to TFAR and have your say. NB Nick-D himself says "I think that there are actually more suitable articles which I hope someone nominates". Thanks, BencherliteTalk 08:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph E. Tofalo

Resolved

Dear military experts: This submission at Afc has been waiting for a review for some time. Would anyone like to help? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's passed now. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fallen at first hurdle

I've tried to nominate Melbourne Hall for A-class, and I seem to have broken the process. I'd be grateful if someone could fix my mis-nom, I'm likely to make things worse (it all started when the nom template failed to appear...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you got it pretty well right except for losing your review's heading material -- added in now so I think it's cool. Welcome to ACR, Jim! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
BTW, you did mean Melbourne Castle above (and in the ACR), didn't you, not Melbourne Hall...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Aaarggh! One of those days. And it's still morning. Thank you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization in article names - MTB, MGB, SGB and others

There is a current discussion at Talk:Motor_Torpedo_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013 relating to a proposed move from Motor Torpedo Boat to Motor torpedo boat that also relates to proposed moves for Steam Gun Boat, Motor Gun Boat and to the uncapitalized forms, and may also touch upon the capitalization in other articles (Sea Control Ship, Landing Craft Assault for instance). GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent unexplained changes to strength/loss figures by Knsn57

Recently, Knsn57 has made a series of unexplained and unreferenced modifications to a wide range of battle articles relating to the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) and Second Sino-Japanese War, including the modification of total strength and casualty numbers. Often, these changes appear as an attempt to make Japan look more favourable, by making the Korean fatality figures higher, and the Japanese total strength figures lower. This editor does not use edit summaries, and has only started editing since 14 October 2013, with less than 60 total edits so far. Is someone able to verify these changes? --benlisquareT•C•E 17:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent deletions of so called unreliable sources

ÄDA - DÄP (talk · contribs) has indicated and deleted sources from articles by declaring them as unreliable. Previously the general consensus was to allow the usage, but if other sources prove them wrong, make the discrepancy evident. Some editors had even expressed that removal of sources constitutes censorship. I am open-minded and the consensus here can go either way. However I find that his approach (deletion of sources) should be backed up by a community decision. How do other editors feel? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a previous discussion of this somewhere? Regarding this edit (as an example) books published by Osprey Publishing can be assumed to be reliable sources unless demonstrated otherwise: it does have quality control processes (though they're sometimes not as rigorously applied as they should be) and many of the authors of books it publishes are recognised experts on the topic - including a smattering of academics from first-rate universities and professional writers for serious commercial military publications. I use works by Schiffer Military with great care though - this publisher doesn't exercise much quality control from what I've seen, and its books need to be assessed on a case by case basis. I can't comment on the German-language works. I agree with the deletion of a book written by Franz Kurowski this edit: he has a history of writing unreliable "romantic"-style works on the German military of World War II. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I tend to delete axishistory, vojska and similar unreferenced websites any time I come across them, but books need some discussion on the talk page at least. I have used a Schiffer book as a significant source for at least one FA but it may be an exception, in that it is well footnoted, has excellent appendices and referenced all the sources you would expect. I have yet to see an academic source that contradicts it. I have also found Osprey books generally reliable, and have rarely found them contradicted by an academic source. But there are always exceptions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so the correct approach would be to discuss the removal in every specific use case of the book in question? The use of the book in one instance does neither legitimize nor disprove its use in another article? Moving forward a case by case discussion is the preferred approach. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would say that if a book is shown to be unreliable in one context, it is probably quite reasonable to assume it is unreliable in other contexts. You could take it to WP:RSN for an opinion, although I have found that forum less than definitive. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
What book are we talking about, BTW? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes. I am still appalled by the "sources" used on reciepients of the Knight's Cross. I only came across the subject recently, so I am not aware of any consensus regarding specific works, but having consulted WP:HISTRS, I generally followed their advice. This resulted in me removing certain publications which according to WP standards are not considered reliable. Generally speaking, none of the publications affected qualify as scholarly works per se. Some may pass muster, others may be used with appropriate care, several are beyond the pale.
  1. Scherzer and Busch & Röll have been properly researched and have found critical acclaim from scholars. In most articles they are rightly the major source.
  2. Fellgiebel represents the current view of the "Ordensgemeinschaft", although biased, I can live with it, if accompanied by one of the works mentioned above.
  3. Range and von Seemen come from the same place, but have been superseded by Fellgiebel's work and are thus dated. Same apllies to Kurowski, who has been criticized for ignoring scholarly studies since 1957. One wonders what information can be found there that is not in one of the more reliable sources.
  4. Schaulen, Fraschka, and Alman are heavily NPOV, incidentally Alman is a pseudonym for Kuroswki which he used not to taint the reputation for his more serious work.
  5. Schaulen, Krätschmer, Huß & Viohl - as well as Helden der Wehrmacht - Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten are absolutely no-go, as their publishers are considered extremist by German authorities. No scholar would want to be found dead with one of these publications.
Last, Williamson does not give footnotes nor does he provide a bibliography in his works concerned here, while obviously drawing on some of the sources already mentioned. In some cases I left his works in the list, if only because there were no other English-language publications listed.
As for Berger, I only found one review of his work in a journal for librarians. The reviewer of this self-published book basically advices the author to go and find another hobby.

In this light, I would like to ask what exactly is the point of having these sources in the bibliography section, especially if they are not used as to reference information. I can think of a but a few reasons, none of which I like. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, your assumption that English-speaking editors understand your use of German terms is rude on enWP. Your transitioning of the thrust of German laws to enWP is also not appropriate. German laws are there for internal reasons, not international ones. If a source has issues which are international, no problem, they should be discussed, but the assumption that because the German authorities have banned or restricted a source it should be banned or restricted on en WP is just wrong-headed and is essentially unjustified censorship. If a source is reliable, but is not used for a direct citation in the article, it can be used in Further reading. That is fine. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If I may ask:
  1. What German terms are you referring to?
  2. Where did you get the impression that any of these sources are banned or restricted in Germany - more so, that I advocate they should be?
  3. The whole point of the discussion is to find out whether or not said sources can be considered reliable or not. I say they are not, based on enWP policy.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the issue may be that the term unreliable may be interpreted as deliberately falsifying the facts. If you consider Scherzer's work as the pinnacle of Knight's Cross related research you have to acknowledge that Scherzer himself derives and references the works of Von Seemen, Range, Krätschmer, Thomas, Wegmann, among others. In many instances you can see the historic convergence of the facts if you read all of these books. Quoting from Scherzer’s book, "I do not want to take away anyone’s Knight's Cross". Scherzer is very direct and claims that for all those listed in his book, there is verifiable evidence to substantiate the presentation of Knight's Cross. In roughly 200 instances Scherzer has found lack of evidence in the archives that Fellgiebel's claim may be wrong. Lack of evidence itself does not make it wrong or right. I therefore feel that making these discrepancies obvious to the reader is the fundamentally better approach. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. IMO unreliable is what does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. None of the authors mentioned are historians, few have an academic background, many are involved in the"Ordensgemeinschaft". None of the works I removed have been published by academic publishers or mainstream publishing houses. In some cases the publishers are notorious for extremist views and political bias. Some of the works I did not remove on the other hand have passed the scrutiny of experts in the field, eg Scherzer and Busch/Röll.
  2. In most cases there is no discrepancy between the information in the older, dated and IMO unreliable works, and more recent and more reliable publications. In these cases there is no need to support statements with old and outdated material. In the cases where there is new information available which contradicts previous works, this can be discussed with appropriate references, I believe. There is, however, no need to list every(?) work on recipients of the Knight's Cross, but simply the most recent and most reliable sources.
  3. Regarding some of the references in Wolfgang Lüth et al. these seem only to serve as an excuse to introduce dodgy publications, eg Berger. Berger is used to support claims on awards and decorations, information that can easily be found in noncontroversial works, eg. Busch/Röll (2003).
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: If in fact any of these authors "are involved in the Ordensgemeinschaft ", then that is a very serious red flag. I would hope that most Second World War-topic editors of MILHIST are aware that a lot of propaganda is still floating around. It applies to all nations in some degree, but the authoritarian regimes of the war seem to have attracted a fair amount of followers. While I am aware that awards like the Knight's Cross were not handed out like candy, it is also incumbent upon us as MILHIST editors to be aware of the tendency of some authors to be SS-fanboys or otherwise adoptive of a POV driven by admiration of Nazi ideology, regalia, or other aspects of this period of German history. If such authors can "produce the goods" in terms of well-cited and authoritative references, then well and good; otherwise, these sources should not be used. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My point regards the Ordensgemeinschaft. While I know the history, very few MILHIST editors would. It is rude not to at least link the term for other editors. At a minimum, for a proper discussion of this topic, other interested editors should be aware the Bundeswehr banned contact with the Ordensgemeinschaft in 1999, and that Fellgiebel was the head of the Ordensgemeinschaft for 15 years. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "[sources] are absolutely no-go, as their publishers are considered extremist by German authorities." Oh, no, not this again... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor security operations in Iraq?

I've just stumbled across Operation Grenada, which is a short article detailing (essentially) an arrest in Iraq in 2007. I proposed it for deletion - there's little or no indication of any historic notability - and started having a look at some others. The first two 2007 operations I opened are if anything even less notable - Operation Four Brothers and Operation Geronimo Strike III, which detained two suspects (it doesn't tell us what happened to them), a couple of guns "and a ski mask".

It looks like there's going to be many more like this - should I continue to prod them, or (as has happened in some cases) just redirect to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, which has a brief summary? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you do, make sure key essentials remain. Could you write a two-sentence summary for each really small article, add a reference or two, add that to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, and then prod the articles? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I would support redirecting to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War for these minor ops. EricSerge (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree, very unlikely to meet GNG, a short summary included in the "List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War" article capturing the op then PROD and re-direct. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
PROD and redirect is redundant, just WP:BOLDly redirecting works. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan memorial lists

I recently proposed deletion of a new article Norwegian Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan as it was clearly a list of those killed and serves no-purpose other than a memorial. I have recently discovered that we have a whole batch of these memorial pages like British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 (which has managed to get to B class). Just checking that the project stance appears to be that recentism has taken over from not memorial. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree would support deletion not a memorial etc and from the talk page it seems there may be a Canadian article as well. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It's worth noting that individual combat deaths in the countries which have deployed relatively small forces to Afghanistan attract huge media attention. Every time an Australian or New Zealand soldier has been killed it's been the main news story in the country that day, and then a major story on the event of their funeral (the funerals of most Australian servicemen killed have been attended by the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition, as well as the heads of the military) and when the military releases the formal report into the engagement, so there is some grounds for these articles in terms of availability of sources, if not consistency with other countries. That said, I've nominated several such articles for deletion in the past, and agree with deletion here, on the grounds that this isn't genuinely useful encyclopaedic content. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Well done the Aussies then. All the British get is a mention in parliament, part of Prime Ministers questions, almost but not quite along the lines of any other business. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hardly surprising, given the scale of the British contribution and the fact we've suffered more than ten times the number of casualties that Australia has! All deaths are tragic, but let's not forget that several British warships went down in the Second World War each taking more men with them in a few minutes than the total number of British casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq put together. It's a perspective thing. The public weeping and wailing, media reporting and memorialisation that accompanies every death now would have puzzled our forebears, who fought wars with far, far more casualties and accepted them as part of "life". That's not to denigrate any death in any way, incidentally, or the loss to the families, but it's interesting to make the comparison of how public attitudes have changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm editorialising, I know, but a WWII POW I know once said quietly to me that more Australians died in one night in Changi than have died in the whole ten years we've been in Afghanistan. He wasn't being disrespectful, he was just underlining that different times mean different perspectives. In most cases with these deaths, the individual subject of the article wouldn't meet WP:GNG due to the lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The hurdle here is "significant coverage". IMO, that is why people have created these lists. The subject "British deaths in Afghanistan since 2001" certainly would meet GNG, but it shouldn't be a list of redlinked individual casualties (most of whom are sadly not going to meet GNG, it should be an article which discusses all the coverage of the subject. Only those casualties that are individually going to meet GNG should be redlinked. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It is interesting - and encouraging - how attitudes have changed. I've been reading a bit about the Falklands War recently, and it's notable that the officers at the senior levels of the British military (most of whom were WW2 veterans) were willing to accept quite high levels of casualties - including multiple warships - and regarded this as part of the price which needed to be paid, while the British Government and the lower levels of the military were pretty shocked by the cost of the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The British list doesn't strike me as reading like a memorial, the sample that I've read seem factual. I think the article has value for reference. --IxK85 (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Also interesting that Lord Carrington, Willie Whitelaw and Francis Pym, all members of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet during the war, had all won the Military Cross in the Second World War. At least they were men who knew what military action and sacrifice really meant, unlike those in power in most countries today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

More eyes please...

Can we have some eyes on Audie Murphy, please!

The same editor, whose name has been raised here countless times before, is currently engaged in an effort to remove the "of World War II" part from the lead – this is nothing more than POV-bias, as not having Murphy mentioned as one of the most decorated of that period leaves the sentence open to ambiguity, suggesting he's the most decorated of what?? All U.S. history? All world history? All of time? His notability results from his WWII career and subsequently his many decorations, one can't exist without the other.

It really is very frustrating that over the last year a few editors took a lot of time to overhaul this article from low-quality to A-Class and GA, but this editor single-handedly continues to rewrite content to pre-review quality, ignoring consensus and the efforts of those who improved and reviewed it. The article is supposed to be heading for FA, but edits such as this are simply doing more harm than good, they are often sub-standard or fail to meet Wiki MOS or other policies. There are well over 100 watchers of this article, yet only one or two of us are dealing with the disruptions to progress. It makes us look like we're war editing or have some kind of hold on it, when there is genuine need to maintain a stable article and add/improve the content, rather that see it get picked at daily and condensed into "personal preference" type edits, before FA will even accept it. The WP:IDHT attitude of said editor is enough to drive anyone mad. More eyes, please... Ma®©usBritish{chat} 07:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  • MarcusBritish himself has put in a lot of time trying to stem the tide, but what's happening is more than one or two people can handle. The article is being rewritten, one sentence at a time, one section at a time, with all talk page issues being ignored except, apparently, as an idea of what to rewrite at will. Largely unsourced, and unknown how much copyvio might be there now. Please refer to the edit history for details.— Maile (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • G'day, if attempts to discuss the matter have not resolved the situation, perhaps it should be escalated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? Of course, it would be best if it could be sorted out without such a recourse, but sometimes it is appropriate. At least that way there would be some independent review, regardless of the outcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. Will keep it in mind. Somebody stepped in and put a 48-hour block on the disruptive editor. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My secondary concern is that some bureaucrat-minded admin is going to look at the history of the article and see just myself and Maile66 reverting the same editor time and time again. It appears on first sight that we're either bullying the editor or have some sort of Randy co-op/ownership thing going in. This is far from the truth; the problem here is that Murphy is a well known name, naturally the article attracts a lot of attention. If Maile66 had been able to create and develop the article from scratch in a sandbox, he wouldn't have had these issues, because no one would likely attempt to mess about with it, and it would go straight through PR and/or FAR once published and receive higher praise and protection, as FA virtually guarantees the integrity of the content. As it stands now, the editor is question is showing no respect for the work being done by Maile66 to bring it up from C or B-class, which it was at a year ago, to A-class/GA where is stands now. If it had not been for this other editor, chances are high that it would be an FA by now.. but the need to have to review every petty tweak and personal touch by him causes setbacks, and is more demoralising that anything. I know that I would have given up on trying for an FA months ago had someone encroached on my work so obnoxiously and provocatively on such a regular basis. The editor is ignorant of the community, of consensus, of guidelines and quality standards, often reducing the parts he edits to lower standards. This shows a lack of competence and an unwillingness to read and learn the guidelines and integrate with Wiki as a mature or self-respecting editor normally would. It's impossible to create an FA article when someone keeps making low-quality edits that damages the existing content. I have no idea how the matter can be resolved, because the editor is resistant to discussion and is unwilling to cooperate with those developing the article. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I am at least a bit familiar with this issue, and having worked on quite a few articles where similar behaviour has occurred, I think WP:AIN (with a view to an extended topic ban on the editor) is the way to go. If the editor is able to show that they can edit constructively elsewhere over a six month period, then they could apply for the ban to be lifted. If not, then no harm, no foul, and the ongoing disruption stops. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This is really good advice. Points well taken. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Marcus, I was the admin in question who imposed the 48-hour block. Please take your case to WP:ANI, and I will support if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

map copies

Does anyone know how to lift maps from https://archive.org/details/historywartimes14londuoft whIch is (I think) out of copyright?

The maps on pp 42, 50, 56, 61, 68, diagram on p. 74 and map on pp.76-77 are what I'm after but pdf viewer and Open Office don't want to co-operate. Suggestions from a computer aficionado would be appreciated. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Download the whole book as a pdf, select and copy the images, paste into PAINT or similar, and save. You can work on them with editing software then if you wish 17:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Concur with the above comment. I downloaded it as a .pdf (took a while because it is a big document), then used the "take a snapshot" tool of Adobe reader to select and copy the map on page 42. At this point, I was able to copy it into NeoPaint, my graphics software. It could then be saved in a variety of formats and uploaded to Wikimedia as a file for general use. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've managed to upload the maps I want most here Battle of the Hills but I don't know how to alter the scale and add them together. Any suggstions?Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
By "alter the scale", I assume you mean the size of the image. One problem is that both of your files are .pdf files. Try selecting them in Adobe Reader with the "take a snapshot" tool. This copies the selected area to your clipboard. Then open Paint or another graphics program and paste the clipboard image in as a new image -- and save to a format like .jpg or .png . Once you have these two maps in a graphics file format like .jpg or .png, it should be possible to adjust the overall size of one of the images to include space for the other, and then to paste the second image (with moving it around a bit) to create a single image. This is all more simple to do than it is to attempt to explain in text. If you run into difficulties, I'll see if I can create a single image from your two images. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Clearly you know what you're doing so thanks for the patience. I'll have a try at .jpg or .png and see what happens. I fear that "This is all more simple to do than it is to attempt to explain in text." might prove overly optimistic but we'll see. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I had a try and got as far as making the first half of the map a jpeg but after that everything disappeared into the ether.Keith-264 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Managed to paste both sides of the map into Paint but couldn't get them side by side, I'll keep trying.Keith-264 (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I've created one version of a joined image, but the two scans seem to have a small difference in resolution and it makes it hard to join them well. Have you had better luck? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Not a sausage I'm afraid. When I tried to move the images side-by-side one disappeared....Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The two maps are not exactly to the same scale - so I had to crop the edges because they didn't align. For this type of job, I find Snagit to be the best tool! Please add categories.... Farawayman (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Map of location of Moronvilliers
Thanks Faraway I'm on a computer course, honest. Still procrastinating about the Delville Wood revision....Keith-264 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1842 retreat from Kabul

For about a week now there has been an ongoing Wiki-skirmish (not really a war) spluttering along over a somewhat neglected aspect of the catastrophic British retreat from Kabul during the 1st Afghan War of 1842. The issue is the fate of the 12,000 odd Indian camp followers accompanying Elphinstone's British and Indian soldiers. Contemporary British writers were concerned mainly with British prisoners (a number were later released), to a much lesser extent with the Indian sepoys (a few made it back) and scarcely at all with the unfortunate camp-followers (most of whom it is assumed died in the retreat or were enslaved). Editor Fareed30 has been aggressively pursuing the premise that the Indians were taken prisoner, released "on a case by case basis" and then either returned to India or stayed on Afghanistan as the originators of the present Hindu minority there. Well fine but he repeatedly challenges the source cited of the "mostly froze, starved, died of disease, were killed or enslaved" case (a 2010 book by the British historian Linda Colley), on the grounds that she was not there in 1842 and that a book which cannot be accessed online is not a verifiable reliable source. His counter-argument repeatedly cites a BBC News article (which is available online) dealing with the difficulties faced by the modern Sikh community in Afghanistan. It makes a passing reference to this minority (plus a few Hindus) having been brought in by the British during the 19th century but in no way links them to the hapless refugees of 1842. As is often the case on Wikipedia when differing historical and nationalistic views collide the argument goes round and round. Could anyone having an interest in the period, plus access to reliable reference sources, look at the lede section of 1842 Retreat from Kabul and attempt to resolve the dispute one way or the other. Thanks. Buistr (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Miniature medals

John Ashley Kilvert - medals

The image above shows two Crimea War medals, and the corresponding miniature versions. What is the correct term for the latter? What are the criteria determining which are worn on a given occasion? Our articles on medals, and on military decorations, don't mention this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Minature Medals are for wear on Mess dress only. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Or evening wear (in the UK). This may be useful. Ranger Steve Talk 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Mess kit (officers, warrant officers and senior non-commissioned officers), or at functions in the evening (usually black tie) in Australia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

105th and 709th Air Refueling Squadrons

I recently ran across stubs 105th Air Refueling Squadron and 709th Air Refueling Squadron. I have doubts that either squadron existed and have marked the single sentence in the articles as dubious and started a discussion on the talk page. If anyone would like to support the existence of these units (the only evidence I find is on patch sites) and their notability if they existed, feel free to comment. I'll wait a while before nominating them for deletion. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The 105th may have been "misidentified" from the 105th airlift squadron (TNAFNG). The 709th...the one patch I saw was the approved Wing or Group configuration and not a squadron patch, and even then it doesn't look quite right. I did find reference to it in "Poised for the New Millennium: The Global Reach of the Air Mobility Command", which implies that the unit existed for about a year (1994-1995). That same linked publication doesn't mention the 105th...in fact it skips to the 300s before listing more units. Intothatdarkness 21:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Fighting season

News articles often refer to the beginning or end of the "fighting season" and I've noticed that there is no article on the concept. Is it something that might be worthy of an article and is there someone here who knows enough to write one? Ryan Vesey 03:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth a page. Can't say I know enough for a page, but as I understand it, it was an ancient tradition: Greek troops were farmers, so they'd fight before harvest. (Between planting & harvest, IIRC, but don't hold me to it). There's also issues of fodder. Armies couldn't fight in winter, because fodder for cav wasn't available. (Don't recall why, now; IIRC, Mongols grazed on the march, which made them more flexible, but I wouldn't want to rely on that too much, either. :( ). Hope that's some help, anyhow. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It is touched upon in Military campaign -- The purpose of a military campaign is to achieve a particular desired resolution of a military conflict as its strategic goal. This is constrained by resources, geography and/or season. A campaign is measured relative to the technology used by the belligerents to achieve goals, and while in the pre-industrial Europe was understood to be that between the planting (late spring) and harvest times (late autumn). W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a hugely important topic: before modern times it was unusual for any significant fighting to take place during the winter in cool climates (even as late as the US Civil War there was a lull in the fighting during the winter), and it continues to affect recent warfare. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It's also a flexible concept. If you look at the Indian Wars, the Army actually tried to operate more in the winter when Native American mobility was restricted. On the reverse, most tribal skirmishes and raids on Anglo settlers took place during the summer months when Native mobility was high. Intothatdarkness 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It’s also frequently called the campaign(ing) season.—Odysseus1479 07:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Take care in writing this article as there is a lot of "received wisdom" on this which may lead astray. Pre-industrial armies could, and surprisingly often did, fight in winter. Indeed, the Teutonic Knights specialised in winter warfare because it froze the ground, making impassable wilderness passable.Monstrelet (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Very location specific. In places like Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, the fighting season has always been the time of the year when fighting is feasible. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If anyone's taking this one would be interesting reading. But there are some grey areas. Napoleon and Hitler's failure at Moscow spring to mind. Would that be because the fighting season had ended and they had not achieved their objective? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
On the Hitler example, that's another case of a location-specific campaigning season. The fighting largely stopped once the rasputitsa hit in the fall and then restarted once it got cold enough to freeze the ground. Parsecboy (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with Parsecboy that rasputitsa had a significant part to play in Hitler's failures on the Eastern Front. I am currently reading Engineers of Victory, (Paul Kennedy, Random House (2013), New York, ISBN 978-1-4000-6761-9) a very readable account of how small engineering advances made just prior to and during World War II made a tremendous difference on the outcome of the war. The chapter titled "How to stop a Blitzkrieg" explains the term "rasputitsa" (page 175) and how it affected Hitler's effort to conquer the Soviet Union. This is the first time I had heard the term and I had just read about it the night before while reading. Life is indeed interesting... I recommend the book, BTW Cuprum17 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this topic would be a fantastic article; the background of the campaigning season is, as Monstrelet mentions, oft misunderstood. The biggest problem you'll have is that the subject of the article is almost more notable "in the breach" than "in the observance", and so balancing the temptation to talk about all the instances where the campaign season was ignored (for instance, several important campaigns in the French and Indian, and American Revolutionary Wars were fought during the cold of winter) with the need to accurately catalog the background of the campaign season is important. I am willing to help, since I much prefer early modern warfare, and may have some sources. The most important classical source on the subject is probably Victor Davis Hanson's Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece, which, despite Hanson being more famous for his politically-tinged scholarship, does a thorough job of reviewing the impact of war on agriculture and vice-versa. I own a copy, so let me know if that is of interest to you Cdtew (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, VDH isn't too bad when he sticks to what he knows, which is classical Greece - on the other hand, his chapter in Carnage and Culture on Midway is almost laughably bad. And of course, you can drive the thousand years from the fall of Rome to the military revolution in the 15th/16th century through the gaping holes in his WWoW thesis, but I digress.
Another thing to be wary of is the tendency to look at this phenomenon from the European perspective. For instance, the fighting season in Vietnam during the French and American wars (and, well, any time, but I am most familiar with its impact on these wars) was dictated by the two annual monsoons (which had different effects, depending on which side of the Annamite Mountains you were on). While it will probably be difficult if not impossible to give a full, global accounting of the phenomenon, we might as well start the article and see where we get. And while we're volunteering to work on sections, I could do a section on the Vietnam case. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"rasputitsa had a significant part to play in Hitler's failures on the Eastern Front" I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it does put paid to the common myth (prevalent even in AH, where you'd expect people to know better...) it was the Greek campaign that caused the delay in starting Barbarossa. Clearly, it wasn't. Which does bring up the issue of the influence of weather (& the fighting season) on the start & end dates of campaigns. Has this effectively decided a war, ever? I seem to recall the ancient Greeks at least once saying, in effect, "Look, we've got to get back for harvest. Let's call in a couple of champions, let them fight it out, & call it on account of darkness." No? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The twice a year "rasputitsa" seasons certainly didn't help Hitler's Barbarossa plans, coupled with his failure to equip his armies with winter clothing and supplies. The Russians were familiar with the problems of the rasputitsa and the severe winters on the steppes and used it to every advantage. The rasputitsa kept Hitler's generals from supplying the forward elements of the German advance with food, ammunition and fuel because the roads that were to be used were quagmires twice a year. To me, that reads significant. While it is true the German Army managed to recover ground during the dry summer months in many places, they developed no plan to use the two seasons to advantage. Hitler pushed his generals on the Eastern Front unmercifully and fired those generals that wouldn't or couldn't capture ground; von Rundstedt was an example. He would accept no excuses, even impassable mud...but then Hitler was a has-been corporal from another war.Cuprum17 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Effects of seasonal weather on warfighting" might be a more appropriate name for such an article? Fighting season implies A season, when in fact fighting can be limited but also enhanced by the same season. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Here's another one for you guys! Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Iskra

Requesting a third opinion as I don't want an edit war.D2306 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project 2

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here. (Access to books in this field would be helpful, especially to clear content, as this contributor has heavily taken from book sources, but there are also articles that draw from online sources.)

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No Gun Ri Massacre‎

Not sure if this is the appropriate place for a request like this, but there is currently some discussion over the content of the No Gun Ri Massacre‎ article. I'd appreciate anyone with an interest in military history to take a look. Thanks. WeldNeck (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is going on: War criminals that look 100% identical

See Sanji Iwabuchi and Naomasa Sakonju - both are WW2 Japanese war criminals, and the infobox photograph on both articles look awfully similar, pretty much the same dare I say. The photographs are separate files hosted on Commons with different file descriptions. Could it be that these two people are identical twins manufactured from some super secret Japanese laboratory that nobody's heard about? Or, has something gone wrong, and completely unnoticed since 2012? Is anyone able to confirm exactly who is who? --benlisquareT•C•E 18:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone also better inform the Japanese Wikipedia, because it looks like they're in the same boat as well: ja:左近允尚正, ja:岩淵三次. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What's a military occupation?

Your input at Talk:Military occupations#Requested move would be appreciated. You may also be interested in the discussion at Talk:Soviet occupations#Requested move. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Assistance requests for keeping an eye on the 11 November TFA

To my surprise, John Treloar (museum administrator) was selected to appear on the main page as the today's featured article on 11 November. However, I'm going to be travelling at this time, and probably won't be able to keep an eye on the article. I'd appreciate it if other editors could watchlist it, and help with reverting the inevitable vandalism. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all disappointed to see it there, Nick -- good choice. I have it on my watchlist anyway but be good if some on the other side of the world to Sydney can do so as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, I've watchlisted it too, but obviously I'm not that far from Sydney... Have fun on your trip. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've watchlisted, but I'm in pretty much the same timezone as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks all Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm at EST/UTC-5:00, so I'll watch since I'm almost opposite from y'all. Cdtew (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bijeljina massacre needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Bijeljina massacre; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Glina massacres needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Glina massacres; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Asahi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Asahi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at this one, need at least one more reviewer if someone is looking for a way of contributing. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

New article

I just stumbled upon a newly-created article, Public opinion of the military. I'm not sure what to think of it, nor do I know if we have other articles that already cover the subject. - BilCat (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

...I want to say I've seen this at AfD in the past, but I can't find it with an archive search. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
seems to be current public opinion of US armed forces with a side of British armed forces at the moment. Early hours yet and there doesn't seem to be a particular POV. If it was expanded in time period, covered other nations, could it be useful?GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Flag matter on ANI

Can some of you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ProudIrishAspie_and_Infobox_flags? The issue is the addition of (problematic) flags to infoboxes of military biographies. Your input is greatly appreciated--and at some point a clarification at WP:INFOBOXFLAG should be considered. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

His edits have been undone, but there is still a lot of cruft to deal with. WP:MILMOS says: When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. However, there remains considerable disagreement regarding the appropriateness of flags in such cases, so editors should not regard this as a universal rule. It is unfortunate that there is no consensus on this. It would be easy to set off an WP:AWB run to remove the flags. But on a related note, is there consensus against icon-sized decorative images next to "Rank" infobox fields? See Braxton Bragg for one example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
From my perspective, it appears that iconography in general is more prevalent in US military articles (biographies at least) than in Commonwealth ones. US ones seem rife with medal farms, as well as rank/unit insignia and flags of allegiance/service in the infobox. Many Commonwealth articles include flags of allegiance/service in the infobox and stop there, so I would say the consensus for Commonwealth bios is not to use rank icons. I stopped using even allegiance/service flag icons in my articles on Australian military figures and RAAF units about a year ago, and I'm not the only one who's dispensed with them. As I said in the ANI thread, the issue for me is not simply imagecruft but the risk of inaccuracy in the flag designs employed. IMO, simpler to drop them as a rule and only employ them if/when a clear case can be made. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox military unit

I created a version of Template:Infobox military unit that is built on the Infobox module; from the testcases the output seems identical.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WWII escort group names

I was pottering about with B-2 Escort Group (Royal Navy) and I was struck by a couple of thoughts

  1. the article name is unnecessarily disambiguated - I can't find any similar named articles
  2. the word order seems wrong, "Escort Group B2" being more natural
  3. Hyphens are uncommon in British designations

I was able to find a few books in google (eg The Defeat of the German U-boats: The Battle of the Atlantic), and an item on the RN website, that use "Escort Group B2" for this unit. One of the authors of a source for the article uses "Escort Group B.2" in their other works [7]. I have found hyphen form in "Escort Group B-2" [8] Anyone have any thoughts or sources on the matter? GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Escort Group B2" seems logical to me. One would search for the words "escort group" first I would think, assuming there were more than one escort group. "B2" sort of narrows it down to that particular group. I notice that in the several references I have on convoys themselves they are referred to as "Convoy HX150" or "Convoy SC129" with a couple of references using the style "Convoy HX 150" using a space; none used a dash.
Using the article title "Escort Group B2" would square it with the Wikipedia articles listing convoys, i.e. Convoy HX 156. I would say that a change in the article title would be justified. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I've been Bold, and it's now at Escort Group B2. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There are more of them linked from Mid-Ocean Escort Force e.g. B-6 Escort Group (Royal Navy) and B-7 Escort Group (Royal Navy). Hamish59 (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll give it another day or so, to see if anyone flags some concern, and then I'll look at those as well. The Mid-Ocean Escort Force article lists them in "Escort Group letter number" style, but as Wikipedia article I didn't want to accept that as gospel for the name format. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Understood. Hamish59 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

And another one. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This certainly looks non-notable, but just checking. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Small caps for codenames

There was a question on the main WP:MOS talk page here about the use of caps or small caps for codenames. From what I have read it is quite common for caps to be used for codnames in most military history books. Should we follow that example? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the history books are just using the same tradition as in the primary sources, following from military tradition of giving written orders with certain words in capitals for emphasis. Since the average reader is sat comfortably in front of monitor and not trying to read instructions while under shellfire the emphasis is unnecessary. And any instance handled as per WP:ALLCAPS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
This is another example, I think, of where the "common sense for common reader" rule comes into play. It makes for a much easier read if the caps aren't there. —Ed!(talk) 00:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
When I read them, such as HAVE DOUGHNUT, or similar, they're in caps probably because of tradition, I agree, however, when I use them in articles, it's generally "Have Doughnut", as it's a proper noun. Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Some publishers use small caps for a variety of things, but MOS recommends against them. Text in WP is meant to travel outside WP, and it's unlikely that any special formatting would be preserved; also, if we encouraged small caps, editors would use them to give special emphasis to whatever they wanted to emphasize. There's basically no chance that everyone would follow usage recommended by style guides, and we'd have a big mess, including POV fights over correct fonts. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Publishers will have their own manuals of style: Wikipedia has WP:MOS which discourages the use of all caps and small caps for emphasis. I see no reason for a special exemption here. pablo 09:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. No need for them. It's like capitalising rank abbreviations. The US Army and US Navy do it as a matter of course, but that doesn't mean we should. It looks weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree caps large or small should be avoided. An additional factor is consistency even when they are used. I have seen OPERATION HAVE DOUGHNUT and Operation HAVE DOUGHNUT. Also, even if not Wikilinked in the article, if links are added, using all caps would require an uneccesary pipe. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I recall a discussion on this some years ago for Canadian military operation articles in which we decided to standardise on title case. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Clancy normally seems to pay some attention to such details, and he uses small caps for code-names in this non-fiction work (at least): "...mission for the second attempt at rescuing the hostages, code-named HONEY BADGER..." (Clancy, Tom; Stiner, General Carl (Ret.); Koltz, Tony (February 2003). Shadow Warriors: Inside the Special Forces. The Berkley Publishing Group. p. 9. ISBN 9780425188316.)
Also, there is at least one other exception that isn't in the MOS but is widely-used here and elsewhere (and should be added): the D- and L- prefixes of optical isomers like L-DOPA. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts on my comment above, Alan? - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Petén FA nom

Hi all. I've just posted Spanish conquest of Petén as a Featured Article Candidate and invite any comments on its review page. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Where in the world is Camp des Garrigues?

Is Camp des Garrigues related to Quartier Captaine Danjou? Hcobb (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Located here per the French Wikipedia. Looks to be in a different area than QCD. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with military terminology

Can someone please help disambiguate the term echelon in the context of: December 1941- His echelon is destroyed by enemy aircraft (Anatoly_Yakovlevich_Taranetz#Notable_dates.5B1.5D). Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a reference to Эшелон (военное дело), which was a specific type of operational formation in Soviet military doctrine. I'm not sure that we have any article that really covers the topic; Soviet deep battle discusses it at a high level, but it probably wouldn't make sense as a disambiguation target. Kirill [talk] 04:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don’t think the meaning from combined-arms doctrine makes much sense in the context. According to the source (p.12, just above the ray photo), he was in transit to the front, so I would translate ru:wikt:эшелон as something like column (formation), convoy, or train. FWIW Google Translate offered the last.—Odysseus1479 05:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC) edited 05:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
In "Western Terminology" echelon refers to a battle formation or posture; i.e. staggered sequence of bodies of troops - in "Eastern Terminology" (Refer Glantz and also Erickson) it refers to battle groupings - i.e. 1st echelon is a combat echelon, second echelon is tasked to exploit gaps and penetrations created by first echelon, third echelon is reserve (formally - a force with no predetermined mission) and may be deployed to further exploit gaps or to reinforce forward echelons where no penetration has been achieved. I suspect this is a reference to the latter "Eastern definition" where his formation (probably 2nd or 3rd echelon) was destroyed.
The disambiguation / definition page for echelon should be updated to reflect this second military meaning as well! Farawayman (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
We shouldn't forget "rear echelon" in western terminology, although I'm not sure I've come across a complementary "combat echelon". British army units in WWII had an "F echelon" (F for fighting) plus two support echelons, A & B. I suggest therefore that a little bit more than a disambig note would be required to cover the eastern and western schools properly. Monstrelet (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Canton (March and May 1841)

Going through the "Stub" articles. Came across Battle of Canton (March 1841) and Battle of Canton (May 1841). Should both articles be merged together as one? Adamdaley (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

2nd call for review of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)

Hi everyone. This is my second attempt to draw editors to this review. This is also my second attempt at getting this list up to FLC. The first review went stale because of lack of reviewers. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

D Battery Royal Horse Artillery

I've just found this article: D Battery Royal Horse Artillery, it hasn't been edited by a human since 14 November 2012. It's quite unique. Gavbadger (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have been cut right down for copyright concerns, and the editor/s never bothered to redo.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Any Admins watching ?

Hi looking for help returning an article to a correct form of name. It was the 11th Hussars which was moved, to create a disamb page, to 11th Hussar Regiment (United Kingdom) a form of title never used by this regiment. 11th Hussars was a diminutive name the correct full name being 11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) but when I tried to revert to this version I unnoticed had a typo missed the S off hussars. So its now called 11th Hussar (Prince Albert's Own). I tried the technical move page but for some reason it would not accept the name used by the article now, with the typo. Brought this here as being a military problem, may be easier for and Admin member to understand. Hope this all makes sense. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the British regiment back to 11th Hussars, as this was the only regiment officially known by this name and almost all the links refer to it. I have moved the disambiguation page to 11th Hussars (disambiguation), although 11th Hussar Regiment would be an alternative, as that was the name used by the other regiments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

London Gazette (also Belfast and Edinburgh) website changes

The London Gazette has recently launched a new beta website, using the new url http://www.thegazette.co.uk/ - this will also incorporate the Belfast and Edinburgh publications. As many of you will know this is a vital resource for tracking commissions and promotions in the British armed forces, and also honours and decorations for those serving with British Empire/Commonwealth forces in both world wars, so it is a widely cited resource within MILHIST supported articles. The intention is that the old sites will be shut down. Hopefully, most references to these publications use the specific template:London Gazette (and the Belfast and Edinburgh equivalents), so we will be able to maintain those easily by simply updating the url stem that the templates use to build the full url, but some article may simply incorporate straight links within the standard cite news or cite web templates and the like. Those lilnks will be broken once the old site shuts down. David Underdown (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Occupations vs. careers

Thanks to those who helped move Military occupations to Military careers. I'll work on incoming links to the former so it can be redirected to Military occupation as a usual {{R from plural}}. There will still be category-space cleanup to be done, so please share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7#Category:Military occupation. --BDD (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Created Category:Targeted killing

I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.

Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Created disambig for Targeted killing

Created disambig for Targeted killing:

Can someone more knowledgeable and experienced with disambig pages help with the formatting and classification?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Defense Marine Asia

I'll create Glenn Defense Marine Asia seven hours from now, unless somebody else jumps in first. I've added links to the talk page. Hcobb (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You've already created Glenn Marine Group, which has been Prodded once, and will likely be AFDed soon. Creating another stub about basically the same issue (bribery), with little additional content, is probably not a good idea. The main article can easily hold any content on subsidiaries for the time being. - BilCat (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

new article: Economic history of World War I

I have started a new article on Economic history of World War I and have begun with a working bibliography and a few entries. I plan to add a lot more in the next few days -- some excerpts from existing articles and some new material. I got started by reading up on John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who handled financing for Britain & most of its allies. Comments and advice is most welcome! Rjensen (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A great topic for an article! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed ... your articles are fantastic, Dr. Jensen. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Stub articles

I've gone through a few thousand articles and have placed a few here: User:Adamdaley/Articles needing assessment. Anyone can have a go at assessing them. Adamdaley (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project 1

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here. (Just as a note - much of what I've seen myself is close paraphrasing.)

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I am interested what articles have copyright material. Since there are two CCI copyright problems. Adamdaley (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD on White Terror

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Terror. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Red Arrows userbox

I don't know if somebody has already made one of these for the Red Arrows but I have just made one, add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}} to your talkpage to get this:

This user is a fan of the Red Arrows.


Nathan121212 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Lucy Higgs Nichols

New article on an American Civil War nurse who was made an honorary member of the Grand Army of the Republic – needs clean up and better referencing. Plenty of sources are listed but there are very few inline citations, and most of those are bare URLS. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter - November 14

[Copied from my talk page. Milhist will be participating. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)]

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No Gun Ri Massacre‎, still

Per the above, #No Gun Ri Massacre‎, it has now bubbled up onto Wikipedia:ANI#Attention urgently needed-Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre. Looks like it's mainly a content dispute badly needing input from an impartial, interested editor with a good grasp of WP:V and WP:RS. Any takers? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

H-18 bomber

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20131113000004

Is the H-18 bomber solid enough to support a page yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 November 2013‎ (UTC)

If that's the only source, or if all other sources are of the same ilk, ie opinion or blogs, then no. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

First Indochina War infobox

Infobox has recently been changed a few times by an IP without discussion. This issue has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page in the past and the current pattern of edits is similar to previous instances. Current version of the infobox reflects the fact that there is no consensus at this time for the addition of this material and as such I have reverted and requested discussion as part of BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. This has now happened a couple of times with the edit being made without any discussion. I have now asked the IP on his/her talk page to discuss first so will see if that works. Would appreciate other editors having a look though because I've had my three. Although in the past I have stated that I don't think the material should be included (and said as much in several discussions) I personally don't care as long as the edits are reflective of community consensus. At the moment they just seem to be disruptive. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Echo what AC says. I've watchlisted and reverted a few times with requests to discuss on the talk page but the problem persists. It's mostly IPs so I wonder if some level of protection isn't warranted -- perhaps one of our people who's also an admin could take a look and consider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:RFPP is the correct location to request semi-protection. Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

World War

I could use a few more eyes on the talk page. I think I am on the right track, but I would really appreciate others' thoughts [9]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

List of ISAF installations in Afghanistan

Good Afternoon

There is a proposal on the Talk:List of ISAF installations in Afghanistan page to change the structure of the article from alphabetically based on installation type and name to an idea where there are different tables for each regional command then alphabetically on installation type and name. Gavbadger (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Archiving too quickly?

Isn't 7 days a rather short period of inactivity after which to archive a discussion on this page? I wanted to respond to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Small caps for codenames and found it was moved here. What's the procedure to resurrect such a discussion? Just create a new section or copy/move the old discussion from the archive back to the current page? Any thoughts on lengthening the archive time to 14 or 30 days for those of us that tend to get busy? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This talk page would fill up fast if the archive time was lengthened too much. Maybe increase to 10 days first and see how that works for a few weeks. For restarting a discussion, I suggest starting a new section with a link to the 'old' discussion like you did above and go from there. That way the archived discussion is not repeated. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, this talk page is shorter than usual. Feel free to link to the archived discussion and continue the discussion here or start a new section. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Pritzker

Did you know that there is a Wikipedia GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, and Museums) project for Military History? The Pritzker Military Museum & Library recently joined Wikipedia as a GLAM institution. For details, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker

What does this mean for military history editors? It means that there are now additional resources to improve the articles that you are editing or writing. If you have questions, post to my talk page. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Marine (military) move discussion

The title for Marine (military) is being discussed at Talk:Marine (military)#Requested move. Comments are welcome. - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Here's another one and another one which need attention. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost needs some help

... some assembly required.

Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting SNCF article WWII section

Hello again to the members of this Wikipedia project, my name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. Last year, I introduced myself here and asked for the help of independent editors to discuss inaccuracies in the information about WWII in the SNCF article. I would like to revisit this information to focus on two particular statements that remain, but which I feel are inaccurate and have been disputed.

Per my messages last year, this is a very complicated and sensitive subject, but due to this I feel that it deserves to be treated carefully and accurately. The section was much improved last year and there are just two statements that I now seek to address. On the Talk:SNCF page, I have explained these and offered a suggestion to add an alternative view, which you can see via this link: Talk:SNCF#Suggestion. I am interested to hear the feedback of editors from this project. Is there anyone who can assist? Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Which HMS Barracouta?

Which HMS Barracouta was lost with all hands on Madagascar in 1826? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that there was another Barracouta not mentioned on that list? Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Colledge doesn't list any others than those we have in the shipname article. If you're trying to be precise about the loss in List of shipwrecks in 1826, the full paragraph from the Caldonian Mercury says "(From the Colombian Press Gazette) We are sorry to state, that a letter is in town, announcing the shocking intelligence that his Majesty's ship Barracouta has been wrecked on Madagascar, and all the crew, including Captain and officers, massacred by the natives; this letter came from Mauritius, and the melancholy fact rests on authority that cannot be doubted." I think the last sentence can be doubted and the source(s) are wrong and Barracouta was not wrecked and lost with all hands in 1826. Certainly at the time HMS Barracouta and HMS Leven were engaged in survey work off East Africa (see Narrative of voyages to explore the shores of Africa, Arabia, and Madagascar; performed in H.M. ships “Leven” and “Barracouta,” under the direction of Capt. W. F. W. Owen, R.N. (2v., London, 1833) ed H B Robinson ) but Barracouta returned home to be put up for sale in 1833 [10] If you find Narrative of voyages . . at archive.org at page 333 you'll find mention of East African natives attacking and destroying a British sloop and her crew but it's not Barracouta. NtheP (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Nthep, thanks for the reply. I did not see any reports contradicting the loss of the Barracouta, but will search the papers for 1826 using "Barracouta" as a search term. I'll delete the entry if sources confirm that she was not lost after all. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the entry from the list after further research. Mjroots (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Could some uninvolved eyes look in at Talk:Neville Chamberlain?

This discussion here. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Another backlog reduction drive

Any chance of getting another backlog reduction drive started along these lines? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, this is currently under discussion here. Please feel free to join the conversation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Are lists/bullet points etc OK in leads?Keith-264 (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I can't imagine a case where they would be required. Could you give me an example? Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Someone put them here Nivelle Offensive and here Battle of Passchendaele, I thought that the MOS took a dim view.Keith-264 (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's an outright ban on them in leads, but the general guidance on embedded lists applies, as does WP:Lead etc.; their use in this way in these two articles certainly goes against that MOS guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Those introductions are far too long anyway. If the author wants to write a preface, they should separate it from the introduction Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Country disambiguation in unit titles

There is currently an open RFC at Talk:13th Airborne Division (United States)#Requested move wanting to move the article title to 13th Airborne Division on the ground it does not need disambiguating as there are no other 13th Airborne Division articles. Does the project have any guideline or consensus on such cases? There are other divisions in this situation, for example 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom). SpinningSpark 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, just found it myself in your MOS, but I'll leave the link to the discussion here. SpinningSpark 09:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Doe anyone look at these? It would be nice to get some feedback. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow invitation to kick-the-tires

Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.

The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.

What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:

  1. If there are any bugs (you can report them here);
  2. What changes or features you'd need added, to be personally comfortable with deploying it on your WikiProject (which you can explain here)

On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.

Thanks! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It would be great if more editors would test out the current setup, and give feedback (there, here, anywhere!). The devs and designers need to know what you're thinking, and what you're missing/wanting (and what you're appreciating!).
Also, you might like to glance through these 2 test pages that I created on that server: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hampshire and Talk:River_source which I copied across a few weeks/days ago. I copied them across diff-by-diff by going through the history, and used a variety of accounts (randomly in the first, and more rigorously in the second), so hopefully that's a fairly accurate representation of how it might look (except for the clustered times).
Thanks again, –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute

Hi all can any interested editors comment on a dispute at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Ottoman Empire/Turkey. It started by using the term Turkish, as per all the sources used, for the forces of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. An explanatory note is included in the article explaining why Turkish is used. However one editor changed the words from Turkish to Ottoman, then acknowledged there was a consensus, if only a small one, for Turkish. Since then they have decided that using Turkish is against W:POV policy. Even when the Ottoman Empire article uses the same terminology. To stop a potential edit war and content dispute can more editors contribute to the discussion. Thanks.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Swings and roundabouts? — Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
There is an obvious misunderstanding here. The Anzac Mounted Division article deals with the period 1916 to 1919. During that time the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army ruled over a great deal of territory, which in 1916 extended to the border with Egypt just to the south of Rafa. The Ottoman Empire flourished between 1299 and 1923 this is what the country was called between those dates. The Ottoman Empire should be used as the name of the country as it clearly identifies the region during the First World War. Turkey would be perfectly correct in 1924, but this article is not about that later time when the extensive territories commanded by the Ottoman Empire came under the control of other countries. A comparison can be made with the British Empire which was not called the United Kingdom during the First World War for similar reasons.--Rskp (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Its an interesting problem for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that there are articles on here that are misnamed or incorrectly referenced over such matters, the three I can think of off the top of my head being the Iowa-class battleships (which properly speaking should be battlecruisers since they aren't armored to withstand their own 16"/50 guns), Japan (which refers to the modern nation of Japan, not the Empire of Japan, and yet most of the war articles dealing with Japan through WWII use the former instead of the latter), and in my case specifically UK (which is not the same thing as England apparently, yet I have no problem using the terms interchangeably, and I've been barked at for doing so a few times in contentious articles). WP:COMMONNAME suggests that the article should use the name most likely to be referenced, and I'd bet in this day and age that would by Turkey, while WP:MILMOS offers no clear guidance on the subject that I can see (though I must confess I looked only at the table of contents). I'd be inclined to favor Turkey over the Ottoman since I think Turkey would be more easily understood in today's time, though we need more participation here to reach a consensus to move forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no need for a consensus as this is a "the sky is blue" issue, relating to an article about an army unit which was operational almost 100 years ago, between 1916 and 1919. While the Ottoman Empire is old fashioned in 2013 terms, it was the name of the country at that time. Names of countries change along with borders and a degree of precision, can only improve the general readers, and military historians' understanding of the period and the conflict. --Rskp (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
All the same it can not hurt us all in the long run to discuss the merits of the larger issue presented. Today its the Ottoman Turkish Empire, tomorrow it could be the UK British Empire, or something similar. Finding consensus never hurts us in the long run. More over, this could be a trailblazing discussion since it has the potential to effect a number of articles here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In these type of disputes, it normally comes down to what do the sources use/say. All the British Empire official historians and other authors use Turkey/Turkish, not just for WWI but in the Crimean War and time periods before then. As do the Germans (there allies in WWI) and the only English language book about the subject, Ericksons Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War uses Turkish and even says in the preface "This book is about the Turkish Army". Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Can it be clarified what is meant by "There is no need for a consensus as this is a the sky is blue issue". As I have no idea what that is supposed to mean and if its a policy can someone signpost to towards it? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In summary it simply means that the editor in question feels its common knowledge that this is a fact, and therefore needs no discussion or summary, just as it is common knowledge that the sky is blue, and would therefore not need any citations to back up the claim. The relevant policies/guidelines here would be WP:V and WP:OR, specifically Wikipedia:Common knowledge, with a supporting role from the essays Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue (and yes, the irony of the essays as it relates to this post is not lost on me). TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
"UK... is not the same as England apparently". I'm not surprised you've been barked at! Ranger Steve Talk 10:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I routinely see "Turkish" and "Ottoman" used interchangeably in books on World War I. The thing is, the Ottomans were Turks, and English-speakers at the time routinely called them Turks. Were all subjects of the Ottoman Empire Turkish? No. Does it matter? No. "Turk/Turkish/etc." is a convenient shorthand that everyone understands to refer to the state that existed from 1299 to 1923. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom describes England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and I guess the channel islands etc. while British Empire incorporated Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and etc. It would be imprecise to refer to the United Kingdom in articles which are concerned with describing events which occurred during the British Empire. The reverse would be true. The Ottoman Empire should be treated in a similar manner so that a neutral balance of opinion is maintained in Wikipedia articles. --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

PS I suggest editors click on the link to Ottoman Empire to find out what this discussion is all about. --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, there were plenty of Arab troops that served in the Ottoman army, they certainly weren't Turkish. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
"It would be imprecise to refer to the United Kingdom in articles which are concerned with describing events which occurred during the British Empire." – This is a whopping strawman argument, because it never happens. The United Kingdom was the "seat of power" during the majority of the British Empire's existence due to prominent monarchy such as George III, Queen Victoria, etc, but no one, to the best of my knowledge, uses "British Empire" and "United Kingdom" synonymously. During an event such as the American Revolution you might expect the Colonists to refer to the "United Kingdom", "Great Britain", "England", the "King of England" or simply the "throne" or "crown" in reference to the authority preventing independence, but not the entire "British Empire", and contrary to your statement, this would be precise – it is not difficult to differentiate an empire from the countries within it or its centre. Also, you forgot about Wales, and a reading of United Kingdom's lead tells you that "Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man are Crown dependencies and are not part of the UK." Best heed your own advice, Roslyn: "I suggest editors click on the link" and get a better background before making incorrect comparisons. Most people refer to Redcoats as "the British", despite the fact that their soldiers were recruited from all over the place. Most of "the British" redcoats at Battle of Waterloo weren't even British. Does anyone take offence? No, not really, the term "British" isn't derogatory so it can't be equated with "Turkish". To suggest that the Ottoman Empire be treated like the British Empire is hogwash, because no one treats the British Empire in the manner you suggest, making it a strawman, i.e. you're requesting a compromise based on a fallacy. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 13:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
And while we're on the topic of clicking on articles, you might try reading through the first sentence in the Ottoman Empire article you suggested we all read. It contains the following clause: "sometimes referred to as the Turkish Empire or simply Turkey". You might then continue to the "Name" subsection, which repeats this fact.
As Marcus pointed out, nobody does use "Great Britain" to refer to other parts of the British Empire. But, as I and others have pointed out, LOTS of people do use "Ottoman" and "Turkish" interchangeably. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As well as all the above there is a referenced note in the article in question to clarify the use of Turkish. At the time of the First World War, the modern Turkish state did not exist, and instead it was part of the Ottoman Empire. While the terms have distinct historical meanings, within many English-language sources the term "Turkey" and "Ottoman Empire" are used synonymously, although many academic sources differ in their approaches. The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey". Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The World War One Source Book by Philip Haythornthwaite, a fairly well known historian, mostly of Napoleonic, has in its Index: "Ottoman Empire, see Turkey". The main entry on Turkey, spanning pages 299–305, refer to the "Turkish forces", "Turkish soldier", "Turks", "Turkish Navy", "Turkish Army", a "Turkish War Medal" (which can be found at Gallipoli Star (Ottoman Empire) but this book states that describing it as the "Gallipoli Star" is "erroneous" – one of you WWI buffs might want to investigate that claim and look to moving the page, if necessary), and there is one mention of a destroyed "Ottoman fleet" dated to 1853 rather than WWI, which I'll include for completion. Aside from that usage, which may not be relevant to the WWI period, and mention of Turkey recovering "Ottoman territory" from Russia for Islam, there is no other mention of "Ottoman" anything, only "Turkish". Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The Ottoman were Turks. We must not use Ottoman in a way that suggests the Ottomans were something else. The official name of the Empire was Ottoman Empire and this should be used as such. Otherwise, we might as well follow the sources and use Ottoman and Turkish interchangeably. I don't like the neologism "Anatolian Turkish" at all; many Turks did not (and do not today) live in Anatolia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It should not be overlooked that the Ottoman Army was made up of soldiers from all the regions which today are Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Israel etc. Using "Turkey" glosses over the extent of the Ottoman Empire, even at this late stage in its more than six century history from 1299 to 1923. --Rskp (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually live in an area formerly ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and locally published sources use terms such as Ottoman Empire, Turkish Empire and Turkey interchangeably to refer to the state of the period, ditto for Ottoman or Turkish armies or garrisons - even though those certainly included troops raised locally. In my view, as long as the context clearly identifies what the term refers to, there's no actual problem with interchangeable use of such terms.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
But the British Army was made up soldiers from all over the world too, non-UK soldiers, and has been right back through history; are we also to assume that the term "British Army" in virtually all the war articles on Wiki, given that we've been in so many conflicts, glosses over them too? I think you're missing the point; you seem to be acting like there is some conspiracy to "reclassify" the Ottomans as Turks. Clearly this is not the case. Mehmed V was a Turk, as Sultan the Ottoman Empire was ruled by him much as someone like George III ruled the British Empire. Just because all the subjects are not British or not Turkish doesn't mean we can re-designate them to the "Multi-cultural Empire of Turkey". The term "Ottomans" and the term "Turkish" relate to the recognised forces as a whole, usually based on where the seat of power lies, not some politically correct socio-economic recognition of all conscripts. It's a consensus that has clearly been established by a vast number of sources, including recognised historians as well as official records. Why can't you accept that? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I see no issue with following the sources and referring to them as "Turkish forces", it's just that where the sources state a unit was an Arab one etc, that should be noted where relevant. I think this is just a continuation of the "battleground" approach seen with the "ANZAC/Anzac Mounted Division". Can we just reflect the sources and move on to creating content? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What is being overlooked here is that it was the Ottoman Empire which was involved in the fighting. If "Turkish forces" is used then the article is claiming only soldiers from mainland Turkey were involved. However, it might be that they were Syrian or Palestinian soldiers under the command of a German general. Therefore "Turkish forces" would be incorrect. This issue has nothing to do with the ANZAC/Anzac Mounted Division. To conflate the two issues is completely incorrect. The only things they have in common are the Sinai and Palestine campaign, Jim Sweeney and names, on the one hand of a country and on the other a division. --Rskp (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
So, they have a lot in common... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 - Thats what I tried to do just reflect the sources but another editor refuses to accept it and tagged the article stating using Turkish is WP:POV and refuses to drop the stick. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't doubt it, Jim. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Roslyn can't hold an article hostage indefinitely with "POV" tags, when clearly a great number of sources use "Turkish" terms. At the end of the day we're a bunch of amateur historians editing some freebee website, many of the sources are by paid historians who do years of dedicated research all round the world and then have it scrutinised by publishers taking a risk that it will sell. I know who my money is on. I'm also surprised to see Roslyn cherry-picking their responses here. They keep on insisting that "Turkish Army" is POV because the army drew from other nations, yet repeatedly fail to answer why the "British Army" is in the same position most of the time yet does not need revising. I think this is just a bitter argument between Jim and Roslyn, with Roslyn refusing to drop the stick despite the over-whelming evidence against them. I motion that this is clearly Tendentious editing and Roslyn's fixation on maintaining circular arguments by repeating the same nonsense like a parrot is intentionally hampering productivity. I'll follow with a break and a !vote, as it's time to conclude this matter, this thread is almost 2 weeks old and going nowhere. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the whole thing be settled by putting a footnote in the article explaining a short history of the change from "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey and when it happened. The average reader of the article is not going to care one way or another and probably wasn't around in 1924 anyway. In writing articles, I often find some sources that will cite something as happening and another source that says something different...both being what one would consider good reliable sources. The way I resolve this is to put both facts in a footnote saying that sources differ on the subject and move on. I realize that this is a different situation, but in many peoples minds the terms "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey" when referring to that period of time are somewhat interchangeable. I agree with Marcus British that it is time to move on and everyone get back to what we are really here for...here's a clue...it isn't for arguments. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
See ANZAC_Mounted_Division#cite_note-2. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The note says The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey". Almost all citations are based on works of Gullet, Powles and Preston, written in period 1921—3. Before Republic of Turkey was established. Taking in consideration WP:MODERNLANG essay I am uncertain if predominant usage of Turkey in this three sources is appropriate basis for terminology in 21st century internet encyclopedia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I trust that I do not need to state any of the facts here. We all know what "Ottoman" and "Turkish" mean, presumably. For that reason, I strongly prefer the term "Ottoman" in most cases—because we cannot assume that our readers know the difference between Turkey/Turks and Ottoman Empire/Ottomans. There were many competing ideologies at the time of the war—Turkish nationalism, pan-Turanianism, Ottomanism, pan-Islamism, Arab nationalism—and in light of post-war events, the most neutral term available is "Ottoman". Edward Erickson, in the definitive work on Turkey's war, justifies his use of the terms "Turkish", "Turk", etc., but curiously reverts to "Ottoman" when describing the Armenian genocide. Perhaps it was neutrality he was after. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It would seem we also have articles on the Greco-Turkish War (1897), Italo-Turkish War (1911–1912), which obviously pre-dates the First World War. Then there is the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) before the modern state of Turkey came into existence. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention the dozen Russo-Turkish wars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
And another five involving Austria - Austro–Turkish War (1526–1552), Austro–Turkish War (1566–1568), Austro–Turkish War (1663–1664), Austro–Turkish War of 1716–1718, Austro–Turkish War (1787–1791). Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Good point. In all those articles Ottoman Empire is referred to as Ottoman Empire. Just like in Military of the Ottoman Empire and in articles within Category:Military of the Ottoman Empire. The term used to refer to the war is different from the term used to refer to the Ottoman Empire and its forces. It is interesting that editors who are opposed to the consistency are attempting to justify pro-Turkish position with usage in other articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator - you've missed the point. Those wars illustrate the fact that "Turkish" and "Ottoman" are very widely used interchangeably long before 1923. In other words, English-speakers have been referring to the Ottoman Empire as "Turkish" for centuries. Both terms are eminently suitable for use in any article (which is to say, there is no need for a hard and fast rule one way or the other). Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is about appropriate terminology for Ottoman Empire and its forces in one article. Pointing to titles of articles about wars does not illustrate your position here because they actually:
  1. show common names of wars, which is not the issue here.
  2. consistently refer to the Ottoman Empire and its forces as Ottoman.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Please listen to what I am saying. The issue here is not the consistent use of one word over the other. The issue is in fact whether "Turkish" and variations thereof are acceptable to refer to the Ottoman Empire and agents thereof. As has been amply demonstrated, "Turkish" has been used in English for centuries, and it should not be deprecated because one editor things it's biased. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Certainly that's what a lot of people are talking about, but it shouldn't be. Of course "Turkish" is acceptable, but so is "Ottoman". Sources upon sources could be cited to back this claim up (and have been), but so what? We still have to use one or the other in any given instance. The question is which is best, which varies from case to case. We cannot just rely on how often something is used in the sources for this. The case of "Russian" vs "Soviet" for World War II is comparable. I, who prefer "Ottoman" generally, also prefer "Soviet", and for the same reasons. (But again, it varies from case to case. There are reasons preferring "Ottoman" for the military of the post-Tanzimat empire that don't apply, say, to the Ottoman forces that threatened Europe in the 17th century.) Srnec (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I may not have made my point but those were examples of the wider use of Turkey in WPMILHIST. All Before Republic of Turkey was established Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you used wrong examples which show common names of wars which is not the issue here. This discussion is about term which should be used for Ottoman Empire and Military of the Ottoman Empire.
I would also like to clarify my position in this Ottoman vs. Turkish dispute which I already presented it at article's talk page (diff). Unless there is some specific reason (which I don't think exists in the case of ANZAC Mounted Division article) I strongly prefer consistent usage of the term "Ottoman" for Ottoman Empire and Military of the Ottoman Empire both across wikipedia and within articles because it is widely used in reliable sources and meets all WP:NAMINGCRITERIA criteria, unlike Turkey/Turkish.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
OK can you provide some examples of reliable English sources where Ottoman is used for the Sinai and Palestine or even the Gallipoli campaigns. The British, Australian and all the New Zealand official historians use Turkish. As do several other English language authors, even official German sources use Turkish. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That's too easy. Try Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I by the aforementioned Erickson. The question isn't whether one term or the other is "correct". Both are acceptable. The question is which is best. "Ottoman" is best because it is unambiguous. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm probably out of line here, but why not at the beginning of the article simply write "Ottoman Turks" in the article. Once "Ottoman Turks" has been established then throughout the rest of the article simply use "Turks" as a simplified term. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Turks in that sense would be an over-simplification, as it would be standing in place of all the different peoples who were part of the Ottoman Empire. --Rskp (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Srnec good example that book uses Turkish - Turkish Front etc 111 times and Ottoman 55 times. Kansas Bear - There is already a note added after first use of Turkish explaining its use. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Consensus appears to support (a) removing the POV dispute tag from ANZAC Mounted Division, and (b) the continuing use of "Turkish" where context is clearly in favor of the term. Given the abundance of reliable sources supporting the use of this term, and also given the explanatory footnote clarifying usage in the particular article at hand, this term cannot be said to be Non-NPOV per se or inherently. Additionally, a supermajority of supports exist towards a consensus that reliable English-language sources regularly use the term "Turkish" to refer to soldiers from the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, and thus the term should continue. Cdtew (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This is a support/oppose vote to a) remove the POV dispute tag from ANZAC Mounted Division b) continue the use of "Turkish" over "Ottoman" where context is clearly in favour of this term.

  1. Support – Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support - seems to be a strong consensus that "Turkish" is perfectly fine in this context and in line with the sources. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support no surprise. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support where no more specific term is used by the majority of sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Mild Support with the proviso that the difference in names cited by sources be footnoted...as "Some sources refer to this as the Ottoman Army...blah...blah...blah...and others use the term Turkish Army...blah...blah...blah." Cuprum17 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Cuprum17 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Looking over the discussion above and the one at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Ottoman Empire/Turkey, Roslyn does not appear to have provided ANY example sources using "Ottoman" instead of "Turkish", compared to a ton of examples provided by Jim and others, so it's currently an unsupported personal view. The footnote you suggest may give undue weight to a minority view; and given that there are probably a handful of articles on the Ottoman Empire's involvement in WWI this would not be a practical solution. Thought it would seem for the disputed article in question, AustralianRupert already provided the proviso you requested here and applied here. To be honest, the "controversy" expressed appears to be entirely in Roslyn's mind, few seem to share it, so there's little point in indulging it with trivial footnotes. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    I stand corrected as I was not aware of the existence of the footnote. I like the manner in which Australian Rupert worded the footnote...a much more satisfactory approach to the question at hand. Thank you for your comment and explanation Marcus.Cuprum17 (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Comment Support for a), Oppose for b).. There was related discussion held in May this year (link) about usage of term Nazi. This term was extensively used to describe German forces and country during WWII although " there was never any country called "Nazi Germany,". The justification for such extensive usage was that it was frequently used by sources because it "has become a convenient shorthand term among historians and journalists for Germany as it was in 1933-45." The conclusion of this discussion was that "The expression "Nazi German" will not be used in Military History Project articles." I think that it is necessary to resolve this "Ottoman vs. Turkish" issue at the same way, consistently for all MILHIST Project articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    How exactly are you suggesting this is related, Ad? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    In both cases regular army is referred to with colloquial terms (Nazi, Turkish).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    "Nazi" is a socio-political term directly relating to the following of a fascist leader's party ideals, and many history books are careful to discriminate between Nazis and unaffiliated Germans; the mistakes that have been made on Wiki are usually the fault of editor misconceptions, not their sources. "Turkish" is a recognised term for an ethnic group, just like "British", and as has been said before, both the Ottoman and British empires were multi-cultural, and neither "British" nor "Turkish" can really be considered a derogatory or colloquial term given how wide-spread their use is. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    Depending on the context some words can have formal but also a colloquial meaning. This discussion is not about British ethnic group or fascist ideology but about the term used in ANZAC Mounted Division to refer to the regular army of the Ottoman Empire. I proposed to resolve this "Ottoman vs. Turkish" (forces, troops, army, units...) consistently, not just for this article, but for all MILHIST articles, just like above mentioned "Nazi German" issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    In the case of the "Nazi German" issue, it was a call to stop the blanket use of "Nazi" against virtually anything German, and was simple to resolve, but also a widespread issue on Wiki. In this case, we only have one editor (User:Rskp) with a grudge against "Turkish" being used, and we're talking about an empire, not a single nation, so the matter is more complicated, and different nations under the Ottoman Empire are likely to have presented different units. I think it would be going too far for MILHIST to set arbitrary designations for each and every Turkish unit.. there is no "consistency" because it's a matter of context, not as simple as saying German=Nazi regardless of the unit or man, because "Turkish" is being used differently, and there are no political ramifications. I don't agree with setting a precedence for "Ottoman" or "Turkish", it's a case-by-case matter reliant on sources and the context of the article in which the term is being applied. Clearly, if someone like User:Rskp were to take the piss and disruptively challenge each and every article using "Turkish" despite the sources provided we would look to ANI to consider a topic ban. You cannot simply request that we "resolve" the matter of Ottoman vs Turkish when you consider the simple fact that there have been NO sources presented above or on the article talk page which supports "Ottoman", only "Turkish" by a vast majority. What you're asking us for is to consider a "ban" of the word "Turkish" much like "Nazi German", with "Ottoman" taking its place; this goes against WP:NOTCENSORED and a multitude of verifiable reliable sources using "Turkish", and is therefore not a reasonable request, and unlikely to succeed. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    There are four points I would like to clarify here:
    • Consistency: "there is no "consistency" because it's a matter of context" - If editors here reach consensus not to have consistent terminology for the Military of the Ottoman Empire it would be consistently applicable to all articles about the Military of the Ottoman Empire. Wikipedia articles should be consistent both across wikipedia and within articles. If consensus is reached here not to have consistent terminology of the Military of the Ottoman Empire between the articles then it would be hard to justify consistent Turkish terminology within this particular article.
    • Context:I think that nobody yet presented valid and sourced arguments about the particular context in ANZAC Mounted Division article which would justify inconsistent terminology when it comes to Military of the Ottoman Empire (I sincerely apologize if I am wrong).
    • Sources, sources....: I think that most if not all support !votes here are based on the position "sources support the use of Turkey (and derivatives) in this context". What context? Has anybody researched sources before proclamation of Turkish victory? Just because the oppose party did not present a list of sources which support OE (with explanation based on its inherent SKY IS BLUE nature) that does not mean that sources do not use OE alternative. A quick GBS in case of Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire) (renamed to Turkish Fourth Army) in this article, shows that plenty of sources do support OE alternative. Turkish Fourth Army existed within Military of the Turkey (Timothy Edmunds; Marjan Malešič (1 January 2005). Defence Transformation in Europe: Evolving Military Roles. IOS Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-58603-541-9. The Turkish Fourth Army was equipped and deployed with a potential Aegean war with Greece in mind and John Malcolm Wagstaff (2002). Greece, ethnicity and sovereignty, 1820-1994: atlas and documents. Archive Editions. p. 111. ISBN 978-1-85207-895-9. the creation in1 975 of a new Turkish Fourth Army) so this unnecessary inconsistent and imprecise terminology could only mislead the readers.
    • WikiProject Ottoman Empire: I propose to consult members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire before making "final notes".
    Taking in consideration that term "Turkish" is not precise, but not inherently biased as it was before, I support removal of POV tag. Until sources are presented which support specific context of this article which requires use of Turkish instead of Ottoman term I am opposed to proposal b). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    "with explanation based on its inherent SKY IS BLUE nature" – I don't know whether you meant this from yourself or were citing Rskp's use of "sky is blue", but as I've explained to them already, it's utter nonsense. Very little in history is "blue". You CANNOT expect near to 100% people in the world to be aware of an empire which disappeared 90 years ago. There is nothing inherently "blue" about Ottoman history whatsoever. I imagine, in some parts of the world, there are people who never receive an education in such history and thus have never heard if them; I imagine there are many in the world who can't even tell you where Turkey is on a map, let alone its dead empire. I think this "blue" fallacy needs to be stopped, because it shows a complete misunderstanding of what WP:BLUE represents. Virtually ALL history needs sourcing, whether you're talking about someone as well known as Hitler, Jesus, the British Empire or the Founding Fathers.. there is certainly no room to suggest that something like Ottoman history, which hardly claim to have international significance, is common knowledge or anywhere close to "blue". If we begin to introduce anything in history as "blue" we simply introduce low-standards with regards to how people cite things, because people will assume that just because they come from a certain region and know their past, suddenly everyone will know it. That's not how the world works, and Wiki can't make exceptions for anyone anywhere. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I of course agree that term "Ottoman Empire" used to refer to the Ottoman Empire does not need to be cited, just like you don't cite that sky is blue.
    • I don't think that anybody addressed the points I presented above (I again apologize if I am wrong).
      • What is this specific context of ANZAC Mounted Division article mentioned in point b) of the proposal?
      • What sources support this specific context which requires use of term Turkish instead of Ottoman? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    "I of course agree that term "Ottoman Empire" used to refer to the Ottoman Empire does not need to be cited, just like you don't cite that sky is blue." – except that's not the point of this debate nor my comment, only your own ulterior motive to defame the term "Turkish" suggests it is. The debate at the ANZAC article is whether the Ottoman Army should be a referred to as "Turkish", nothing more; I see your off-tangent introduction of "ban the word Turkish across wiki" as WP:STONEWALLING the main focus of this topic, which is specific to the debate between Roslyn and Jim on one or two articles, but that's just me. You don't refer to an army by its Empirical name within the context if a battle situation, you refer to it by its most commonly-known national identity – Turkish Army, Turkish infantry, Turkish navy, etc. Just as you wanted "German soldiers" not "Nazis", these were "Turkish" soliders. You're obscuring the matter by assuming that the Ottoman Empire only has one name regardless of the manner in which it is being discussed, which is ludicrous. There are a ton of sources cited on the talkpage of the article in question.. I suggest you peruse them at your leisure to determine contextual relevance. I'm still waiting you to provide any sources that suggest that the word "Turkish" is both colloquial and derogatory, as these two words certainly represent a POV, but it only seems to be shared by you and Roslyn. Let's see some reliable sources on the matter shall we, instead of challenging the multitude of sources provided written by professional historians, I'd like you two amateur historians to show us some examples of "Turkish" being used in an anti-Ottoman manner. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 03:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support Seems acceptable. Intothatdarkness 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support It is clear that the sources support the use of Turkey (and derivatives) in this context. Zawed (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  9. Support the Ottoman Turks were an ethnic group that founded the Empire and ran it in 1914. A very important development in the decade before 1914 was that the "Young Turk" element came to power with the goal of minimizing non-Turkish roles. (for example, Greeks & Armenians were forced out of many private business they owned--see Erik J. Zürcher (2004). Turkey: A Modern History, Revised Edition. p. 126.) Historians have not had a problem with "Turkish" -- which covers the ethnic leadership (the generals), and the language of command of both the Empire and its army. The Arabs were under Turkish control & did not like it. Ditto the Greeks & Armenians. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  10. Support The Ottomans were Turks. I appreciate Rksp's point, but we don't have a term for all the citizens of the Ottoman Empire. This is not unusual. Even today there is scarcely a European or Middle Eastern country without an important ethnic minority. And in Turkey, there is a deliberate policy of posting soldiers to areas far from where they come. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    I would have said that "Ottoman" was a term for all the citizens of the Empire. See Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine by Michelle Campos. Yes, terms like "Hungarian" are ambiguous between the ethnic group and the nationality, but the term "Ottoman" (and "Ottoman citizen") was by the early 20th century certainly non-ethnic. See Ottomanism. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  11. Oppose the use of a colloquial term which covers up the diversity of the men who served in the Ottoman Army. They came from Turkey, certainly, but also from Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and from present day Israel.
    • Oppose the removal of the POV tag while the British Empire continues to be consistently referred to, but the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army are not, and while the 5th Mounted Brigade is consistently referred to in full while the light horse and mounted rifles units are not.
    • Oppose as "the context is clearly in favour of this term" does not recognise "the sky is blue" status of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army. --Rskp (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    Your constant [mis]use of "sky is blue" is a WP:DEADHORSE, or as I prefer to say, you're riding a bike with flat tyres. WP:BLUE means stating the obvious, and given that you still haven't provided a single source to back up your "Ottoman" claim, it remains unobvious as to where draw your conclusions and is therefore NOT blue! As a result, the POV is yours to support, not ours: the burden is yours, you challenged "Turkish" and a dozen sources have been given, now it's your turn to source "Ottoman" as legitimately. Until then you're facing a considerably consensus against you here, virtually a WP:SNOW storm, which will be closed in time, not dragged on for weeks.
    On 11 November 2013 your edit summary read "reinstate tag the use of Turkish is POV", therefore we can take it for FACT that the tag applies to the use of "Turkish" and that your comment above with regards "the 5th Mounted Brigade" is an attempt to drop a fly in the ointment or make a WP:POINT. Articles may not be held hostage based on false assertions, and if the consensus of this !vote favours its removal you will just have to bite a bullet and accept it. It is clear from the discussion at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#POV that you seem intent on rabbiting the same opinion over and over, but you have not once cited any examples, given any sources, provided any evidence to favour any of the debates you're involved in. Jim has repeatedly asked you to review WP:POV guidelines, but I sense an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude as you simply come back bleating the same views without any signs of having read and understood what POV stand for in relation to your claims.
    Despite your background in WWI history, you either lack WP:COMPETENCE to handle Wikipedia, or simply enjoy your self-important WP:BATTLEGROUND position against Jim and members of MILHIST. Whatever it may be, the intention of this consensus is to put an end to the matter and closure to the ongoing war editing and tedious debate across that article's talkpage, ANI and here. Many of these amount to nothing more than WP:FILIBUSTER behaviour – repeatedly pushing viewpoints without bringing sources to back yourself up, and playing the victim when anyone from MILHIST gets involved being the biggest two concerns. I suggest you prepare yourself to cool down and learn some humility in your defeat.
    On a final note, I'd personally like to see you or Antidiskriminator provide a reliable source which clearly states that "'Turkish' is a colloquial term", as I'm having trouble believing that, and clearly so is everyone else. "Pommy" is a colloquial Aussie term for Brits, as you'll know and is supported by the OED's definition of Pommy. The same cannot be said for definition of Turkish however. I think you were grasping at straws by echoing Antidiskriminator's use of "colloquial", as I can't find one instance of you having ever used that word before now in other debates, so I doubt your sincerity more than your desperation to have the WP:LASTWORD as well as trying to WP:GAME the system with three "oppose" votes. You don't take us all for fools born yesterday do you? — Ma®©usBritish{chat} 03:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  12. Support Additionally "Ottoman" is not only more inclusive than "Turk", it is also underinclusive since it refers to one band of Turks, excluding, for example, Seljuk Turks. It is also a dynastic term, referring to the descendants of Osman who ruled the empire and using Ottoman Empire rather than Turkey is akin to using Napoleonic Empire rather than French Empire. Either can be used, but there's no POV in the use. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


  • Question Should an edit notice be inserted into the article in question to explain the consensus reached here? It could help alleviate some of these issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Being the main editor, for now, of that article and others using Turkish etc I would say yes.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks closeable to me. Any uninvolved coord willing to do that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featured article candidacy

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II has been nominated for FAC. All comments are welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ninja#Gorbylev

I invite you to participate in the discussion. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"fighting machine"

The usage of Fighting machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and fighting-machine is under discussion, see talk:Tripod (The War of the Worlds). "fighting machine" is currently used for a real world military topic. "Tripod" is a science fiction topic. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Vitalian (general) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Vitalian (general); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Audie Murphy honors and awards needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Audie Murphy honors and awards; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Glina massacres needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Glina massacres; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Navarino

It would be appreciated if all vessels lost in the Battle of Navarino were added to the List of shipwrecks in 1827. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Intelligence and WikiProject Espionage

WikiProject Intelligence articles is getting mixed up with WikiProject Espionage articles. For example there are several articles that have WikiProject Intelligence on it's talkpage, yet when in editing, it comes up as WikiProject Intelligence. This has me confused. I realized that WikiProject Intelligence is part of the WikiProject Military History, how could someone differentiate between "Intelligence" gathering such as people, and agencies ... and people and agencies who are into "Espionage"? That is my question. In some cases there is both WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence, therefore listing the article as having two WikiProject Espionage and not having "Intelligence" in the WikiProject Military History. That is the only outcome I could see is adding WikiProject MILHIST to the talkpage and leaving articles that are related to espionage and/or intelligence having "Intel" selected for the WP:MILHIST and having WikiProject Espionage as a separate one. Adamdaley (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what I mean: Talk:Christian Andreas Käsebier. Is he notable for only intelligence or notable for espionage? There are plenty more with this error. Adamdaley (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Espionage seems a rather narrow topic for an entire Wikiproject, especially as many of the most successful "spies" of the last 70 years have been signals intelligence analysts and code breakers working out of fairly comfortable and entirely safe offices. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You have a point there. In the end, people such as Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher during World War II and "Cold War" can be classed as "espionage" since people don't really get convicted of "intelligence". While I do know however there are Agencies which have WikiProject Intelligence, which in this case is correct, they do collect intelligence. However how many agencies are convicted for espionage? Really, they want the intelligence in the end. In the end, I'm just trying to clear up this incorrect type of banner which gives a false reading since WikiProject Intelligence comes up as "WikiProject Espionage". Of course this could be easily put under WP:MILHIST banner as "Intel" which of course makes more sense instead of having WikiProject Intelligence banner separately, how active is that WikiProject? Adamdaley (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

talk:Minesweeper (ship)#Requested move 2

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation question, HM Marine Forces/Royal Marines

A question on the correct disambiguation for biographical articles on Marine officers and other ranks who sailed with the First Fleet to Australia in 1787-88. They were members of what later became known as the Royal Marines, but it was only styled as that name from 1802. Per the article on History of the Royal Marines between 1755 and 1802 (the relevant period of service for First Fleet Marines) it was known as "Her Majesty's Marine Forces." So should the disambiguation for these articles be:

  • John Smith (Royal Marine) - the best known name and the one used on the few pre-existing articles for these marines, but historically inaccurate;
  • John Smith (HM Marine Forces) -- historically accurate but a bit clunky;
  • John Smith (Marine) - the simplest option but open to confusion with the US Marines; or
  • John Smith (British Marine) - a catchall, but less accurate than the second option above.

Any of them is fine by me, but as there will likely be about 15 of these articles I'd like to get some views on a standard name. Euryalus (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

John Smith (British Marine) before 1802, John Smith (Royal Marine) after 1802 would seem logical, with John Smith (U.S. Marine) if needed. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles on air aces

Two AfDs which are relevant to the project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur William Hammond‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Victor Gascoyne. They raise wider issues. Essentially, should we be keeping articles on air aces who are only notable for being air aces? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The requirement to have a standalone article is notability as determined by having a couple or more people write about you at length (summarizing the GNG there a bit). If there are articles that don't have that coverage, they go and if they have the sources they stay - whether they are of a pilot or a pieman. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Being a flying ace establishes notability in and of itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That's been my understanding as well, I think the question is whether we have sufficient reliable sources to verify that they were aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. However both of these articles are in need of an expansion Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't give ace as an example of those who "almost always have sufficient coverage". Is there a specific discussion of aces? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't, but it is still clearly accepted practice to keep articles on all aces, whether they are notable in another way (e.g. through number of decorations, later achieving high rank or becoming notable in civilian life) or not. Wikipedia does sometimes establish de facto notability for a class of articles in this way, as per the accepted practice of keeping all articles on secondary schools. Despite being constantly challenged by a handful of editors, the de facto consensus of notability has not yet come close to being overturned. This seems to be a similar situation, where it has become accepted practice to keep all articles on a particular subject. Putting articles up for deletion piecemeal serves no useful purpose in my opinion. The issue does merit discussion though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
re MILPEOPLE, I still fail to see why we regard a footballer with one professional game or a very minor rapper as unchallengeably notable, yet not someone awarded a George Cross. I can see the Waily Fail editorial now: Foul-mouthed rapper awarded a featured biography but Wikipedia declares our centenarian Great War heroes as not "notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
MILPEOPLE is a guide "to provide recommendations regarding the notability of topics" and specifically references the GNG - which is what AFDs are suppposed to be measured against - saying "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Perhaps in other areas of Wikipedia, less challenge of borderline notability goes on; doesn't mean we should be less thorough. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
We do regard someone with the George Cross (or the Victoria Cross) as unchallengeably notable, as a recipient of the nation's highest award for non-combat (or combat) gallantry! We also regard someone with two or more DSOs, CGCs, DCMs, CGMs or GMs as notable. We do not regard someone with a single second- or third-level decoration as automatically notable, however, as there are hundreds of thousands of them around the world. Personally, I believe anyone with three should be considered notable, as that is pretty unusual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
MILPEOPLE is specific that as the GC (not the VC) is the second-highest award for valour, multiple awards are needed. We've also had at least one AfD where the subject of the article didn't have two DSOs, they had "a DSO and bar" instead(sic). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Although the GC is worn after the VC, both are first-level awards and therefore qualify as the highest award for gallantry. The only difference is that one is for combat gallantry and the other for non-combat gallantry. No British medal or honour is technically "equal" to any other: all have their unique place in the order of precedence and wear. If you took the line of reasoning that you seem to be taking, then (pre-1993) the Military Cross would be the fifth highest award for gallantry and the Queen's Gallantry Medal the fifteenth! Whereas in fact both are third-level decorations and awarded for a similar level of gallantry. The Distinguished Service Order would be the third highest award and the Distinguished Conduct Medal the eighth (inferior to the MC): in fact, both are second-level awards, and are therefore awarded for a higher level of gallantry than third-level decorations. This is merely a peculiarity of the British honours system. The spirit of WP:SOLDIER is clearly that an individual needs one first-level award or two second-level awards for notability, not one VC or two GCs (nobody has ever won the latter in any case). All GC winners already have articles on Wikipedia, incidentally. "DSO and bar" effectively means "two DSOs". They are the same thing. A bar simply means the award has been made twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As the instigator of this discussion, I feel I should add a little background. I listed for A Class Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_World_War_I_aces_credited_with_5_victories. The assessors adjudged five aces as being listed with insufficient sourcing, and thus lacking proof of acedom. I took that as a mandate for Afd, and subsequently listed the five (including the two above) for deletion.
When I began writing these flying aces' biographies five years ago, there was a notability screening for aces, though I can no longer find it. The consensus reached at that time was that an ace had to have been honored a la WP:ANYBIO in addition to being credited with five or more victories. I have backed that through the years with an editorial decision for victory lists—that victories must be proven with date, location, and foe vanquished for each victory. This conservative decision was designed to cut down the number of articles needed. I have created 939 new articles about aces, and other editors have done about 500. About 450 remain uncovered because no honors have been found for them.
I hold no brief for any particular set of rules for notability among aces. I do believe there should once again be a specific notability screen for aces. Let me note that World War I had about 1,850 aces. The total number of aces for World War II must run well into the five figures; I have seen a claim that the Russians alone had 3,200 five victory aces in that war.
Then there are all those other wars. If acedom alone should become the default notability screen, there are a whole lot of articles waiting to be created. Of course, even with screening, there are a lot unwritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_122"