Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 90

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can someone add at least a short section on military brats other than the US term to this article? The article SHOULD be at Military brat; but because some editors were too lazy back in 2007 to do any research and add in something other than the US term, it has been stuck with this stupid disambiguation at the end since December 2007. The people on the talkpage oppose a move because with their basic reasoning being they are too lazy to globalize the article and don't want the globalize tag added to the article (since that might cause the article to lose its FA status). Please support the current move request and/or add in at least a brief section (even just 1 paragraph) on non-US uses for the term. TJ Spyke 02:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Feel free to do it yourself. 2) There's absolutely no need to call editors "lazy". 3) Please don't canvass for support on your proposal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Lewis McGee is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not directly related to the project (sorry), but can someone confirm if the vehicle in this image is the BTR-80? I took this photo yesterday, but can't remember the name now :P ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No is not BTR-80. I think it is a BTR-80A - see File:BTR-80A(2).JPG.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for USS President (1800) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Cologne War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Inner German border is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a mind-bendingly good article. REALLY superb. TAKE A LOOK at it! Very impressive. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to comment on the factual accuracy of the article, but I concur with Auntieruth55, most certainly A-Class or FA material. Farawayman (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Delville Wood has been open for the last few days; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! (Kiril forgot to list this one!) Farawayman (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Nintendo DSi, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! « ₣M₣ » 02:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Arrow (missile) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for AH-56 Cheyenne is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the great assets of this project is the amount of departments it has, appealing to many editors. But I recently came up Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Collaboration, which has been inactive since April 2007 (see [1]). Judging by this thread, the mothballing COTW/F was shut down in favor of the contest department. But I believe they are quite different beasts.

A collaboration can be used for a couple of things. For one, articles of great importance take much effort to improve, not only because of their size, but because of opposing viewpoints. Also, this would serve to attract new editors to the project, as many have specific skills (references, copy-editing, MoS) but have difficulty improving article to good of featured standards.

The COTW/F was closed because of inactivity, but with nearly 1,000 active members, that should not be a problem. Coordination would be easy; I will if no one else will, but with 14 project admins, someone should be able to lend a hand. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a fine idea. As you say, the project is big enough to support both the Contest Dept and a Collaboration Dept. May I suggest that you see what broad support there is for this before re-activating Collaboration?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why started this thread, not only to gain a consensus and gage interest, but because very few people would see a post on the COTW/F talk page. Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a feasible idea, depending on how many people we can find who are interested in participating, at least on topics they are interested in/knowledgeable about. – Joe N 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking to guage opinion: I would be most willing to participate. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the CotF was not outright inactivity per se—certainly, people seemed willing to participate—but rather ineffectiveness. If you look over the archive of old collaborations, they did not generally result in any significant improvement to the article. To some extent, this is inevitable; while the project has a large membership, it also has an extremely broad scope, so most topics will actually have relatively few people interested in them.

My concerns are basically twofold.

• First, how will we motivate a broad range of editors to participate on a regular basis, and to a sufficient degree that the effort of running the collaboration is worth the output? Getting a dozen copy-editors and wiki-gnomes to sign up won't be helpful if there's nobody writing the content, for example.
• Second, how will the articles be selected? The method used in the past—open nominations and voting—tended to produce a lot of very obscure articles, which compounded the effectiveness problems.

I don't think it's a good idea to reactivate the collaboration department unless we can come up with good answers to these issues; otherwise, we're simply going to be repeating our own past mistakes. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly there is a need for a collaboration "clearing house" but I'm not sure a separate project is the answer to it. I've been trying to get someone to collaborate on a couple of projects with me for a while, but without results.

• Collaboration I: I tweaked the article Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) some time ago, removing the citations for 1632 and replacing a lot of them with non-fiction, but the material in there on military theory, history of tactics and strategy, etc., is beyond my ken, and I don't have time to get an education in it right now. But for someone else, it would nearly on the top of their head, or the tip of their fingers, so to speak. I can fix edit problems, but I cannot make up text about something like this, at least not specifically, and I don't have the sources for citations. I have a note on it on my page but didn't expect anything to come of that, and nothing has.
• Collaboration II: Based on a request on the Germany project page, I translated a very brief article on the Cologne War from the German wiki into the english one. It is now at B status, and waiting for a map, which is in the works. There are a slug of small battles/sieges that need to be done. Unfortunately, there are almost no sources in English, but there are some late 19th/early 20th century sources in German which are fairly detailed--in the way of that era's military history literature. ‎JN has indicated an interest in it but is busy with non-wiki life, and I MUST finish my dissertation this month. The potential collaboration came about because JN and I have worked together getting a couple of articles through to FA -- Unification of Germany and Hermann Detzner. Based on her/his responses in review phases, I found JN reliable and good to work with, so I ventured to ask about collaborating on a couple of articles. This seems to be a good way to get a collaboration partnership started, but it is limited.
• collaboration versus contest. It seems to me that the contest is designed to avoid collaboration, except at the peer review stage. Is there a way to work collaboration into the contest? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Parsecboy (talk · contribs) and I have collaborated on several articles; we've just entered the articles into the contest under both of our names. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To reply to Kirill's second point, we could use articles that are involved in the Special projects, but not getting done - for example, of our Ten most viewed pages, only one is above B-Class. We could have the collaboration focus on some of these pages and some other pages currently involved in improvement drives - WWI and battleship pages, for example, at least for starters. – Joe N 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill in that most WikiProject collaborations tend to peter out, leaving the selected pages improved relatively little. Of course, with more strict requirements it might work. For example, ask that users who nominate/vote on a proposal do their part in working on the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a different approach to collaboration is required. Instead of the standard "Alright people, we are going to focus on Article X for Y amount of time, get into it", the "Collaboration" could be a noticeboard of requests for help on articles where certain aspects are outside of the primary editor's knowledge... like a content-focused version of the various services offered by the logistics department.

As an example, I'm currently fiddling with an article for the Experimental Military Unit, a joint United States Army/Royal Australian Navy helicopter company during the Vietnam War. I can write the Australian parts of the article fine (because thats where my expertise lies), but I wouldn't know where to find reliable sources on the US component, and because of this, the article is quite unbalanced. Another example would be someone who knows a lot about museum ships wants to improve article on USS Intrepid (CV-11) or HMAS Vampire (D11) to A-class or beyond, but needs a hand making sense of, say, naval operations or the layout of ship articles on Wikipedia.

An editor would leave a request at Collaboration identifying the article and their intentions (flesh out both sides, take to A-class, etc), and specify what needs to be done, what they can do, and what they need assistance on. Editors interested in those areas who feel they can help would contact the request-leaver, and between them they would work together on achieving the set goal at their own pace.

Any thoughts? -- saberwyn 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea. The problem might be, I use the word might, that people wouldn't check the page unless they needed something, rather than if they wanted to help. There is something similar to that on the map help page.

Another possibility might be to make a "category" sign up, and let the person who needs help contact someone who seems like a possible match? For example, I might list myself under copy editing, context (big picture history stuff), and Parsecboy might say he's ships and such, and JN might say, German translations and copy editing, and then if someone needs one of us in particular, they could hit our talk page. We might have some general topics, like time periods, or types of warfare, that sort of thing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it were simply a listing by interest, then it would pretty much be redundant to the existing task force membership lists (for topical interests) and the logistics department (for administrative ones); I don't think that adding another page where people could list what they'd be willing to work on would really benefit us.

I do like Saberwyn's idea, though; if we simply run a collaboration department as a content-oriented parallel of the logistics department, rather than as a single-article collaboration, then we remove the problem of selecting individual articles and trying to motivate people with no interest in those topics to work on them.

As far as getting people to participate, one easy way of motivating them might be to ask everyone who lists an article for collaboration to contribute to an article already listed. Granted, some people won't, or will be unable to find an article where they can help; but I suspect that a large proportion of people will be happy to help out under such an arrangement. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

One other idea we might consider along this same vein would be to turn the logistics department into the collaboration department by simply adding one or more sections for requesting content help. Given that the two formats are pretty much identical, it may be more efficient to combine all the different requests for assistance into a single department rather than splitting them by content versus logistics.

Taking this one step further, we could change the structure of the logistics department from having sections for each type of assistance, to a single list of articles with tags for particular areas (e.g. "needs image help", "needs citation help", "needs linguistics help", etc.). This might make it easier to ask for help in several areas, although it might also make the tracking more complicated. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

← So, any other thoughts on how we should move forward? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. From time to time I've been looking to add to the number of article related to the above, thus far creating Operation Camargue (now an FA) and both Operation Brochet and Operation Hirondelle, René Cogny, To Vinh Dien and Martin Windrow. I was hoping that an informed user here could give me a list of the main French or Francophone historians to have covered the topic, other than Jules Roy and Bernard Fall (who I consider Francophon...ic?) Thanks in advance. SGGH ^ping! 13:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Le Thanh Khoi wrote a French book called Vietnam which was a very long history of all of Vietnam. He was pro-communist. Philippe Devillers wrote stuff about the fading away of French rule YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

For historical English books, The Struggle for Indochina (1940-55) by Ellen Hammer and Vietnam 1945 by David Marr give good accounts of the historical situation in VN. I guess Joseph Buttinger works as well. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hammer and Buttinger seem to have cultural ties to France, so I'll take a look at those two. Many thanks. SGGH ^ping! 09:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jean Chesneaux wrote a famed book on the FIW with a Marxist bent apparently. Devillers is anti-communist, according to the comments given in other books YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Nikita Khrushchev is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe N 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Military Unit infobox box it has an entry for battles. I have noticed though that many unit pages list operations or campigns and not battles. This seems to be a bit odd, as well as confusing. Is this correct?Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Without specific examples, I'm guessing that where a unit has taken place in a campaign but isn't recognised for a particular battle (eg by the award of a battle honour), the campaign/operation is listed instead. For Support Arm units such as engineers or signals, whose constituent elements may be involved in various places at once, listing individual battles may also be unrealistic. However, if you can provide sourced details and improve the articles in question, please do :) EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is tne one I noticed [[2]], but the reason I ask is that [[3]] has taken part in a lot of campigns but no major battles (after all both Iraq and Afganistan are small unit wars mostly), and a lot of peacekeeping (with no fighting). I think that soem kind of standerdiation is needed, either list battles or operations not both.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it cannot be both, like in the first article you linked for 2nd Battalion 8th Marines, this way the military theater or conflict could be included, and the specific battles could be included as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think that's why the infobox uses "Engagements" - so it can encompass battles, campaigns and/or operations as appropriate. If we insist on one type only from that list, we'd be excluding useful information from many articles. It's usually obvious which is which from the titles used. EyeSerene^talk 14:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any active editors for the Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present article? If there are is can someone let me know why the introduction and first paragraph of the first section crossed out? Is this vandalism or is this on purpose and done with consensus? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to Template:Campaignbox Iraq War. Should be fixed now. -- saberwyn 08:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Collins class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for John Kourkouas; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Dragon Quest, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with the Military history Wikiproject to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks!陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for HMS Graph (P715) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have come here requesting comment in order to resolve a dispute on Tom Derrick. The article includes a photograph of the subject's medals, and an editor made changes to the article in which he identified the medals actually contained in the image. I reverted on the basis that this is original research on the grounds that one is using their own identification skills to determine exactly what is in the image, rather than reliable sources. This led to a revert of my edit and a discussion on the talk page here. However, the discussion has stalled and appears to be going no where, so I wish to step back and request comment in order to resolve this as I have no desire to engage in an edit war, but also due to some rude comments directed at me on the talk page and in edit summaries. Anyway, any input to resolve this would be much appreciated, either here or on the article's talk page. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the guy correct? I read the talk, and despite his being a pain in the *, presumptuous, bombastic, and tactless in the bargain, is he right? Regardless of whether he is right, he was wrong to change it based on his visual identification. I'm not sure that qualifies as OR, but it does qualify as presumptuous, and it's not verifiable third-party source work. So, can you find a published source that allow you to correctly identify the medals? If so, then use that sources to visually identify the medals, and say that they were mis-identified in the "Diver" article, and cite the second source. But pdfpdf cannot change it just because he knows, or thinks he knows, it to be true. Regardless of whether he is an expert, his brain is not published. If you have a source that shows pictures of all the medals, and you can identify TD's medals based on that, then you can change the caption...correct the identification, and enter it into a comment footnote that says...blah blah misidentified the medals as..., but based on blah blah's pictures of the medals awarded in ***, his medals are as follows (l-r) ....blah blah. IMHO. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Auntieruth55. The medals and the user's identification of such actually seem to be correct. However, the argument is that it is original research to identify the medals in the article oneself due to the reasons explained above, and that no reliable sources have been presented by the user to support his claims. The original caption of the image just stated that it was Derrick's medal set, not what they were. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... if the identification is correct, what is wrong with including that in the article? It may technically be original research (I'm not taking an opinion on that), but if it is, I would argue that identifying the medals is certainly fine in the spirit of that policy or IAR. If the medals are easily identifiable, and there is no controversy that x medal in the picture is the "y star" or whatnot, use common sense and invoke IAR. If there is a controversy over which medal is which, ignore what I just said, because refs would obviously be needed. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the identification may not be correct. The identification may be correct, as I alluded to above, but I am not a medal expert, nor, do I think is the other editor. Additionally, this is a Featured Article that now includes original research, which should be referenced to reliable sources, and I'm not entirely sure you should be identifying medals in a caption like this, but this latter part is my opinion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is there another image that shows these same medals that could be used to identify them? Also, based on this image, I don't think it is OR—assuming that the medals can be identified by more than one person... —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made some comments at Talk:Tom Derrick#Let`s sort things out here. diff per Bryce's request. I also completely agree with Ed on this one. It should be able to be sourced. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied with my thoughts of resolution on the talkpage. It, of course, could be possible to find a reliable source with this information, but there is none that I possess or know of that does, though ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What little I have to add to what I've said earlier on the article's talk page is over there now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ed- if the identification is correct, where's the problem? This sort of petty rules-lawyering and arguing over (IMHO flawed) WikiPolicies is one of the many reasons why I don't contribute nearly as much to articles as I used to. Someone with some knowledge of a subject comes along, and instead of thanking them for their contribution and sharing of their knowledge, you're chasing them off because they haven't provided half a dozen peer-reviewed references on a comparatively minor subject. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I replied to Ed, I do not know if the identification is correct; which is part of the problem. In all fairness, I have put a lot of hard work, time and effort into this article to get it up to Featured level, which is why I have taken a strong stance on this and requested input from others. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic idea of identifying medals based upon photographic data doesn't seem to cross the OR line, as long as a reliable source is provided for the medals and the image is sufficiently good quality. I have doubts whether the low resolution version in the article is sufficient for such an endeavor. If no actual interpretive skill is involved it's comparable to reading a map. Durova³²² 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of me says that this isn't O.R. as the ribbons are clearly identified in the respective medal/ribbon pages which are linked to in the article (and comparison is easy to my myopic eyes), but then again it surely can't be too difficult to reference a published source which identifies the medals and ribbons, so that the unconvinced have something to check. There are God knows how many books on decorations out there chock full of information which would suffice. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's chiefly a matter of how one presents this within text to avoid overstating the matter. In a photograph from (specify date) he wore (specify ribbons).(cite photograph and cite military award reference) That much should be fine. The OR problem with this sort of thing would kick in if one tried to interpret beyond that. Durova³²⁵ 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bryce, perhaps you could find a set of images you could use to identify the medals, comparing medal to medal, and use that to source what the medals are. One statement, with citation, this is reported as his medal set. A second, statement, with citation, this is what these medals are. To simply eye the medals and say, that is this campaign, this other campaign, etc., based on what the other editor tried to do, cannot be sourced as it is: his brain/memory/visual recognition is not a reputable third party source. If you can find a book or magazine or Australian military website identification page that helps you establish this, then use it, identify the images. If your challenger gives you problems, then as a project, we can manage it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Been on the fence about how to express misgivings about the phrase "this is reported as his medal set". The passive construction implies that some third party source reported that, when in fact none did. Also medal set: do all Australian ribbons have corresponding medals? At best, the photo shows something about the ribbons he earned until the time the photograph was taken. He may have earned others during the final year of the war.

In some armed forces, a photograph of a servicemember does not necessarily reflect every ribbon or medal they've earned. For the country and branch I know best (US Navy) there are regulations for optionally wearing only the top three rows of one's ribbons, and career sailors often wear less (it becomes a bother to update the uniform with each new award). Also, a ribbon set is not necessarily an accurate summary of the actions a servicemember took part in. Unit awards may go to everyone who was assigned to a command within a particular time frame, including individuals whose orders sent them to that command after the event took place. Other times ribbon-worthy actions don't actually receive official recognition. So the safest way to express this is simply to say that in a photograph taken 14 June 1944 he wore (list the ribbons and cite). Durova³²⁵ 04:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming in a bit late... I see one other potential pitfall: trying to ID the ribbons from a photo to begin with. Unless pic is color & unless the ribbon design is distinctive (not always true in either case), even the best-intentioned may be getting it wrong. It strikes me we're better advised to rely on a bio to say what decorations were earned & leave off identifying them in (or from) pix. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a pitfall that does come into play. In the few images that Derrick is wearing ribbons, he is only wearing a couple as the majority of the service medals for the Second World War were not issued, of course, until after the war concluded, and Derrick was KIA in 1945. While attempting to sort this out on the talk page, we have requested that a reference be supplied for this information, though the editor who added the material has not posted. If a reference is not supplied, I think the best course of action would be to remove the caption on what the medals are altogether. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for British Army during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A member of the project, Tinucherian, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Tinucherian's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Inner German border is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from WP:FOOTY! I have just created an article on the Hungarian international footballer Béla Sebestyén (1885-1959). On my trail through Google, I found this site, which is about a Hungraian named Béla Sebestyén, born 1885, who was a Major General in World War Two; can anyone confirm is these people are one and the same? Many thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are, actually. On this page (which appears to be a listing of graves at Farkasréti Cemetery, if I'm not mistaken), there's a listing for a "Sebestyén Béla (tábornok [general]) 1885-1974"; the footballer, on the other hand, apparently died in 1959. Curious though it may be, it seems that we have two distinct people born in the same year with the same name, who are independently notable for different things. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking! Regards, GiantSnowman 11:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Operation Teardrop is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Armed Forces of Liberia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the currently open A class reviews and peer reviews would benefit from more reviewers. I'm sure that all comments (and votes for the ACRs) - no matter how brief - would be appreciated by the editors who have nominated these articles. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the only really decent source on this page is an online article by a WWII magazine, whose pedigree isn't exactly brilliant and the writing is rather poor. Are there any decent sources I could use to expand this article, or at least cite it properly? I tried looking for the biography of him, but came up with nothing. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

He's in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - a 2006 article under "Churchill, John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming [Jack] (1906–1996), army officer". Good chunks of our current article seem quite close to that, and I wonder if it's been used as an unrecorded source at some point in the past. Shimgray | talk | 18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll see if I can access that. That also answers my second question about notability; if he's in the ODNB that's a fairly good indicator that he's notable. Still, any more decent Reliable Sources would be nice. Skinny87 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please ping me if/when you expand and cite that. I read it awhile ago, and would welcome a chance to read a sourced version; a very interesting character, he was. Bringing a claymore and a bow to the land battles of the Second World War? —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of his actions and antics are well documented in Parker, John. Commandos: The inside story of Britain's most elite fighting force. 2000, Bounty Books, London. I will try to transcribe additional facts and cite those in the article which I can cross check against the book. Farawayman (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cheers, that'd be kind of you. I'll try and track down my own copy of that book. Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

References and odd bits of text added. Farawayman (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked at the article titled Poppy Day. It needs a lot of work, particularly due to the editorial debates on the talk pages. Is there any chance of getting this to FA status for publication on 11 November? Farawayman (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's not too bad, certainly. The debates on the talkpage are quite old, and it's not a hugely controversial subject. But November 11 is certainly pushing it, FAC can take upto a month. Skinny87 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

...which prompts the related thought, do we have a MILHIST FA we can put forward for Nov. 11? There's Western Front (World War I), but that's out due to having been featured already; Military history of Australia during World War II would probably work. The Disasters of War might be rather fitting if it's completed in time. British Army during World War I is A-class and could presumably be pushed to FA; Military history of Australia during World War I and Indian Army during World War I are both GA, which makes pushing up just about plausible with a concentrated effort. (A WWI-related article seems somehow more appropriate than a WWII-related one) Shimgray | talk | 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Brazilian cruiser Bahia is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Jarmann M1884 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for World War I is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Last spring, a List of naval commanders article was deleted. It came up in an AfD I'm now participating in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sea captains and I asked the closing admin to let me have a copy of the old article, which is now in my user space at User:JohnWBarber/List of naval commanders. It occurred to me that there may be some useful information for more limited lists of naval commanders, by war, era or nationality. One example of a list that seems useful is List of sea captains. If anyone wants to, they can build new lists out of the article now in my user space, but if no one tells me they have an interest, I'll be deleting it after a while. Either copy the information for notes in your own userspace or tell me on my talk page and I'll keep it for a while. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I see the article is also at Deletionpedia. [4] JohnWBarber (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for the WWI Battle of Delville Wood is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thx. Farawayman (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, not sure if this is the correct forum for this request, so apologies in advance if it's not. At WP:FEED a new user has requested a new article review of the above article. I chopped out a couple of unnecessary sections but have reached the limit of my knowledge. Further input requested and encouraged. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone, at Commons I'm currently uploading all images from the US Navy site. Maybe you guys are willing to help with categorization and adding these images to articles. More info at the Village Pump and the batch uploading page. Next up are the US Army and the Air Force. So plenty of new images :-) multichill (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of the Nile is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Winter War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A featured list candidacy for the above article has been opened at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS/archive1. All input is appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for USS Chesapeake (1799) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've opened a individual good article reassessment for Iron Mike at Talk:Iron Mike/GA1. It's in this project's scope, so anyone who wants to help out is welcome of course. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Battle of Bardia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good news: the Library of Congress is updating another bibliographic entry based upon my research. The new information should go live in a few weeks. Meanwhile I'm contacting their staff regarding followup. Possibly proposing a collaborative project involving the photography of Mathew Brady, who did extensive visual documentation of the American Civil War.

Looking for MILHIST members who would be interested in joining the undertaking. Photo editing skills not required (although a willingness to learn is helpful), but what's really needed is access to period reference books.

For instance the Library of Congress entry for John Surratt at right was dated "between 1860 and 1875" identified as "Son of Mrs. Annie Surratt, in uniform of Zouave, Egyptian Army. He was wearing this outfit when captured?"[5] Actually he was son of Abraham Lincoln assassination conspirator Mary Surratt who was executed in 1865. John Surratt fled to Europe and briefly served as a Papal Zouave before being identified and extradited in late 1866. The photograph was sold during his trial in 1867. After double checking the source Lincoln's Assassins: Their Trial and Execution by James L. Swanson and Daniel R. Weinberg, the library staff is narrowing the 15 year time frame to 1866-1867, correcting the uniform identification, and correcting his mother's name.

There are quite a few underdocumented or misdocumented items in the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs collection. It's fairly easy to submit corrections if one has the right reference sources. Seeking to do this on a coordinated basis as a team effort and to get a writeup at the Library of Congress website where they highlight active happenings at the Prints and Photographs division. If things go that far we can get other attention; I'll make sure that each active volunteer who wants credit gets credit. Ideally, a better working relationship between MILHIST and the LoC staff may make it easier to get digital images on a variety of military subjects when our project does featured article drives.

This is early notification and the time frame will probably stretch out over several months. Interested editors please contact me via user talk or email. Best regards, Durova³³³ 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I should access to stuff on the Civil War—if my memory is correct, NMU's university library has a complete set of orders from the war in book form. I should be able to check them for you if need be. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. The basic idea is to browse the Brady-Handy collection. Photography date ranges are usually pretty wide for that group and a lot of the subjects are famous enough to narrow down with a good reference source.[6] Durova³⁴² 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, can any interested editor comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan#Iowa class battleship Featured topic upkeep? Thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Ton That Dinh is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If one does a search on William Friedman on FreePatents online or Google Patents(?), one finds several cyphered patents that have remarkable Manhattan Project information. The patents include pictures on how to cut out the sheet and apply it over the text to read the cyphered text in plain english (sort of a slide rule/nomograpgh-cryptograph). These patents appear with application dates from 1934 to 1939, and some in 1928 to 1931. The legitimate patents are under William F. Friedman, while the bogus patents are under W. Friedman, I. W. Friedman, E. Friedman, and various anagrams and nom de plums. They are distinguished by 2 close filings on Saturdays or Wednesdays, and there is one patent application with a January 1 date, (ie. when the USPTO is closed!!). These are in fact the top secret (in plain view) Manhattan Project Bomb patents spoken of by Alex Wellerstein and the NPR!! Are these patents (with odd SHORT titles like: container, legging, bag, syringe, packet, packet and pad, toilet accessory, etc.), having patent numbers between 1,500,000 and 1,950,000. Are these the work of William F. Friedman, or the work of Captain Lavender and his atomic scientists; Fermi, Szilard, Compton, Lawrence, Morrison, Feynman, etc?

The list of patents with secret U.S. military value, will be added later, including E. REED (an anagram perhaps for a US department). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And Now, the patents: W. F. Friedman patents: 1516180, 1522775, 1530660, 1608590, 1694874, 1857374, 2028772, 2080416, 2139676, 2140424, 2166137, 2224646, 2395863, 2465367, 2518458, 2552548, 2877565, 6097812, 6130946

W. Friedman patents: 1577406, 1580030, 1626674, 1626927, 1630566, 1630566, 1634712, 1650703, 1652402, 1672519, 1681110, 1719428, 1733189, 1739634, 1743813, 1794602, 1814747, 1814749, 1815922, 1852455, 1854373, 1858218, 1887298, 1887299, 1895187, 1903357, 1949201, 1977183, 2072327, 2365494, 2677861, 2712652, 2836925

E., F., G., Isidor, H. Lois D., M., N. H., I.W., Samuel, William D., W.E., W.H., W.L. (etc.)…Friedman patents: 1358685, 1564056, 1653163, 1699105, 2011335, 2124551, 2359148, 2378072, 2440042, 2487797, 2544308, 2615214, 2637031 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The above patents may be confirmed or refuted through at least three patent search engines: http://www.google.com/patents, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html, and http://www.pat2pdf.org/ (they all use pdf formats).

70.52.212.244 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Gordon Jenkins c/o R.A.D.A.T. 76, ch. du Village, Luskville, QC J0X 2G070.52.212.244 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Jenkins for your heads-up on this. Are you planning to write this into any articles? Buckshot06(prof) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There are various articles on individual convoys of WWII. What is the consensus for having a template for each individual convoy which can appear on the article about the convoy and the indidual ships which participated in the convoy? I've done an example of how the Convoy PQ-18 template would look in my sandbox. If desired, this could be used as the basis for other convoy templates. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No problems with the layout of the template itself, but my first concen would be the number of templates that will need to be created. Will all WWII convoys be getting a navigation template, and if not, how many and what would be the criteria for getting one?

My second concern is the clutter at the bottom of articles. At the moment, I'm working on a rewrite of HMAS Sydney (1934), a WWII-era Australian light cruiser. This article currently has two navtemplates, one for the class, and one for the articles relating to its mutually destructive engagement with German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. Sydney was the escort to at least five convoys that are named and identified, plus several more convoys that are only described as "Sydney escorted a convoy between Dates Foo and Bar", and gods alone know how many that were covered in the sources under the catch-all term "assigned to convoy escort and patrol duties". Which equalls a whole lot of templates down the bottom.

But that's just one man's opinion. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't usually produce templates for engagements linking participating units, which is the general case of this idea, and I think there's a reason for that - as you say, the clutter problem. Even collapsed, it's an awful lot of navboxes...

It might well be worth putting the template - or something like it - on the individual articles as a quick reference, but I think rolling it out to the ship pages is going to seem unbalancing. Shimgray | talk | 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I share saberwyn's concerns about this proposal. Many escort vessels did nothing but escort convoys for several years at a time, with the result that they escorted a huge number of convoys. I think that articles about convoys should include links to all the notable ships involved in the prose and articles about ships should include links to notable convoys they took part in in their prose, but there isn't a great deal of value in cross-linking all the ships and all the convoys in each and every article. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see the utility of a template like this for extremely notable convoys, but for the many, many uneventful convoys (no attacks, no ships sunk, etc.) something like this would be overkill. But in general, I think Nick D's approach probably makes the most sense.

As far as the template itself, it would be much better to separate the vessels with {{·}} rather than a comma to match the vast majority of ship-related navboxes. Also, if the MILHIST style could be used, templates of this sort would blend in better with other navboxes and ship infoboxes that use the same coloration. (If you replace

{{Navbox

|name=

with

{{Military navigation

|style=wide

|raw_name=

that will take care of it.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Looks like consensus is against this proposal. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for someone with access to the NYT to email me information about the 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing, per this search, which should be more detailed than the books. Hits 1 5 6 7 9 are the relevant ones. Thanks, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I can do that. I'll call you in a few weeks. Got lots of stuff to do now. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can send PDFs of the articles later tonight (2 hours, I'd say). OK with you? Mm40 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, need to ask YellowMonkey about getting them to him. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Tiger II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Nikita Khrushchev is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Various religious institutions remained open around the clock for prayer and special services on D-Day in 1944. This location has been identified as Congregation Emunath Israel on West Twenty-third Street in Manhattan. The synagogue does not have a website and its phone number goes straight to voice mail. It would be something special to learn the names of the two women in this shot; possibly the older members of the congregation might be able to identify them. Seeking research assistance from a New York-based editor. Best regards, Durova³⁴⁸ 05:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't promise quickly owing to PL and WL complications, but I see there's a high-res TIFF available which I can dye-sub print and perhaps drop off with a letter to request assistance. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, thank you. Durova³⁴⁸ 14:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:RM announcement for this page. This page only lists Coalition, not Afghan (nor enemy Taliban / Al Q) units. Would anyone object to it being renamed 'Afghanistan War coalition order of battle?' Please list your comments at Talk:Afghanistan War order of battle#No Afghan forces listed. Buckshot06(prof) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for castle is now open. Castles are some of the most prominent buildings of the Middle Ages, and an important article to this project. The intention is to take the article to FAC, but I want to keep moving fast so will nominate the article soon unless there are comments that need addressing. Any and all input is welcome. Nev1 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Triangle Hill is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are currently three A-class reviews which have been open for one week (+/- a few hours) that have not had enough reviews:

• Battle of Delville Wood – under review here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Delville Wood

*Winter War – under review here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Winter War

• USS Chesapeake (1799) – under review here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Chesapeake (1799)

Any additional reviews would be appreciated by the editors who have nominated these articles. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Working on them...All these topics are of great interest to me, and I'll make them priorities as soon as I finish the one on Arrow. – Joe N 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have already commented, one was already closed as successful. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently, newspaper articles have been published: a survey team has declared that they have found the true location of the Battle of Bosworth Field, a Featured Article. Because of this press release, there are concerns over the accuracy of the Wikipedia article, the nature of the press release, as well as integration of such material into the article. Your comments are welcome at Talk:Battle of Bosworth Field#Site moves again. Jappalang (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for John Lloyd Waddy is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Winter War is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am disenchanted with the current overall outline of the American Revolutionary War and allied high level articles. It may have served well originally to chronicle this like all other wars: Napoleonic or American Civil War or whatever, by outlining a series of battles, won or lost, etc. etc.

But the American Revolutionary War was more like a guerrilla war. It was necessary for Washington to learn to husband his resources, fighting only when he was absolutely sure he could win. This was serious problem with no money, horrible soldiers, lousy training, etc. etc. That is the story of the war, plus maybe Lexington, Bunker Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Saratoga, Monmouth, and Yorktown; with Trenton and Ticonderoga thrown in for comic relief (okay cannons from Ticonderoga). But the rest should be outlined with emphasis on getting the troops through the winter, always a major problem, getting them trained, finding capable officers, etc. etc. The story is one less of battles won, then morale, logistics and politics. Right now there is "no room" in the outline for such "trivialities." No room for barely managing to preserve the army's integrity at Morristown in 1779-1780. The battles were "all over with" in the north, and the outline is therefore incorrectly assumed to be complete. End of story. The outline and emphasis needs serious restructuring at the highest level from someone who can grasp the entire war. The articles are already written. So it's "just" a matter of re-writing the highest level articles to reflect reality and not some bureaucratic focus on battles, mostly lost by Americans, not untypical during a guerrilla conflict.

The templates reflect that battle bias also. Don't know how to "correct" this. "All" Wikipedia wars have battle templates, almost meaningless here, along with battles generally in the Revolution, the ones mentioned above excepted.Student7 (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Though this outfit was pretty interesting: a bunch of 1980s mujahideen who went over to the Soviet-backed DRA to fight. Also known as "Traitors in Turbans". Only one good reference up on GoogleBooks, but a reputable one. Anyone else familiar with Pader Watan? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a neutrality dispute relating to this article, but the Neutrality Disputed tags are being removed.

Opinions are invited as to whether the tags should be present or removed from the article, as is input into the neutrality debate itself. At the moment, the number of contributors is small and broader input would be welcome. Dduff442 (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The ensign was changed in 2004, yet we don't have a copy of the new ensign to use. Many Indian Navy ship articles need the flag updating. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Another source gives contradicting information. The image you provide is listed as the one used from 2001-2004; however, the one it list as 2004 to present is a rescaled variant of the White Ensign. However, there is the possibility that neither are a reliable source, as it could be argued that both fall under WP:SPS. Furthermore, I have other sources, that show that they have indeed reverted back to the White Ensign variant including from an official source (1 2 3 4). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A member of the project, Bellhalla, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Bellhalla's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's this article, see?* Name of 11th Airborne Division, see? Now, what I want to do, is get this badboy to the top o' the league, m'kay?. But before I can do that, it needs a couple of things done that I can't. Firstly, reference 79 is all balled up despite my best efforts to fix it, which is makin' me a wet blanket. But wait, there's also somethin' else. On the talkpage, here to be precise, some guy's listed some changes what need to be made to this section of the article. But I ain't so good with this web stuff, y'see, and it's confusing th' double-hockey-sticks outta me. It don't need much work, but it's beyond me.

"So", you smart alecks and dames is asking you'selves, "what do I get outta this here proposition?" Well, shut yer kisser for a moment and I'll tell ya. Get this here applesauce fixed for me, and I'll be giving ya two barnstars; th' Airborne Warfare barnstar, which is very ducky, an' another one I'll think of later. But that ain't all; there won't be no dough, but for your trouble me an' the boys'll help you get an article of your choosing (gotta be military history, though; no funny stuff) to the top o' the league as well. You got it now? Well, now you're on the trolley!

• All slang provided by this here website: [[7]]

Done the ref Skinny, is it just the complexity of the new material you're worried about? It seems to me that you wouldn't need to include everything that is on the talk page. I'll do it tomorrow if you like? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, where are my manners? What I meant to say is; That ref is Jake, I took that formatting issue for a ride. What's eating you 'bout the new stuff? I can make it the real McCoy tomorrow, but I am on the lam today for that caper with the bootleg. Er... Man. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for that ref, that was annoying me. Mainly, for the second part, it's the lineages that are confusing me; Flanagan's got it wrong (yet again, I swear I'm gonna throw that book out soon) and I have no idea how to correct the info about when the battalions were in/reactivated or moved from one formation to the other. It's real nitpicky stuff, and I can't get my head around it. Skinny87 (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can have a look tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. As I said I've got to hide all of this moonshine before the feds catch up with me, so it might be tricky today. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dropping by with good news and a question. If this count is correct, MILHIST gained 28 items of featured content from my participation in the 2009 WikiCup. A couple of items aren't included in the project showcase; listing here to see whether there is any objection to adding them.

• 
  The Battle of Churubusco
• 
  A sixteenth century Spanish grant of arms
• 
  A World War II anti-Japanese propaganda poster

And please consider signing up for 2010; it's fun and helps the website. Best regards, Durova³⁵⁵ 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I just went and added these wonderful additions to the showcase then. Thank you very much for all of your hard work, and congratulations on you excellent results in the Cup. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, getting back up to speed on the text side too. See below. ;) Durova³⁵⁵ 01:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please sign up. No obligations, it's quite fun, and it only helps our articles. Besides, don't you Aussie editors (*looks at Bryce, Ian, Nick-D, etc*) want to represent your respective provinces and lead them to victory? ;-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Provinces"? Have we suddenly become Canadians?? Yes, hell, why not? Currently I'm in the Aviation, World War I, and monthly MilHist contests, so what's another?! Only prob is that for the first time I'm afraid I'll start choosing articles to work on based upon how they'll help me in competitions, meaning the percentage for me will be sticking to World War I flying corps articles exclusively...! Oh well, at least I won't have to worry about image copyright... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, "states". :-) And think of it this way—getting a FA on a WWI aircraft-related topic will get you points in all four contests. ;-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, like I say, I definitely know where my percentages are now - I'll just have to force myself to do the odd army, navy or post-WWI air force article occasionally as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the quadfecta, though I doubt it's a word, as well, but I don't do WWI aviation :-( Well, it's not like I'd have to force myself to do British BC or railgun articles (but I thought everyone was enjoying my series of Soviet prototype aircraft!).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We're definitely enjoying those Soviet prototype articles, don't stop now...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Geez! I don't know how I'll be able to keep up! Although, I did just finish my exams and consequently school ... *wicked grin*. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to participate in one of these competitions, but my editing pattern is too unpredictable these days due to the combination of working full time and studying part-time and my inability to focus on particular topics ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's more a matter of motivation and helping the encyclopedia than anything else. If it provides the nudge to finish an FA drive or expand a few DYKs then it's all worth it. Durova³⁵⁷ 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the very impressive statistics for the creation of high-quality content in the Signpost story speak for themselves. Congratulations on your very well deserved victory by the way. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just join anyways, Nick—the worst that can happen is that you get knocked out in the first round ;-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Good morning.

The missus and I are slowly adding content to articles for the battles of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. We try to do it properly, but we are not primarily military historians, only translators. If someone wishes to help us with the military facts, that would be great. Monkap does the translation and I fix up the boxes etc. We are aiming to tackle all the battles of this war, and add bios etc along the way (e.g. Mór Perczel), and I worked for (not in) the military for about ten years so I can usually get the translation of military and political terms right, but if there is someone on the English side of it that can review and correct the articles, I would be glad of it.

Our approach is taking the individual battles first, then we start working to group them up. As I say, this is slow because it is done properly, and we get requests for other translations. The translations from WP:HU (adding bits from WP:PL and WP:DE) are good, I think, but another eye would be great in case we have made a huge boo-boo. Also, if these can be categorised better (e.g. Battle of Mór then please do so, and let me know.

Thanks and best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I can keep a passing eye on the topic as a social historian. Feel free to prod my talk page about once a month when you've got an article or a bunch of articles you'd like eyed-over. Are you aiming at a Featured Topic in the long term? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, that is exactly what we need. We are aiming primarily to get them translated from Hungarian into good English. Along the way we translate bios etc. I very much doubt we would get FA because these are not well referenced; the Hungarian WP does not reference as strictly as we do here at the English. So, in our role as translators all we can do is translate as accurately as we can so that others can then go further to improve the article. For that reason we are starting at the smaller articles and will work up to the bigger ones, but I really want consensus here on the best way to do it.

Thank you very much, I will leave a note on your talk page that I replied here. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I recently added a merge tag to List of wars 1945-1989. I want this article to merge with List of wars 1900-1944. Then the 1990s (1990-1999) wars can be added and the article would be called List of wars 1900-1999 like List of wars 1800-1899. Spread the word. B-Machine (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor tagged the Vanguard (rocket) article for Military History, back in 2007. I wonder if you knew that the Vanguard was explicitly developed as a non-military, civilian satellite launcher? There actually was an oblique connection, in that in 1955 (when the project started), the US was developing a spy satellite system based on the Thor ballistic missile, and was concerned that overflying Russian territory with a military rocket might create problems. So it was thought best to develop a separate scientific satellite launcher to establish the overflight precedent, rather than use a military launch vehicle. This may have been the deciding factor in the choice of the NRL Vanguard over the Army Jupiter as the IGY satellite launch vehicle. Of course this was all made moot when the USSR launched Sputnik 1 on an R-7 rocket, their ICBM, which was about 30 times larger than Vanguard. Anyhow, I thought this project might want to reconsider and remove the tag. I will leave it to your judgment, of course. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick reading of the article says that it was a military project. Even if its primary purpose was non-military in nature, it still was under the DoD, thus probably why it was tagged. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Siege of Jerusalem (637) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Battle of Yarmouk is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for USS Congress (1799) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Design A-150 battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Operation Tonga, an article which I got up to Good Article status last year, has a discussion going on at the moment over the contents of the entire article, and specifically the 'German preparation' section. I have provided a new, updated version of the section, but another editor disagrees. I will be on limited internet access for the next few days, and the conversation is getting me a little depressed and annoyed, so I'd really appreciate it if I could get other editor's opinions there, even if it means I have to rewrite the whole damned article at the end of it. So please, go to the article's talkpage, look over the latest conversations, and comment if you can. Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Cologne War is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Brooks–Baxter War is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that 'quality scale' rating on the talk page for the 3d US Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard), hasn't been updated in quite a while. It may not be as voluminous as other articles, but it certainly has gone beyond the stage of being a 'start' class article. Would someone with the authority to do so please update this? Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd urge you to expand the MILHIST banner on the talk page to see what the criteria are for B-class, which is the next step above start. I'd also urge you to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/When to cite to see how it needs citations to qualify for B-class. And if you'd like another assessment please ask at WP:MHAR, rather than here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'm looking for some World War II British war establishments (Nowadays reffered to as TOEs or tables of organisation and equipment) detailing the make up of infantry battalions. There were a number of changes made during the war, and http://www.warestablishments.net/ only has the 1942 version. Anybody know where I might find others? Thanks!--Patton123 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm and http://www.orbat.com/ should be useful. Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Iven Giffard Mackay is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I discovered yesterday that Osprey Publishing is now selling some of their books as Ebooks at a 20% discount. I'm fond of Osprey books, but rarely buy them because of their high prices (A$30-A$45 and over for books under 100 pages!), but this pushes them into the price range I think that they're worth (about A$20). Has anyone bought any of these, and if so did you think that they were worthwhile? Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally found their Arnhem book a little simplistic - good for an overview of Market Garden, but poor (and often incorrect) on details,such as dates, circumstances of certain actions, that kind of thing. Good pictures though! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the books can be a bit hit-and-miss and the campaign series only seem to work for discrete battles. The book on Arnhem wasn't much use. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the one on German battlecruisers of the First World War to be pretty good, especially as far as technical details go, though the book on their British counterparts was somewhat disappointing in that regard. Parsecboy (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Their books are definitely in a popular vein but the 'aircraft of the aces' series has been useful to me confirming the many conflicting claims for fighter aces among the AFC/RAAF subjects I do (the scores they report are generally in harmony with works of Christopher Shores like Above the Trenches, which seem to be the bible for this sort of thing) and they'll often have other interesting data you don't find elsewhere. I can't speak for their campaign/battle books. Many of them appear on GoogleBooks or Amazon preview as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I find they vary. I'm getting some of the New Vanguard series about British and American armoured vehicles, as they're usually done by experts on the matter and have decent information I can't find elsewhere; the one on the Universal Carrier will probably be a bible for me when I eventually write the article. But many of them are rubbuish, like their 'Allied Commanders of WWII' and so forth, and many of the Campaign ones are too short and unhelpful (the Dragoon one is awful). So, I'd say better for technical details a la tanks and aircraft, not so much for battles/campaigns. Skinny87 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They are the same books as the printed versions, so as Ian Rose suggested, you can check out the content at online bookstores (Osprey are pretty generous with "Look inside" previews). Whether to buy them depends on how you use the books, and in particular, the pretty pictures. Any print out is not going to match the image quality of the printed version. If you don't want the book propped up on a workbench for a modelling project, they should be OK. Monstrelet (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress states this is a WWI French biplane crashed into a house. Anyone know which type of biplane? Durova³⁶⁰ 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a Curtis Jenny? Which would make it a US aircraft. Monstrelet (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a Curtiss JN-4 Jenny. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift replies. :) If you've got a source for the identification I could write to them to update the record. Durova³⁶⁰ 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's one in virtually every US museum, as far as I can tell :) However, as a starter, compare the lowest picture here http://www.glennhcurtissmuseum.org/educational/articles/jenny.html. This is in the markings of a US training aircraft - compare the crashed aircraft. The Smithsonian have one - they could doubtless provide a definitive ID Monstrelet (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Will contact the research librarians. :) Durova³⁶⁰ 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I started working on List of military engagements of World War I, but hit upon an issue: how do you cite multiple authors? The book I'm using, The Reader's Companian to Military History, has a lot of authors, although a few that the editors found as partically notable are mentioned on the cover. Should I say "author, author, ..., and others"?

It's not an issue that's clearly illustrated at WP:CITE. Or, I could just be missing it entirely :) Cheers, ResMar 23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, when you cite a book with multiple authors in Harvard format, what do you list? The editors? ResMar 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Add '| coauthors=' to each book cited with multiple authors. For the actual reference, I usually have 'Mister X et al' or the most prominent authors, as you say, found on the book title or inside cover information. Skinny87 (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, there are like a 100 seperate authors...also, I don't really have a model from any previous FLCs as to how an FLC on this topci should look like, I was thinking of a short overview of each battle, but is there anything that is required, exactly? ResMar 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For books where a large number of authors provided small sections you normally just cite the editors (eg, Crowley, Robert and Parker, Geoffrey (eds) in the long version and Crowley and Parker in the short version). You can also cite the individual author and the book's editors if you're only referring to a single entry whose author is known (much like you go about citing the authors of individual chapters in a book). Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've got that worked out, but but is there any particular way that this FLC should be done...? ResMar 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the way I' m starting it now good? (sorry, I have no experience with this kind of thing, and there are no similar articles out there right now). :) ResMar 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Operation Teardrop is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Lebaudy Patrie is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A member of the project, Hawkeye7, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Hawkeye7's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am to write a paper that concerns whether or not the United States would have drop a nuke on Europe if we had the bomb up in time to do so. I was wondering if anyone could offer me some suggestions as to where I might go to locate sources for such a paper. 76.211.105.183 (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking about during the Second World War or during the Cold War? I don't think there's much I can help you with, but Operation Unthinkable might be a good direction to head in if you're thinking of early cold war. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this needs to be in the realm of the Second World War. Dr. Hacket may let us go into the cold war a little, but I am mostly interested on the bomb and the European Theatre. I did ask if we had to prove our position to be true, and the answer was no, so my argument for the use of the bomb can end with the realization that there is no evidence to support such a position, but to get there I was interested in whether or not anyone had ideas or suggestions I may not have had. 76.211.105.183 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a very vague memory of reading something about this once before, somewhere in the annals of my time-travel. I really can't remember any more than that I'm afraid, and a look through the relevant articles doesn't immediately suggest a page on articles about American nuclear policy. Of the top of my head, I think it's worth bearing in mind that the B-29 Superfortress was (I've read) first designed to bomb Germany from the States, and that the Manhattan Project was a reaction to Germany's own nuclear project. After that, if Dr Hacket doesn't object, I'd let my imagination go wild. I can't imagine the States would have invested so much money in a nuclear project and not employed a few folks to consider what to do with it. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hang on; ip, would a hypothetical counterfactual article by an academic historian help you out? It assumes that German invades Britain and wins, then invades Russia, and that eventuall the US detonates several nuclear weapons over Berlin. If that would help, I can find the title of the article and the magazine, which I believe is based on a paper written for a conference of some kind. Skinny87 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Heya TomStar81. :-D I don't know of any sources offhand, but considering the debate during the Korean War of whether or not to use nukes there, I'd assume that there were serious plans to drop a nuke on Germany if they rebounded and began to drive the Allies back. Perhaps a book that discusses the foreign policies of the United States during World War II? Or a book that discusses the planned WWII operations of the United States? —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Page 46 of the The Columbia guide to Hiroshima and the bomb states that there is an "overwhelming consensus" among historians that atomic bombs would have been dropped on Germany had they been available before late 1944; the whole project was launched to counter Germany, FDR had said that he was prepared to use the bomb on Germany and the 509th Composite Group trained to attack both Germany and Japan. Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, to compare to the above, this: online historiography on books on the bomb states that John Dower, in his book War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York, 1986) states that the bomb would never have been used on Germany due to racial issues. Skinny87 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dower pushes a pretty strong thesis in that book that the Pacific War was basically a race war. Given what the Allies did to cities such as Hamburg and Dresden (which were bombed with the very deliberate aim of starting massive firestorms in civilian areas and then keeping the fires burning for several days - these same tactics were later reused during the firebombing of Japanese cities), it's hard to see why atomic bombs wouldn't have been used as well. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, true, true, I don't think Dower has much of a case there - stretching things rather too far, really. But, he is at least a counterpoint to the 'yes they would have used it', even if solely as the exception that proves the rule. Skinny87 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that he's one of the historians outside of the "overwhelming consensus" on this ;) 'War without Mercy' is worth a read though if you have an interest in the Pacific War; while Dower pushes his thesis too far in my view, he does make a number of good points and the book is generally well regarded. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Personally, I found Dower way over the top, given the same practises were common on the Eastern Front. He does have some good info, tho. As for whether the Bomb would've been used against Germany, consider: many of the project scientists were Jews, who had no compunction, & Grove desperately wanted it to be used on somebody (from what I've read of it, admittedly not extensive). Also, given Allied willingness to bomb German cities, if there had been sufficient resistance left in Germany, or had the Bomb developed a touch sooner, do you doubt FDR & Winston would've failed to use it? Or that Harris (at least) would've refused? He had far less compunction than LeMay... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well its worth noting here that the paper is going to be openly original research, as its my thesis and my research and my sources to prove it, so I expect to have wiggle room to present so long as everything conforms to what I have been taught in the class so far this semester. I had a chance encounter (divine intervention?) with a gentleman whose grandfather was part of the team that developed the bomb, this kind soul told me that the material was assembled at Ft. Bliss and ship north via railroad (which he says explains the railroads on post). That means that in addition to the Truman, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower presidential libraries I will have to look through the Fort Bliss museums and such and see what can be found. Thanks for the dower suggestion too, I will look into that on Sunday when I head down to the library. Keep the idea's coming; I appreciate the assistance. 76.211.105.183 (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can take a different look. Never was a nuclear bomb dropped on a country that had nuclear weapons. One of the reasons we had this Cold War, was that both sides feared it could escalate into a nuclear war. As for Germany, they were, until the "purification" from Jews, leading in physics (take a look at the number of Nobel prizes) and they were the ones discovering the nuclear fission, so everybody assumed they were the ones with the furthest advance in constructing the bomb. They were also advanced in other fields leading to their Wunderwaffen. While the Allies certainly made great achievements, the Germans made quite a show of how advanced they were. Albert Einstein, the great anti-militarist, even argued for the construction of the bomb by the US to counter the German nuclear threat. You could thus compare it with the use of chemical weapons, everyone had stockpiles but none used them because everyone had stockpiles except the Ethiopians and against them chemical weapons were used by the Italians in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. The reason was that the Ethiopian army was pretty well organized and had tough fighters, defeating the Italians already once. Same could be argued, I think, for the Japanese using biological weapons against the Chinese. However, you can also argue with the fallout. Germany is close to allied countries that would have been affected. Longterm effects were one of the reasons against the use of anthrax by the British. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can take a very different look. What would happen if the U.S. never dropped the Bomb on Japan? Does Stalin feel more willing to invade EEur? Do we see a nuclear WW3? (This appears to be the thesis advanced by Norman Spinrad in his brilliant Hitler pastiche The Iron Dream & seems suggested by Ben Bova in Triumph, as well as in the "counterfactual" anthology What If {historiographers pretending they aren't writing SF}.) Would we have become more willing to use CW on civilians, as Wandalstouring suggests? (Or do I misunderstand?) Would we have had a shorter Cold War, if the Bomb had not worked? The U.S. outcompeted the Sovs in the long term, but there's no way the U.S. would have supported as great a % of GDP on military as the Sovs did.... If you read nothing else, read Gar Alperovitz's Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Vintage, 1996). He punctures all the myths & addresses all the concerns (AFAIK), & manages to be very readable in the process. Beyond that, you're really in the realm of SF. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have What If in my uni's library, Tom... —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, there are at least 2 of them. The one I meant +looks for it+ is Deutsch & Showalter (I'm looking at my notes, & not finding the publisher or date... :( ). FYI, Bova's Triumph was Tor '93, Iron Dream ed I have is Timescape '82. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding. I didn't say there would have been more use of chemical or biological warfare, just that dirty weapons get used against defenceless enemies. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the Werner Mölders article for featured article of the day (see November 22). Maybe someone here would like to review too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 20:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Tupolev TB-3 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for SMS Lützow is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my first milhist-related Featured work, so I've been refering to this page for help...sorry if I seem annoying. Three things:

1) I thought that List of military engagements of World War I was a list, but it seems to be assesed as Start-Class. So is it an article then?

2) I have a few issues I need help with :Talk:List of military engagements of World War I#Issues to work out.

3) Hmm, after working on it for a little while I realized that this one's a biggie. Wondering if anyone wants to help me work on it :) ResMar 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, mate. Regarding your three points: 1) it's not an article, so it should be re-assessed as a list, then; 2)/3) I'll be glad to give you a hand in my spare time (if I ever have some :D). My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't really realize during my eyeball for the contest that it would be quite so long :) ResMar 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@1 - milhist doesn't use any "list" parameter, see WP:MHA: "Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status." —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

U serious? You guys have an A-class parameter but no List-class? ...ResMar 23:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, it allows for us to use the B-class checklist and see how developed the lists are instead of just two ratings (List and FL). We even have lists that have been through A-Class reviews and I suspect that just as we have proven through statistics that our ACRs provide a better chance of an article passing at FAC, the same would ring true for FLC. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep; call us odd or call us weird, but we have our own special way of doing things—and I think it is working... ;-D —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I could still use some help if someone would please help me with my inquiries on the talk page :D ResMar 00:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Already answered them, mate. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...apparently http://www.firstworldwar.com isn't "a reliable source" according to WP:RS/N. Have you guys got any "reliable" ONLINE WW1 resource? (notice the stress on ONLINE) ResMar 13:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See Ive always wanted to do MILHIST articles but have never been able to get around you guys massive reliance on text resources. I just can't, and I don't have access to them. I hate it. I'de luv to help but I can't cause of WP:RS. ResMar 14:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about Google Books. There are tons of books available there with full or limited preview; that's how I've done a good chunk of article writing. Just searching for "world war I" nets nearly 16,000 returns, "first world war" gets over 11,000 hits. There should be plenty in there to help you with the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Today, the United States celebrates veteran's day, however I personally would like to extend my very best wishes and a happy veterans day to every veteran regardless of the nation that they served. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also remember those that have fallen as today is the anniversary of the Armistice They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old, age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ladies & gentlemen, alllow me to suggest, for us, every day is a day of remembrance, because we know, perhaps better than most, what it cost. How many among us cannot name at least one act of courage, at least one name worthy of award, even if (almost) nobody else has heard of it & even if it recieved no official notice? May we reach a day, through their courage, where we cease to need them to sacrifice. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (Despite the time stamp, it's still 11/11 here.)

• It's possible that the copyvio in "Midshipman" (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midshipman/archive2) came after the A-class review. I dunno. But please do include a rigorous check for copyvio in your A-class reviews. After finding the first instance, I found a second in less than 5 minutes. To quote Reagan, "Trust, but verify." Ling.Nut (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if this has been answered somewhere before. If so please direct me to the appropriate page. I see a lot of bios of members of the U.S. military where the dates are shown military (or European) style, that is: 11 November 1911. I think because this is an encyclopedia for general readership, the dates should be American style: November 11, 1911. Is this in your style guide? Katr67 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, US military date style is day-month-year rather than conventional US month-day-year. The MilHist style guide may not mention this explicitly but the generic WP MOS does, here (see sub-heading Strong national ties to a topic). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the military uses day-month-year, as indicated above. But Wikipedia is not the military, so what I was really asking is would it be OK to change the format to conventional U.S. style. Thanks for directing me to the quote, which is "In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field." I'm still a bit stumped about bios of historic (vs. modern) figures, which is mostly what I'm working on, but I'll leave the dates alone and just make sure that they are consistent in each article. I've also seen quite a bit of Day Month comma Year, which I don't think is correct in anybody's book... Katr67 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Day Month comma Year is definitely out. Personally it doesn't fuss me whether standard US or military US is used in a US military article, as long as it's consistent, plus I can't say I know when "modern" cuts in for the US military... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that articles on American topics should, in general, use American spelling, grammar, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The MOS says that you have to use military date style. Likewise military time is given in articles concerning these topics, so changing it would mean that you first have to make a proposal for changing the MOS. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think unless there's a pressing reason to change dates from their current format, there's little benefit in doing so. Either format should be easily-enough understood by our readers (the one I struggle with is the US MM-DD-YYYY format when I'm used to seeing DD-MM-YYYY). EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when "modern" cuts in either, but I can tell you that this date format has been used by the US Army at least since the Great War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Castle is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's only incidental, though fitting, that I would be near to finishing List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border on Remembrance Day/Veterans Day (Nov 11); scores of peaks I've found are named either for military commanders, including those of France and other countries, or otherwise largely-unknown war heroes; mostly from World War I but not exxclusively. There are others I've seen elsewhere in BC and on the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border, but not in the numbers found in the Rockies; two large clusters are in the area of Crowsnest Pass and Elk Pass, in the southern Canadian Rockies]], others in the central Park Ranges, roughly from Kicking Horse Pass northwestwards to Yellowhead Pass. On the linked list I've added some of the material in BCGNIS about the namesakes, but for most obscure servicemen I've left them off though they could be added.....Marcechal Foch and Petain are in the list, as is Mount Bishop, for Billy Bishop, and.....well, there's lots. So many I'm tempted to add {{MILHIST}} to this page....it's interesting that along the Continental Divide (which is the BC-Alberta boundary SE from the 120th Meridian) it's not only major officers and war heroes who are commemorated, but others less notablde; many were surveyors who left their work in the Rockies for the battlefields of World War I.....I invite anyone interested to go through the BCGNIS citations on each list-item to have a look and see who else is in there and maybe add their info to the comments column....it's almost as if, by the way, an article on staff of the Surveyor-General's office and/or frmo the interprovincial boundary commission would make a wortwhile article...some peaks are just named for battles, or notable battle-villages (e.g. Farbus, near Vimy). So although it's a geography article, in a way it's very much a military history article; participation/comments welcome....Skookum1 (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Labyrinth" - Gen. Mangin

Please see Talk:Labyrinth and "Mangin, Mount". BC Geographical Names.. Anyone have any idea which battle/event this was, 1915? Had wound up at hte diambig page looking for the right disambig for Mt Mangin/s entry on the list mentioned above. Cordonnier is also there, along with Foch and Petain and Joffre....Skookum1 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was in the Nivelle Offensive in April 1917. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Labyrinth was apparently a German-held defensive feature during the Second Battle of Artois in 1915. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 10:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. OTRS received a request to add a ribbon to the banner of Frank Libutti. According to our correspondence, the subject received the Navy Marine Corps Distinguished Service Medal on retirement, and this should be second in the list after the Defense Distinguished Service Medal. The correspondent also pointed out that we had the date of his retirement wrong, which proved to be correct. But I have no idea how to edit that box, if there is such a ribbon or where it should be. Can I defer this to somebody here, please? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, though a double-check would be welcome as I'm unfamiliar with US awards. EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Battle of Wattignies (1793) has the "(1793)" in the title? I can find no indication of any other battle so named.--Kotniski (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the disambiguation is unneeded. Moved as such. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, makes more sense now.--Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Villers-Bocage is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Canadian National Vimy Memorial is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border, I came across a Mount Cordonnier, which its reference says was named for a General Cordonnier (WWI); that peak is in the company of Mount Foch, Mount Petain, Mount Mangin etc....I see nobody in a search for Cordonnier who fits the bill, and nothing in Category:French generals.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of him, and there's nothing on the French Wikipedia either ([8]). My WWI sources are limited though. EyeSerene^talk 16:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Interesting ebay auction of a WWI postcard of him, and this site has him in command of the 87th Infantry Brigade during 1913-14, under the 4th Infantry Division (Rabier), 2nd Corps (Gérard), 5th Army (Lanrezac). According to the site Cordonnier was involved in the first encounter of WWI on French soil at Mangienne, though we don't seem to have anything on that battle as yet. EyeSerene^talk 16:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a mention of this battalion in "Mount Northover". Bivouac.com. but there's no article in Category:Battalions_of_the_Canadian_Expeditionary_Force.Skookum1 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Their heritage seems to continue in the Regina Rifles [9][10] GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently on indefinite Wiki-hiatus, but I had to ask about this one. Would this story on Sabi, an Australian Army drug-sniffing dog be notable? Just asking, because it is an interesting story. Apparently, the only thing that's been reported about her is her being found after having been missing for 14 months, so I don't know if this is notable one its own. Asking in sincere good faith. - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd look to see how the story compares with others in category:military animals such as Sam (army dog). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has been created at Sabi (dog). I personally don't think that this passes WP:NOT#NEWS, but the article is actually pretty good and she's probably the best known Australian in Afghanistan at the moment, so it seems well worth keeping. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a good read, though it does need some editing work on minor issues, as with most new articles. With all the quotes from generals and politicians, it should pass notability requirements. It's also just a good canine-interest story; time will tell if more comes of it. - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(creator) Yup, at first glance, definitely a NOT#NEWS candidate, but two things made me create it anyway. First, I caught on the rolling TV news here in the UK, that this was thought to be be an unprecedented case, (I can't remember the exact wording, whether it was based on length of time MIA, or indeed in actually being found at all). Annoyingly, I have been unable to confirm that from a printed source. Secondly, I noticed the couple of sources going further than simply regurgitating the press release, and for example, suggesting there was a controversy over the timing, or suggesting the dog did come back and was shooed away, and also writing funny columns on it. Those sources, combined with the fact that, arranged PR or not, this event was definitely unusual, and actualy solicited a comment from the PM, and did get global not just national coverage if not deep analysis or long lasting, means I think it at least has a chance of survival. Looking at other dog articles and comparing to bio article standards, then if she got a Dickens medal as some people suggest (again, annoyingly, no RS), then it would be nailed on, but obviously, that's a no no per wp:crystal. Anyway, it only took me at most five hours to write it from first thinking about it today, so I would not be too upset if it got binned. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We are looking for help with the WWII article...If you would like to help or just see what it takes to get an article of this magnitude to GA level, pls stop by and see the procedure ----->Talk:World War II and/or Talk:World War II/GA1 ...thank you in advance to all that will help!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The author Bruce Marvin and photographer of the pictures posted on my German Wiki talk page has granted me the right to post his pictures of the various grades of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross on the English Wiki (see MisterBee1966). Question: What is the correct way of uploading them here without infringing any copy right issues?. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If I've understood you correctly, Mr Marvin has granted permission to post those images only on en.WP? If that's the case, then unfortunately I don't think that will be sufficient to allow us to use them. Because Wikipedia content is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL, we can't accept work with any restrictions placed on it (like "exclusive use on WP only", "non-commercial use" etc). We all agree when submitting work that our contributions can be reused for any purpose, including sold or altered, as long as any derivative works are released under similarly unrestricted conditions and we as authors are credited. Therefore Mr Marvin will need to explicitly release his work under those or similar unrestricted terms. If willing, he could do this by emailing the WP:OTRS team (more details at WP:PERMIT), but he ought to first read Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#What_it_means_to_donate_material_to_Wikipedia to be sure what he'd be agreeing to. Furthermore, if he's willing to do this, he'll need to contact the OTRS team himself; the email granting permission must connect directly to the copyright holder. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I grant permission to post my EK-Pictures (german wikipedia projects) worldwide. Bruce Marvin (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lebaudy Patrie; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!

This review could also use an extra reviewer or two. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Frederick Scherger is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for North Carolina class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the FAC for Ton That Dinh; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 05:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have just found the equivalent of Combined Fleet for British ships: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-aContents.htm . However, I'd like confirmation that this is reliable. Any thoughts? —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say maybe. The phrase "Articles published included "Pennant Numbers", "Hydrographic Surveying" and "Salvage Work by HM Ships since 1945." His Warship Service Histories amount to some 5,000 pages" indicates that the site may meet WP:SPS, but someone would have to find where these articles have been published first. Could you do that Ed? NW (Talk) 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I cross-checked its entry for the Renown against Burt's BBs of WWI and it seems to match ships movements reasonably well, although it's quite a bit weaker on the technical side. It does reference Corelli Barnett's Engage the Enemy More Closely as well as the Naval Staff History, albeit without page numbers. So I'd have to give it a tentative thumbs-up pending more thorough cross-checking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - @Ealdgyth's eventual comment (I hope!) - NW's quote above comes from my link above, by the way. Also see http://books.google.com/books?id=U2VUAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Geoff+Mason%22+%22Pennant+Numbers%22%22&dq=%22Geoff+Mason%22+%22Pennant+Numbers%22%22 and http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/EXH/EXH.138.0178.pdf .

@Sturm, I know it isn't great on the technical side—dead tree sources can be consulted for those—but the ship summaries are like noting I've seen before for British ships. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll try to find time to cross-reference Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea against it for some smaller ships to see if I can make a better judgement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can, I'll give you a virtual hug. :-D —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, while this is going on, I'de like to clip on my own thing and ask if this is considered reliable. :D ResMar 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not especially since it lacks any sources. But the best sources that I know of for the KGV-class ships is Raven and Roberts, British BBs of WWII for technical and design history, supplemented with Rohwer for ship movements and actions. Of course that doesn't get you much past the end of the war, but hey... BTW there's a local bookstore that has copies of Rohwer for about 20 bucks if anyone's interested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

O_O I'm certainly interested...$20 for Rohwer would be a steal (the lowest price I see is Amazon at $37.77). Seems like perfect timing, considering that I have been wanting to get the book. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, sigh i hate it how it's impossible to write a to-standards FA under MILHIST banner, must I make a financial contribution too now oO? Hmm well my last resort I suppose is to ask Dabomb if he can fish up something for me. Still, it's the association page from the sailors themselves, I find it find to think of it unreliable. _{btw, isn't it ironic: "its an unreliable source!" says Wikipedia xD} ResMar 19:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) You know, Mario, even a local library can order books from throughout the country for a small fee; I've been able to order even very rare or difficult to find book. I'm speaking for Britain here, as my own country, but I'm lead to believe that other major countries can do the same. It usually only takes a few weeks at most, even for difficult to find books. And if you're near a university it will have a large academic library who will usually let you borrow as well. You don't need to neccessarily make a financial contribution, as it were, although of course it tends to help in the end :) Skinny87 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe inter-library loan is free. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look at Intute for www.naval-history.net. There's a record for http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm (http://www.intute.ac.uk/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=sosig1010160282-13617), but doesn't seem to be one for the site as a whole. David Underdown (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it is a bit late, but several days ago I proposed to rename the British expedition to Tibet to Younghusband expedition, as the latter name seems more common and also less ambiguous. See Talk:British expedition to Tibet. Yaan (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Would any interested editor please add their input to a discussion here? Thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Am not member wiki-military, but periodically I write military related articles. Just did one on Fort Harney, and I need little help regarding rating. Here's problem...when rating box on discussion page is opened for edit, all 5 B-Class criterion are marked "yes", but article is rated START. Now rating shows up as B-Class green box on discussion page (probably because all 5 B-Class criterion are checked off); however, on front page of article says: "A start-class article from Wikipedia...". Can someone review this and re-assess article? Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, someone else who turned on User:Pyrospirit/metadata in their preferences. :-) I believe that this fixed it. Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike ... -MBK₀₀₄ 05:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, love that thing. I switched to beta because it didn't work right on the regular skin, for some reason. I guess it gets the assessment from the letter grade, while the template displays it based on the B-Class criteria. – Joe N 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assist!--Orygun (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Dennis Gorski is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Passchendaele Ridge seems to figure in various battles in several different wars. I was wondering if someone could write up an article on it, and some geographic details. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The FAC of castle has entered a deadlock over the definition of castles. The article cites a number of scientific works defining castles. This definition doesn't cover the common English use that includes for example Japanese castles or castles of Eastern Europe. A minor issue is that it doesn't cover Central Europe, an economically not that important region, and Italy is mostly missing and that's one of the most important regions. The situation won't move forward because supporters for both sides flog to the standards, so I would appreciate suggestions for a solution for an otherwise well written article. The review is here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is against our MoS? See Talk:Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#Pyrrhic_victory.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That also gets added to Battle of the Alamo a few times a month, and I keep removing it. Is there a guideline somewhere that covers this so that I can point other editors to it? Karanacs (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the doc on {{Infobox military conflict}} says about the result field:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section").

I couldn't find anything in WP:MILMOS on the subject. I'll note that the inverse problem sometimes happens in Battle of Bunker Hill, which is labelled as a Pyrrhic victory; the victors allude to Pyrrhus in their writings about it.

On the other hand, I have no idea how to reliably differentiate decisive victories from mundane ones, and there are single-issue anon editors who routinely add "decisive" to articles on my watchlist. Magic♪piano 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This and (especially) this archived discussion might be informative. EyeSerene^talk 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

After an extended wrangle over mentioning tactical & strategic outcomes at Attack on Pearl Harbor, I've been persuaded the infobox isn't the best place to try & settle the degree of victory. I can only agree with the suggestion here: "see Aftermath". The multiple uses of "decisive" immediately run afoul, to name one example, of IJN doctrine; "pyrrhic" has become somewhat devalued over time, so any victory where winner's losses are heavy can be so described (& may be, by non-specialists, which is bound to lead to reverts). As said, there's no perfect solution... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Military brat (U.S. subculture) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've created articles under my personal page for the author Archer Jones, seeUser:Gautier_lebon/Archer_Jones and his book The Art of War in the Western World, seeUser:Gautier_lebon/The_Art_of_War_in_the_Western_World. Are these suitable topics for inclusion in Wikipedia? If yes, are there any suggestions to improve the articles, apart from exanding the summary of the book, which I will do if people feel that the topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several works about the Art of War in Western Europe or in the Western World, most starting with the Greeks and ending with the USA. You could write an article about this phenomena because I don't know if each work about this topic is notable enough for an article. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good comment. Of course I haven't read all books on that topic, but Jones takes a different approach, using actual campaigns as examples to illustrate his theories on strategy and weapons systems. See the very brief description at User:Gautier_lebon/The_Art_of_War_in_the_Western_World. Critics seem to agree that this work stands out from the rest. In that light, is it worth including?--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to meet the notability criteria by containing references to reliable sources which are independent of the subject of the article and provide in-depth coverage of the topic. The guideline for people is WP:BIO and that for books is WP:BK. From what's currently in the draft articles, I'd suggest that neither Mr Jones or his book warrant inclusion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to the notability criteria. Reviewing the criteria for academics, I believe that Prof. Jones meets criteria 1, 4 and 5, whereas meeting any single criterion is sufficient for inclusion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone in London from the Task Force? I plan to visit for the day Brookwood American Cemetery in Surrey, 35 miles outside of London, on 1 December. This little-known American cemetery is one of two in the UK, and it's the smallest, with less than 500 graves. If you want to join me, just let me know. I plan to take notes and lots of photographs to build up an article. There is also a quite larger Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery next to it with not one but two Cross of Sacrifice monuments. Of course a pub visit would be in order too! -- K72ndst (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think technically there are two different CWGC sites there, most significant are the two memorials to those who died in the UK in each of the two world wars whose burial place is not known, or is marked by a family headstone, rather than a CWGC one. Tehre are some burials as well. David Underdown (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I am most interested in visiting the CWGC cemeteries. The first one I visited was last year in Normandy, the Bayeux War Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery, which is an article I started and took all the photos for. I have a list of VC winners to look for in Brookwood. If anyone has a particular grave they are seeking to get photographed, post it here. -- K72ndst (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Having actually looked at the info on the CWGC website, I see I was misrembering slightly, the cemetery does indeed contain the largest CWGC cemetery in the UK in addition to the memorials. I've visited a few of the Belgian cemetries in the past, including one of the German cemetries there, had a completely different feel to the CWGC ones, enclosed by pine trees and with headstones in dark stone, (and generally on massed graves), it seemed rather foreboding, in contrast to the light and airy feel of the CWGC cemeteries. \hope the visit goes well. David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Polygon Wood is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for 7th Infantry Division (United States) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Have we misnamed this article? While the overlap is significant, these terms surely refer to fundamentally distinct topics. We seem to be equating Bonaparte's Imperial restoration with the military effort he pursued against the Coalition powers. An article on the Hundred Days should describe in more detail the Empire's diplomacy, ministries (Carnot, Bigonnet, Fouché) constitution (l'acte additionel), etc., instead of treating social and political themes as mere preludes to the Waterloo campaign. The War of the Seventh Coalition article, in turn, could take a broader look at military operations. Put another way, Hundred Days refers to a period in French constitutional history, which happened to coincide with the War of the Seventh Coalition. Albrecht (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Beyond this, Minor campaigns of 1815 ought to be renamed to something more consonant with our practices and existing material (for instance the series on French Revolutionary campaigns, i.e. French Revolutionary Wars: Campaigns of 1797). The other theatres could be defined as "minor" in relation to the Waterloo campaign, but surely that's not their defining characteristic. (N.B. These same proposals languished on the Napoleonic task force for a year or two without comment, so I'm throwing it out here as a precaution before making these moves myself.) Absence of comment on this topic will be taken as consensus. ;) Albrecht (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Morotai is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for the community; looking at this article it seems rather useless in explaining what to put in each section of an infobox. However we have this one that covers each section, is this latter article essentially the "rulebook" in regards to this?

Either way I’m looking for what the communities’ consensus is on what to display for casualty figures. This article states that a casualty is “In military usage, casualties usually refer to combatants who have been rendered combat-ineffective, or all persons lost to active military service, which comprises those killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by physical injuries, disabled by psychological trauma, captured, deserted, and missing, but does not include injuries which do not prevent a person from fighting.” The definition mostly coming from source.

To finally cut to the chase should we have casualties broken down between killed, wounded, missing, and those captured or should we have a single figure (or range) with a note supplying the details? Alternatively should killed, wounded and missing be listed as one figure and displayed separately from those captured?

Somewhat extreme examples of what am talking about:

• Everything listed, complete breakdown within the infobox
• Single figure (or range if approbirate) with a note detailing the breakdown of casualties
• Killed and wounded listed as one figure and captured as a seperate figure (if we look only at the Allied side of the infobox onlu)

What is everyone thoughts?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Template:Infobox military conflict is definitive rule or not, but either way, it's nice to keep consistent standards, so this is a debate well worth having. Personally, regardless of what the military definition of casualty is, I feel someone being rendered combat ineffective by injury, combat ineffective by capture and the death of an individual to be three different things. I also think casualty can be taken to mean different things to different people. Some do see it as anyone rendered combat ineffective, some see it as meaning killed, some see it as injured and others as injured or dead, but not captured. I haven't mentioned MIA, as quite often we are dealing with events sufficiently past to know where people originally considered missing have gone, although obviously this is not always the case.

As I said, it's good to have standards, but do we need to limit ourselves to one 'definition' of casualty when we often have the ability to separate these 3 factors? Unless we wikilink the definition of casualty in the infobox to make sure everyone understands which definition we are using, there is room for confusion. And I believe doing this would be overkill when, as I said, there is room to dsiplay all 3 in the infobox. My preference would thus be to keep the three things separate in the infobox if possible (but within reason - see below).

So, to cut to the chase, I would include KIA, WIA and POW (and MIA if appropriate) separately in the infobox (if known). There should be a losses section in the article detailing nationalities, inconsistencies and other (material etc..) losses. Other relevant losses (eg. captured Generals) would also be included in such sections. There should be some limits though, and the infobox is just meant to summarise what is in the text. Seeing as there doesn't seem to be a casualties section in the Korean War article, I would move all the info into a new subheading, and in the infobox just leave the grand totals for KIA, WIA and POW in the infobox (with a note to scroll down). There is also no losses section in the El Alamein article, so personally I'd create one from the various notes, list the KIA, WIA, MIA (unless where they went can be established), and POW in the infobox, along with a total of material losses. A breakdown of nationality, type of material etc.. can then be included in the losses section. There are always some issues to negotiate though. Which way should a wounded man who is captured be listed? I'd say POW overrides WIA, and anyone listed as WIA is assumed to have left the battle on the same side from which he joined it.

Just my opinion. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two things I'd like to say here.

Casualties are notoriously difficult to nail down. When you have really good sources, you can see numbers of deaths rise as some of the wounded die, while the missing tend to fall as they turn up.

While we know what casualties are, casual readers have a tendency to misunderstand and misinterpret casualties as deaths. So we should always attempt to provide a breakdown if we can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hawkeye7. It is rare in earlier periods to have a detailed breakdown of casualties - sources often only speak of killed and this is often rendered as casualties in secondary accounts. Concepts like "missing" are relatively recent, reflecting access to records of pre-battle states which may not have existed and are even less likely to survive. It is therefore pretty impossible to use a consistent definition over time unless on a lower common denominator (KIA) basis. Better to break down the figure by casualty type where we can. Monstrelet (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong i am all in favour of breaking down the casualty figure but just not in the infobox. So i agree with Ranger Steve, to an extent, that when there is huge ammounts of information we should have a Casualty section that deals with that information.

As for precise figures, i am fully aware that wars beyond the 20th Century can be much harder to nail down figures and looking to the Classical era figures that all over the bloody place. However am mainly looking at this from a more modern sense (i.e. 1939 to now) where on the whole we have the secondary sources that nail down the losses sometimes to the man or to a round about figure.

If i provide Operation Epsom as another example; here i had access to VIII Corps records provided by a secondry source published by VIII Corps staff. So i have a complete breakdown of killed, wounded and missing/captured for practically every formation involved in the operation from the British point of view whereas the secondary sources provide only a rounded figure for the German losses and it doesnt really seem complete. So in this instance are we suggesting the best appraoch would be to provide the rounded figure for the German losses and a complete breakdown within the alliedside of the infobox? To me that would look to clutterly and not be providng quick information per what the infoboxes are for.

Just my two pennys worth.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Hawkeye managed to put across a far less complicated version of what I was trying to say! It is true that casualty figures can increase as sources improve (I would tend to err with the figures as they stand at the end date of the battle as listed in the infobox if that accuracy can be achieved). It is also true that pre 20th Century battles will always be harder to get right, but I believe that for battles where we have the information to separate the different casualty types, there is space to do so in the infobox. If we can dedicate several lines to the commanders and units in a battle, I see no harm in using 3 or 4 lines to separate those who have been injured or captured from those who made the ultimate sacrifice. This (to me) seems the minimum amount of detail I would put into an infobox to simplify more information in the main text. For Operation Epsom, personally I would once again take all the info in the notes and add it to the main text.

The 2 main battles I've done - the Battle of Arnhem and the Liberation of Arnhem are I suppose, examples of what I would try to achieve in other battles. In the Battle of Arnhem, an accurate breakdown of Allied losses by unit can be provided in the main text, along with some descriptions of other factors (high rate of loss of officers). A summary fits into the infobox and doesn't appear to be too much info there, alongside the info in the other fields (Interestingly it is very hard to nail down WIA figures, most of them having been left behind in the evacuation, and no definitive figures for escapees who were wounded seem to exist). Anyway, German figures are far less complete, and that is sourced in the text. The summary may not look as balanced in the infobox, but I don't believe it suffers in any way as a result. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I originally put this on the Stoke-on-Trent page, but haven't as yet had a reply. Broader cross section of of the world here of course, but you never know, I might get lucky and one of you might be from Stoke-on-Trent!

I'm currently in the process of improving the article on John Baskeyfield who was born in Burslem and has a statue erected in (I think) Festival Park, Stoke-on-Trent. I thought it would be nice to get an image of the statue (seen here) for the article, and was wondering if anyone who lived local to the area might be able to take one. No major rush, but if you happen to pass it with your camera one day a couple of shots from different angles might be nice. Any help would be much appreciated, especially if anyone knows anything else about him. Cheers,

Ranger Steve (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The historically important engraving of the destruction of Godesberg 1583 by Frans Hogenberg has been nominated for Featured picture. See Here for the nomination. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way of getting a higher resolution scan of that? I opposed it on Commons on technical grounds and am abstaining on this project (different featuring criteria). Really wish we had a better digital file: 10MB or larger in uncompressed TIFF format. It's a subject that deserves to be featured. Durova³⁶⁹ 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Bardia is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There are currently several discussions going on at Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) about which countries should be displayed as belligerents in the article's infobox. Editors are invited to participate in these discussions. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Vilnius Castle Complex/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Walter Peeler is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am happy that the article was nominated for featured article of the day. Nevertheless I am surprised that the article is attracting so much vandalism. Thank you to all of you that keep reverting. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I have heard in offline discussions, Molders was under attack from 4chan... Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

References for Asian Indian Americans

I am looking for assistance in finding references regarding Asian Indian Americans during World War II. During the 1940 US Census "Hindu Americans" were the fourth largest group of Asian Americans after the Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos. So far I have not found significant sources which to create a paragraph for Indian Americans in the article Military History of Asian Americans. If anyone would like to assist, they can place references they find on the article's talk page. Thank you in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it's only been a couple days, but I haven't gotten any responses from other editors, even after posting a similar request for assistance on other talk pages relating to the references I seek. Therefore, I have written to the U.S. Army's Center of Military History. Hopefully in a week's time they can point me in the right direction, otherwise I will have to skip that paragraph, and write a paragraph for Korean Americans and move on to the desegregation of the military and the Cold War. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Image for Korean Americans in World War II

I am looking to see if anyone has access to any public use images of Korean Americans serving during World War II, which would be inclusive of the 100 plus who served. I would much rather use a group image, rather than one of a single individual. Furthermore, I have never uploaded an image before onto Wikicommons, and have not found an appropriate one there either. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the new command photo for LTG William B. Caldwell, IV and I can't upload it who can I send it to so that his page can be updated Ntma (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you upload it? Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think uploads are restricted for new users. They may need to wait a week or so before they become enabled. Leithp 07:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted "confirmed" flag so should be able to upload now. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Helmut Lent is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fellow MILHISTers, I come to you with something of a unique challenge. I am currently volunteering at the Eastbourne Redoubt, which contains the regimental museums for the Royal Sussex Regiment and the 4th Queen's Own Hussars. When working on the latter's display on the Crimean War, the assistant curator and myself came across an old sword in a display case which is unlabelled and has no apparent records for how it came to be there. As such,the curator has asked me to upload some photo's to the 'net and come to you all for assistance. The pictures are [here], [here], and [here]. Absolutely any help would be appreciated here, and any WP:OR is perfectly okay. Much appreciated, Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks very much like the 1821 pattern light cavalry sword, which continued to be in use during the Crimea War. If so, it's probably the troopers' version: the officers' versions were heavily engraved and had channels (blood gutters) running up each side of the blade. Is there a manufacturer's stamp? Sometimes they have serial numbers crudely punched into the steel. I would have thought that the sword curators at the Royal Armouries would be good people to ask.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Roger, that's a real help; I didn't think I'd be getting a reply. No, there don't seem to be any serial numbers or other identifying marks, although I'll upload some more photos on friday when I can get them. No manufacturer stamp either, which seems odd, so I'll check it again. But once again, thanks so much - at the very least that's enough to put on the exhibit label for the sword. Skinny87 (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just found this link, which may be helpful. As a further thought, it may be a "service" sword for actual use rather than for ceremonial purposes. This might explain its lack of ornament.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like a light cavalry trooper's sabre as used in the Charge of the Light Brigade (pattern 1822, not 1821 though! [Struck; sources are confusing on this - they confused me anyway!]) EyeSerene^talk 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

While I've been tidying up an article for GA, I've found a solitary ref that Robert Henry Cain is the only Manx recipient of the Victoria Cross (here). It seems something worthy of inclusion on his page, but it isn't an amazingly authoritative ref. Soooo... I was wondering if anyone else might have a better reference than this, or alternatively knows of another Manx recipient? On a related note, while I was looking through List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality I noticed that Cain is listed as an English recipient of the VC, but Channel Islanders are listed separately. I'm not an expert on the legal status of crown dependancies, so does anyone know if Cain should be listed separately (from English recipients) in the same manner as Channel Islanders, or does the Isle of Man have a slightly different status that would counter this? Cheers for any help, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And having gone through the Channel Islander names out of interest, I'm slightly concerned that some of them seem to be Irish, Scottish or even South Africans. Is there any qualifying factor for Channel Island nationality other than going to school there that I'm missing? (ie where did these nationalities come from so I can see what Cain counts as). Ranger Steve (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a general problem with trying to split these down below "British" to some extent. Some fo the categorisations of Irish can also be tricky. I certainly can't see any reason why IoM should be treated differently to Channel Islanders. David Underdown (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'll add it soon. I am becoming more concerned about this featured list now though: just skimming through I've identified at least 3 examples of repeated names under different nationalities, and as I've said above there are several instances where the nationality doesn't seem to be supported in the article or confirmable with a reference. Does anyone know of a definitive list of VC winner nationalities, or how the nationalities in this list were ascertained? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, found a better ref by the way. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Often there are justifiable reasons for categorising someone under more than one nationality, parentage, where living at the time they joined the armed forces, nationality adopted later (and best known as) etc. Then there are cases like George Prowse who for years was presumed to have been born in England, but has now been discovered to actually ahve been born in Wales. However, his parents were both English and living there only temporarily, he spent his childhood and early teenage years in England, but returned to Wales to work, and married a local, before volunteering for the Royal Naval Division in WWI. David Underdown (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That’s fair enough. I do understand the logic in multiple nationalities, but surely then the lists are flawed if it allows 2 entries for one person? It’s one thing having 2 relevant nationalities listed for one entry, but quite another to have 2 entries under different nationalities in a comprehensive (and featured) list. Shouldn’t it be one entry per person with multiple nationalities listed? (Although I accept that might affect sorting). Here are the problem people I’ve found with just ten mins of random clicking:

• Henry D'Arcy - listed twice, once as a New Zealander, once as a South African.
• John Frederick McCrea - listed twice, once as a Channel Islander, once as a South African.
• Herbert Stephen Henderson - Listed as a Rodesian, but then found in the List of Scottish Victoria Cross recipients.
• George Nurse - listed as a Channel Islander, but listed as Irish on the linked List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients.
• William Bruce (VC) - listed as a Channel Islander, but then found on the List of Scottish Victoria Cross recipients.
• Lewis Halliday - Listed as an Islander, but then features in the linked List of English Victoria Cross recipients
• Hastings Edward Harington - As above.
• Allastair Malcolm Cluny McReady-Diarmid - As above.
• Euston Henry Sartorius - Listed as an Islander, but also on the List of Victoria Cross recipients of uncertain nationality.
• Reginald William Sartorius - As above.
• George Mullin (and other Americans) - listed as American but also found on the List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients (this is noted, but then if they’re considered Canadian why list them as American in the first place?)
• Filip Konowal - listed as Ukranina/Canadian, but then listed separately on the linked List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients

For the Channel Islanders, it seems the only factor giving many of them Channel Island nationality is the fact they went to school there. And this was honestly just ten minutes of random clicking. Took me longer to write this out! Several other biographies have no mention of the nationality they are given in the list. I accept this isn’t necessarily the list’s fault, but then surely the list should have a ref to back it up, if the biography it links to can't do so. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see the logic in having a person with perceived "dual nationalities" listed under two sections, but if that is the agreed format then it should be made clear in the lead and a note should be appended to each entry that is listed twice, explaining where else they are listed and why.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Woody is the guy who's done most of the work on the VC lists. I think some of them are rather hang-overs from lists on the VC Reference project, which was migrated here en masse in the early days of Wikipedia when referencing standardsweren't so well established. David Underdown (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly noticed some slightly garbled information in the existing VC articles - a few people being listed as members of units which didn't exist at the time of the event, etc. I think "check the footnoting and discard any odd claims" may be the best approach here... Shimgray | talk | 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you some information that is incorrect, hopefully only units might have an issue, then please update it. I found that I had to create a huge number of redirects whilst making these lists, particularly for the units. I tried to ensure that the name listed in Arthur is the unit name in the lists, but this only happened for the later lists and not the earlier nationality ones. I will have a run through soon to try and check. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this for quite a while, mainly since a discussion came up on the talkpage. Nationalities can be arrived at from several different directions, at the moment, I am not sure which one is used for this list, hence why I pretty much abandoned it. This was left over from the reference project and I cleaned it up, but as you can see from the names above, the confusion surrounding nationalities abounds. I think we need to come up with a comprehensive definition for these lists and then carry it out across the lists and recipients articles. We need to decide whether it is the place of birth, the place of service, the place of schooling, the nationality that they considered themselves to be. I know of one recipient (can't remember which one, but serves an example) who was born in England, served in a British unit and then moved to Australia and stayed there until he died. He considered himself Australian, but he was English and served in an English unit. How do you categorise that and enforce it in a list? Regards, Woody (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In talking to an international audience I count 91 Australian awards. In talking to an Australian audience I say 96 Australian awards made up of 91 members of the Australian forces and five Australians serving with South African and British forces. Australia has been consistent over the years in its count of 96 and I always make the point that five of the 96 Australians served in South Africa and Britain forces. The figure we never use is 80 Australian born recipients which deletes 18 foreign born recipients and adds two Australian born members of the British Army who are not counted among the 96.

I have three recommendations.

Firstly in a general list give the nationality of force in which the recipient joined. The difficult questions are how to count the RFC and RNAS before 1918 and the HEIC before 1858 or 1859. My preference is to count RFC and RNAS as RAF and count HEIC as a separate category. However, RAAF attached to the RAF (Middleton) is counted as an Australian. British Army attached to Indian Army are counted as British but British officers of the Indian Army count as Indian.

Secondly, if you a doing a county list such as Australia define who is included. For Australia I include all members of the Australian forces plus Rogers, Dartnell, Pearse, Sullivan and Edwards, All five were veterans of the Australian forces and four were Australian born.

Finally depending on what you trying are trying to achieve expand on your definition by footnoting individuals. For instance George Bell Chicken was for many years counted as HEIC and not as a civilian. I count Lt W J English as South African forces and not British Army.

Since the first Australian "Victoria Cross for Australia" was awarded this year, I now say 97 Australians have been awarded the Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect I would suggest the opposite - the VC is awarded to an individual, not a unit, and so it should be the individual's nationality before the army he is fighting for. But that's just an opinion. On the subject of this list, a thought has occurred to me. It seems the sort-ability function is redundant because this list is A) a nationality list anyway, B) missing half of the recipients. Thus if I sort the list by battle for instance, I only get 1 of 5 Arnhem VC's and 3 of 12 Rorkes Drift VC's. The rest are in sublists and I have to go through each sublist individually to see if there are any more recipients from the same battle there. A sortable list such as this can only work if all entries are included. Soooo.... if the sort-ability were discounted, it wouldn't be a problem to reduce names to single entries and include several nationalities.

Alternatively, add a new cat for "Army served with" or something along those lines as Anthony suggests and ruthlessly decide each participants nationality. To keep the sort-ability list, re-instate all of the entries currently in sub-lists (no need to delete those list's though as they're worthy lists in their own right), so that you then have a full list VC winners that can be listed alphabetically, by conflict, by battle, by army served with and by date. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that the VC is awarded to an individual, not a unit. However, we should rethink the present situation which you well describe as “ruthlessly decide each participants nationality”. Perhaps the way to go is to follow the tradition of the War Office 1953 Alphabetical List of Recipients and the 1963 VC book by Sir John Smyth Bt VC MC where there is a consolidated table by country with the exception of the UK where the breakdown is by service. We can be dogmatic and classify every VC recipient to one country or service with footnotes such as Rawdon Middleton was an Australian although attached to the RAF and the Robert Hampton Gray was a Canadian although attached to the FAA.

William Rhodes-Moorhouse should be listed as RFC or RAF not New Zealand and Lanoe Hawker should be similarly listed and not Australian. Having one consolidated list you can then have country lists and count recipients twice or three times. I cannot think of an example but a hypothetical Canadian born officer of the British Army attached to the Indian Army could be listed in the Canadian, British Army and Indian Army lists. William Rhodes-Moorhouse whose grand mother was a New Zealander could be listed in the New Zealand list. However, Lanoe Hawker would not appear in the Australian list despite his father being an Australia who served in the Australian forces in South Africa and whose brother was a member of the Australian forces on the Western Front and who said Lanoe Hawker always considered himself to be an Australian. And Australia does not list two recipients who were born in Australia as Australian recipients. I think a VC nationally list should be country driven because Wikipedia is not prescriptive but descriptive. The Australian list will have different criteria for inclusion or exclusion than a Canadian, New Zealand or Manx list.Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Several thoughts have come to mind over the last few days. The first is that, rather than change the lists significantly, an easier method might be to change the titles/lede prose. Instead of List of Scottish Victoria Cross recipients (for example), could it not be reworded as List of recipients of the Victoria Cross of Scottish descent or something along such lines to clarify the reason for inclusion in the list. This way people can be included in multiple lists sorted by nationality for good reason. In many ways the contents of the list aren't wrong, because of the mixed descent many people have, but it is important to ensure that the title describes the contents accurately. For example, the List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross is currently using a racial descriptor in the title for what is essentially a military unit structured list (men in Gurkha regiments/formations), which strikes me as inaccurate.

A second idea involves British recipients of the Cross. I imagine there are several examples of people without a clear nationality within the big 4 of the British Isles, but George Prowse is one and David Lord would appear to be another. He was born in Ireland to Welsh parents and appears in books both about Irish and Welsh VC winners. The CWGC list him as British though, and I wonder if it might be an idea in future to fold the Scottish, Welsh and English lists (and possibly Irish) into one, with subsections for English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and British/mixed for those that we just can't separate.

Thirdly, and I hate to say it, but I just don't think the List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality is cutting it as a Featured List at the moment, especially when an editor believes that discarding info and carefully checking the footnotes is necessary. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality/archive1, regards, Woody (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Woody (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm expanding the article on Oliver Philpot and I'm trying to find the Gazetting of his Military Cross. According to the National Archives it was gazetted on 23rd May 1944 but I've been through all the Gazette and the supplements for that date without finding it. Can anyone help?

And on the subject of the Wooden Horse is there a reason why Michael Codnor, a Royal Artillery officer, was in Stalag Luft III? The only conjecture I have is that he was an Air Observer shot down at some point? Likely or not?

TIA NtheP (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been an error on the date, it waas 16 May 1944. I've found that the last middlename and surname often get run together in the Gazette index, particularly whe the name is split over two lines as in this case. A search on SpurlingPhilpot came up with the MC straight away. Searching on service number is usually pretty effective too. David Underdown (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd tried a service number search but it dodn't come up with anything but then the Gazette has it wrong in this citation. All other references give it as 77131 - this one had 88131. NtheP (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Having now had a look at the recommendation, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=7692868 I see that as well as the fairly anodyne official recommendation/citation for the MC by MI9, the file also contains Philpot's complete account of his capture and escape as given during his debrief, complete with a sketch of the famous vaulting horse, and how the worker and spoil bags were carried within it! David Underdown (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A pity we can't use that sketch in the article. Looked at the MC gazetting again to see that one of the other recipients in the same issue was Hank Wardle who escaped from Colditz with Pat Reid. NtheP (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered that in addition to the bits of the recommendation relating specifically to Philpot being available at the url I mentioned above (the full contents only being available, in general, on payment of a fee of £3.50), the whole documents, including recommendations for several other RAF personnel for escapes/evasion and secret missions can be obtained free at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=8306624 - and in fact the whole of WO 373 (War Office/MOD files relating to recommendations for Honours and Awards from 1935 - 1990) can be obtained freely as part of the Digital Microfilm Project http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/digital-microfilm.asp - this way is generally not searchable by name. To search by name you can go to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/wo373.asp but by this means the pdfs can only be viewed for a fee. David Underdown (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Battle of Antietam#Tactical Victory, two editors on separate occasions have questioned the use of words in the following description of the battle's "Result" in the article infobox: "Result Tactically inconclusive; strategic Union victory". While I would like to know enough about the battle and military terminology to be able to answer the questions definitively, I feel as though Military History Project members and well-read editors who watch this page should participate in the discussion. It is possible that a different "Result" description is needed. Note that the description has existed in that form mostly unchallenged since January, 2006 or a period of over 46 months. Please make your comments at the article talk page linked here. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• A third editor changed the infobox, removing the questioned phrase, as I was posting this topic. Comments are still requested. Sswonk (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Last night, the original Distinguished Service Order article was moved to Distinguished Service Order (United Kingdom), and Distinguished Service Order converted to a disambiguation page citing WP:ODM project naming conventions. However, hundreds, if not thousands, of articles link to Distinguished Service Order, expecting it to be the article relating to the UK/Commonwealth award. Either all these references need to be fixed, or, as I have suggested DSO (UK) should be moved back, and the disambiguation page should be at Distinguished Service Order (disambiguation) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please comment on the relevant talkpages. David Underdown (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been moved back per WP:DAB. EyeSerene^talk 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a chance at our first featured picture of a German WWI biplane. The bibliographic record doesn't tell much. Other material from the same album suggests this could have been part of Hellmuth Felmy's squadron.[11] Felmy's plane is identified as an "Albatross", which would be the Albatros D.III, but this has more bracings. One editor thinks this is the Hannover CL II, citing Warplanes of the 20th Century by Christopher Chant, p. 18 and this online image, which unfortunately is a side view. Would like to get more feedback and sources, then submit to the Library of Congress research staff for vetting. Durova³⁶⁹ 19:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an expert, but it doesn't look anything like the images of the Hannover CL II to my mind. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You can see why this question needs more eyes. :) Durova³⁶⁹ 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. It looks a lot more like the Aviatik C.I, but the top wings look slightly longer than the lower in that photo. Could perhaps be the Rumpler C.I? Ranger Steve (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm leaning more to the Aviatik now. Notice the struts at near right angles to the planes, the odd flap on the top wings and the line of the tailplane (all of which to me make me certain it isn't the Hannover II). The only thing, like I said, is the length of the top wing.... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly an AEG C.IV based on the struts and the shape of the trailing edge on the ailerons.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks convincing, but the nose is a slightly different shape. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you come to an agreement please provide sources. The librarians will need a reference. Durova³⁶⁹ 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection of the offsite photo, it isn't a Aviatak - different struts around the cockpit. But if it's an Albatross, I wonder if it's one of these. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From Grat and Thetford's German Aircraft of the First World War, all of the major two seat Albatross's seem to have different wing trailing edges, without the scalloped ailerons and with a much larger cut out on the upper wing for the gunner - both of which point to the AEG.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Offsite someone sent this link.[12] I'm no expert on what to look for. Opinions? Durova³⁶⁹ 06:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nigel that this is a good contender, but the nose looks slightly different to me. On the image in question, it seems to come to a point at the prop, whereas on the AEG it seems more bulbous. It's also lacking a small blister right next to the prop, and the small vent looks like its in a slightly different place. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to muddy the waters, but the Rumpler CIV is a possible see http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rumpler-C-IV/1182636/M/ . Also the later CVII.Monstrelet (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's the Rumpler. The nose shape is wrong; the Rumpler has a pronounced stagger which isn't in the photo up for ident. I'd say it's more likely an AEG. NtheP (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This might help http://www.nzmr.org/german.htm It's Felmy sat in a very similar looking plane - note the camouflage pattern. Here's another view showing Albatroses at Huj(both DIII's) - http://pixdaus.com/?sort=userlast&name=starboardside Monstrelet (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/ac/pic-detail.asp?aircraft_id=424&sCurrentPic=aeg-civ_2.jpg&sCurrentDescriptor=Front left side view of an AEG C.IV at rest For sure, analyzed the structure, mathematically with tools and instruments... even the engine matches it have the same twist ! 116.71.61.56 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC) iDangerMouse :) Yes my wikipedia is unblocked officially !

http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/B01838 Date made: c 1917

Physical description: Black & white Summary: A.E.G C.IV aircraft, being assembled at the German aircraft depot, during enemy occupation. This was also used. iDangerMouse 119.155.4.247 (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Popping in to say that this will need a consensus before I submit a suggested correction to LoC or restore it. Might be better to go with something else for a featured picture drive? Durova³⁶⁹ 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice find. I think that's pretty conclusive. Those canvas hangers could easily be the same pair as in the picture of the Albatroses. Incidentally, at least one man appears in the picture of the Albatroses and the mystery AEG (the guy in the white boots, white shirt and dark scarf)which suggests the pictures were taken around the same time. One of the canvas tents appears in the right background. Monstrelet (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The image captions say they were taken in different years, although one might have been late 1916 and the other early 1917. Same location, probably same military unit. Fwiw, if consensus is hard to develop with the Huj biplane there's a different one here (which has the advantage of being a rather dramatic crash scene). Same question: what in heck is the make and model? Durova³⁶⁹ 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

An Albatros DV or DVa. It probably carried some squadron or personal art in front of the cross, which has been cut away as a souvenier. On the Huj pictures, I would be surprised if those two photos were taken a year apart, unless that guy didn't change clothes too often. The AEG assembly photo was clearly taken at a different time - the ground appears muddy and none of the workforce are in shirt-sleeves.Monstrelet (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, do you have a source for the Albatros DV or DVa identification? There's too much difference of opinion on the first image, but might be able to do something about the second. Durova³⁶⁹ 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this http://cas.awm.gov.au/technology/RELAWM04806 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstrelet (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to establish a "Battles of Prophet Muhammad WikiProject". Since the topic falls within our scope, interested editors may wish to comment. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to create a task force for this, let alone a project, when a working group would do just fine. This is the exact sort of thing I had in mind when I suggest the idea, after all. 76.211.107.188 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with IP editor on this one, this should fall under WP:ISLAM, or if under us those battles would fall under the respective area where they occured, most likely under ME TF. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if there are editors interested in developing all these articles to a high standard a standalone project might be appropriate, especially given the intersection of military and religious issues in all the articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Early Muslim military history task force has to deal with war&religion all the time. We have the prophet Mohammed, the Ridda wars, the Muslim conquest, lots of conflicts between Sunni and Shia Muslims like the Fatimid dynasty&Abbasid dynasty, militant reformist movements like the Almohad dynasty and the crusades. This continues to the modern struggles like the Wahhabi&Saudi or Islamic fundamentalism. To say it bluntly, there will always be somebody in Islam making a connection between war&religion (in Christian and Jewish context such ideas are also documented).

I would like to understand, how exactly this project should improve the work on this topic. If we know that we can for sure find a suitable solution, but founding whatever project without a concept is none. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Xa Loi Pagoda raids is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 15:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Arrow (missile) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 15:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello there folks. I come with a request for information that I hope one of you might be able to help me out with. In an alternate dimension known as the real world, I also get to do military history research (although, as in this dimension it is unpaid). At present I’m doing a lot of research into Fort Victoria, an early Palmerston Fort on the Isle of Wight. It’s actually got quite an interesting and varied history, and I’ve almost finished my research, but there is one loose end I’d like to tie up and that involves a ship – HMS Talbot. According to one source I have, the workers who built Fort Victoria apparently stayed on a HMS Talbot, which in 1853 was a hulk moored offshore. I’d assume from the disambig page for HMS Talbot that this was HMS Talbot (1824), which says that the vessel was made into a powder hulk in 1855. However, the little information I can glean from Google suggests that HMS Talbot was in Greenland in 1854 (see here and here). It might refer to HMS Talbot (1807), but this seems a bit early, and was sold in 1815.

An interesting record from the National Archives about the death of a Fort Victoria worker refers to the vessel as Carysfort Hulk, which might refer to one of the HMS Carysforts, although this might also be a reference to the location in which the fort was being built – an earlier earthworks there had been called Carey’s Sconce.

I’d be very grateful to get hold of any more information about the vessel that had been converted into a hulk by 1853/54, or any idea of what direction to head in to find out. I am planning a trip to The National Archives (England) soon(ish), so that may provide some further answers.

I can’t promise any kind of incentive I’m afraid, but you’ll have a favour owed to you and long term there’ll be a first rate article on Fort Victoria, and hopefully another on the ship – whichever one it was! Many thanks, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

...has been restarted. Please leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive1 so consensus may be reached! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Osan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Over the next few days I shall be posting a considerable expansion/rewrite of this article. Members of the project are welcome to comment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, a very important article. I look forward to reading an actual cited and expanded version of it. Good luck! Skinny87 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

An anon editor who claims to be a member of the family is making unverifiable changes to the article referring to documents he claims to be holding. While I tend to believe that his claim is correct I cannot positively verify his claim. How can this be handled? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V trump all I'm afraid. I have sympathy with this problem, as unpublished information occassionally comes to light in my areas of editing and I'm unable to use it, but the whole point of references is that other editors can double check to confirm the information is correct and balanced. Unpublished documents do not allow this. --Jackyd101 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, but it looks like you have handled the situation well, using other sources to corroborate and then adding a footnote discussing the problem.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am just a visitor in the English Wikipedia, but living in Kassel I know the place and so I noticed that it was mispelled. I have corrected the text but do not know how to move the article, which should correctly be named Kassel-Rothwesten Airfield. Could somebody do this? UtaHae (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There we are, moved it for you! Skinny87 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Who was the winner and loser of the Indonesian National Revolution? Could someone add the belligerents to the article? B-Machine (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia was the victor as it secured its independence, and the Netherlands was the main loser of the war, although the United Kingdom was also a loser for having sided with and fought alongside the Dutch. There's an infobox on the article's talk page that contains most of this information, so that should be added into the article, as it was removed several years back. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposition to merge Armed forces to Military at Talk:Armed Forces#merge discussion. username 1 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, but unfortunately the discussion has already been closed (as no consensus). It's an interesting discussion point though :) EyeSerene^talk 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed moments ago. Re-proposing since discussion was never until recently announced properly it should be disregarded. username 1 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"It's dead, Jim." It's been open since March, 2009, with Merge tags on both article - that's all thet is "required". Just let it go. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, the Siege of Godesberg Kupferstich by Frans Hogenberg is strugging at Featured Picture status here and could use some support. It's not of the digital quality the usual suspects want, and some are having trouble seeing past the digital fuzzies to its historical importance. Any assistance or advice would be appreciated. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What ever happened to that? Looks like the Bot archived it automatically, due to lack of discussion. What had consensus, and what still needed to be discussed? Perhaps we need to carry through those that had consensus, and continue discussion those that were still being debated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I thought I'd unarchived the discussion just the other day. I'll do it again, but I think you're right that some closures can be made. EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Several members of this wikiproject are standing in the current Arbitration Committee election. Editors are encouraged to review all candidate statements available via Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009 and vote for or against the candidates for this important role. For editors who are not familiar with ArbCom, it is the highest level of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process (other than very rare interventions by Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales) and plays an important role in settling long-running or complex disputes and managing several governance issues. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, following discussion with User:Djmaschek about this issue, I wanted to come here for a wider range of opinion. They have recently created some very nice orders of battle for engagements in the French Revolutionary Wars, but I felt that some of the titles were unclear. On examining a wider selection of titles for orders of battle across the project I found that there is little consistency on titling, with the most common versions being Battle of Foo order of battle or Order of battle at the Battle of Foo. I have always used the latter (following advice from Kirill almost two years ago), but I was wondering a) is there a guideline on this? b) If not, do we need to establish consistency or is this something that can be sensibly left to individual editors to decide case by case? c) Which wording do people think is better and why (this is not a vote, I'm just interested in why people prefer one over the other)?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the naming of these very confusing, and I'd like some guidelines too. I recently created on article on the order of battle at the first battle of Stockach and ran aground on the naming problems in this. The article was renamed at least once, from the one I considered to be intuitively correct, to one that is, I was told, more in line with other "orders of battle" articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had the same problem, and I feel that a a guideline certainly would be beneficial. Personally, I prefer using the format of Order of battle at the Battle of Foo over the format Battle of Foo order of battle as I feel that it simply flows and sounds better, but I have not seen any majority or consistency in which one is used. I definitely see a need for a creating a guideline as this is quite unclear and confusing. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A unique guideline may not be necessary: could the eventual decision be covered by inclusion on the the MILHIST style guide section for atricle names (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions)?. I'd agree with Laurinavicius and support Order of battle at the Battle of Foo for the same reasons... the alternate just doesn't read right to me, and when battle disambiguators have to be included (as per Auntieruth55's example: "Battle of Stockach (1799) Order of Battle") it just looks ugly. -- saberwyn 05:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer 'battle of X order of battle' - 'order of battle at the battle of X' doesn't sound right to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its better as Order of battle at the Battle of Foo and 10th Foo Division order of battle for those articles.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the sound of Battle of xxxx Order of Battle. I like having the name of the conflict/battle/operation at the start of the title rather than at the end, and on occasions when the name of the engagement is a battle (eg. Battle of France, Battle of Britain) it prevents having the word "battle" repeated so closely together. From a really picky point of view, having "Order of Battle" first necessitates different wordings after it (eg. Order of Battle for the Battle of Britain, Order of Battle for Operation Market Garden, Order of Battle in the Spanish Civil War (perhaps)). Having Order of Battle last neatly sidesteps this. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with saberwyn that the shorter wording sounds off, even if it does simplify things a bit. Something like "Italian campaign of 1524–1525 order of battle" is a grammatical monstrosity; the reader can probably figure out what it means eventually, but I don't think the order of the words is the expected one there.

(There aren't any rules requiring that article titles be grammatically correct, of course; but I think it's a good thing for them to be so, regardless.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps there could just be a choice of two--Order of Battle etc. and Battle of X - Order of Battle....? That way we could select one of the other, which ever we prefer? And then make them collectible using some kind of category or template parameter? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of guidance, I just named an article Army of the Danube Order of Battle, since it sounded better to me than Order of Battle Army of the Danube. Of course, I could have just put the entire composition of the army into the Army of the Danube article, but that didn't make a lot of sense to me either. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a question on how to put an image from Wikimedia on the article Johann von Ravenstein. The picture on Wikimedia (of the person von Ravenstein) and another picture (of the town Ravenstein or something) on the English Wiki share the same filename both called Ravenstein.jpg. How do I reference the correct picture of Ravenstein? I can't get it to work and I couldn't find a clue on the help pages either. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the en.wiki image to File:Ravenstein street.jpg and deleted the redirect, so it should work now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that did the trick. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from your friends over at Articles for Creation. We've had SIX submissions these past few days that would be right up y'alls alley. They're already in mainspace and ready to be improved- but by someone that actually knows something about the military.

Stanley Dunbar Embick
Daniel Van Voorhis
Albert Jesse Bowley, Sr.
Charles D. Herron
Stanley H. Ford
Herbert J. Brees

Thanks for anything y'all can do to improve them! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Italian battleship Roma (1940) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! — Vantine84 (t – c) 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we work on a set of guidelines to set up for what makes someone, based on their military service, notable enough to warrant an article? In the past I have seen the following bantered about (however none of it has been formally set down such as WP:NBAND):

• Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer
• Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valor, such as the Medal of Honor
• Individual was notable for an event regarding a military related activity/event that was widely covered by multiple third party reliably sourced verifiable sources.

Perhaps there should be more criterea set forth, such as multiple awardings of their nation's second (and possibly third) level award/medal for valor? Either way I look forwrd to the comments that this discussion brings up, and hope we get a WP:MILBIO out of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome the creation of such a set of guidelines, but would suggest the single awarding of a second or third level award (Military Medal, Silver Star etc) not make someone notable without any other achievements, lest we get bombarded with every winner in military history, I'll also link this AfD where consensus showed that a Silver Star winner, without any other significant achievements, was not notable. Of course, any such guidelines will have to be based off the need for WP:Reliable Sources. Skinny87 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, what I was thinking was that if someone is awarded a second level award, they would need to be awarded it at least twice to meet notability standards. To expand on that, if someone is awarded a third level award, they would have to be awarded it at least 3 times in order to meet notability standards. These awards, would have to be awarded for valorous actions, therefore say awardees of the Distinguished Service Medal, and its equivalent in the U.S. and elsewhere, wouldn't meet notability because it is a non valorous medal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore I would also like to propose another criteria for military biographical notability, enlisted servicemembers who hold/held the position of Sergeant Major of the Army, and its equivalents in the U.S. and elsewhere (that is Senior Enlisted Advisors at the Branch/Service/Joint/National level of command). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposal:

• Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer
• Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour, such as the Medal of Honor
• Individual was notable for an event regarding a military related activity/event that was widely covered by multiple third party reliably sourced verifiable sources.
• Individual made a material contribution to the science of war/doctrine/tactics that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
• Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war, verifiable by multiple, reliable sources.
• Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing, verifiable my multiple published references to his/her works.

Farawayman (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that we also include what is found on WP:MILMOS#NOTE, minus the statement "or a significant portion of one". I have seen Brigade Commanders woes unit saw combat be deleted as not meeting notability. What do you think about my proposal to include multiple secondary level medal/award for valor awardee, and senior enlisted advisors, as being notable?

I like the WP:MILMOS#NOTE criteria of (a.) People who commanded a substantial body of troops in combat, and (b.) Holders of top-level command positions (such as Chief of the General Staff). However, I do not agree with 2 x 2nd level award, 3 x 3rd level etc. It complicates things. A person who has a 3rd level award plus 2 bars should qualify under my bullet 3 above! Air aces is more complicated, because they did not receive valour awards for kills.... I'm not too sure how to manage that! Farawayman (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also flying aces should be included as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Are they all notable? Also, I'm not convinced that all flag officers are notable; see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Deputy Surgeon General, which covered a three star with an unremarkable peacetime career. Would we really need all the world's flag officers from all the peaceful portions of history? Buckshot06(prof) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have contested that. Oh well, to late now; I should pay more attention in the future. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Buckshot - revised proposal:

1. Individual was notable for playing an important role in a significant military event OR commanded a substantial body of troops in combat— all of which were widely covered by multiple, reliable third party verifiable sources.
2. Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer OR was a holder of a top-level command position (such as Chief of the General Staff) AND complies to the criteria of 1 above.
3. Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour, such as the Medal of Honor
4. Individual made a material contribution to the science of war/doctrine/tactics that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
5. Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war, verifiable by multiple, reliable sources.
6. Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing, verifiable my multiple published references to his/her works.

Fighter Aces would qualify under terms of #1 if achievement was sufficiently notable. Farawayman (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding the AND criteria for #2, above, makes it redundant. I would rather return it to Flag officer or top-level command position. Buckshot asks if we would we really need all the world's flag officers from all the peaceful portions of history -- I would reply 'yes'. --Ejosse1 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think we've normally gone by the GNG and required significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. I can understand why it's proposed that certain individuals might be notable solely because of their position, but that's presupposing that the sources will exist to write about them. In many, if not most, cases, they will, but I'd rather stick with what we currently have at WP:MILMOS#NOTE and judge each case on its merits. I can see the value of expanding the examples, or even creating a specific section, to clarify what probably isn't notable (and hopefully prevent AfDs like Skinny's linked to above), but I think it might be a mistake if we go down the route of saying that, no matter what, certain people are automatically notable. For example, it isn't so much that someone holds a certain medal that makes them notable, but what they did to be awarded it (and hence what we can source from what was written about it). EyeSerene^talk 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with eveserene on this one. If we establish such requirements, it also looks like only those people who meet those criteria are "notable" for military biography. This eliminates a lot of people who didn't have such credentials but fall into the category of "military biography"...The one i can think of off hand is Joan of Arc, but there would be others whose sole claim to notability is a military issue, but they didn't command anything, they weren't flag officers, or whatever. If the distinction is to determine notability based on what is written about them, that should be sufficient.

Look, this isn't acceptable. We need some kind of guidelines, even if MILBIOS just has something added to it about reliable sources always coming first. Otherwise things like the Edson AfD will happen again and again, and this project will still have no authoritative guideline to point to when the writer of an article on a Silver Star-winning, non-notable otherwise individual, inevitably kicks up a fuss during an AfD. Skinny87 (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd normally avoid this but two comments. Joan of Arc would qualify under #1 in Farawayman's classification, as would a great many past military celebrities. However, I would like to see something reflecting contemporary status, even as a secondary criterion. For example, Sgt. Ewart at Waterloo, in capturing a French eagle, achieved great celebrity and deserves an entry whereas others who done so previously were less remembered perhaps do not. I also feel that authors of famed military memoirs or other significant artistic achievements connected to their military service should also qualify. Monstrelet (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why a WP:MILBIO cannot exist, as an addition to the standard rules of Notability, if anything those covered under MILBIO should at minimum already meet general notability guidelines (also known as GNG). Furthermore, I don't see why all flag/general officers shouldn't warrant an article, even if it is a stub, and to expand on that, their Senior Enlisted Advisor counterparts. Being a flag/general officer means that the subject has already been recognized as a significant individual within a countries military; also, if the most senior position in a nation's military, say Monaco for example, is a Colonel, than the person holding that most senior position should warrant an article as well, and falls under point #2, in the previous list. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly create a WP:MILBIO if that's the way consensus is going. However, you've acknowledged the importance of the GNG but then seem to be contradicting yourself by suggesting all flag-rank officers are automatically notable. I wonder if there's some confusion about an individual's real-world significance and their Wikipedia notability? The two aren't the same. In Wikipedia terms, notable individuals are only notable because they've been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Winning a medal or holding a rank may be of significance, but unless the sources exist to produce a verifiable article about it, our writing it into a BIO guideline won't matter. Milhist doesn't exist in a vacuum, and we can't design our own notability criteria which contradict core Wikipedia editorial policies like WP:5P. EyeSerene^talk 08:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone is arguing that the individuals need not be verified by reliable third party sources, however I think what some of us are advocating are a set of standards by which those article that have been deleted in the past, even though they do meet general notability guidelines for a biography, are deleted because the are not seen as notable enough. A perfect example was the Army Deputy Surgeon General article stated above, which is highly notable within the U.S. Army medical community but that others do not see as notable outside of it. Theoretically such articles should survive on meeting general notability guideleines alone, however even if well references we have seen articles deleted in the past that might have otherwise been saved if a WP:MILBIO had existed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New proposed WP:MILBIO:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if he/she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the individual.

In particular, the following types of individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify:

• Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour/valor.
• Individual was awarded their nation's second level award for valour/valor multiple times (such as Distinguished Service Cross).
• Individual was promoted to a rank that would be considered a flag/general officer.
• Individual held the position that is the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or department/ministry their off (such as Chief of Army Staff).
• Individual held the position of Senior enlisted advisor for a Capital ship, or unit of Division designation and greater.
• Individual was notable for playing an important role in a significant military event OR commanded a substantial body of troops in combat. Substantial body of troops shall be a Capital ship or a Division and greater.
• Individual made a material contribution to Military science that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
• Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war.
• Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

Furthermore, if one or more of the criteria set above is meet and verifiable by multiple reliable sources independent of the individual, they shall be considered notable. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Edited slightly to simplify the language and clarify applicability to older topics:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources.

In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
5. Held the position of senior enlisted advisor for a substantial body of troops; or
6. Played an important role in a significant military event; or
7. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or
8. Made a material contribution to military science that is undisputedly attributed to them; or
9. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
10. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to a capital ship, or a division or larger formation, and their historical equivalents.

Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hot damn, now that's what I've been looking for. That's exactly what we need, especially since it's also still based on the need for reliable sources and the like. Thanks Kirill! Skinny87 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the disambiguous page for the DSC, the second level award in the Commonwealth is the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, whereas in the U.S. it is the DSC/NC/AFC. Furthermore, an idea, is there an article/template for all nation's secondary award/medal for valor?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Skinny87's remarks. I have numbered the criteria to make referencing easier. Farawayman (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link, to a second level medal/award. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is heading in the right direction, but a question that springs to mind is "how rigid are these guidelines?" I assume articles will be always assessed on a case by case basis (although this should probably be incorporated into the wording above), but I think there are too many qualifications that will cause confusion: for example, how will it be established whether someone "Played an important role in a significant military event" or "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat"? An example is Lionel Sadleir-Jackson, who commanded British troops in northern Russia in 1919. He doesn't seem to clearly qualify under any of the above guidelines (he never commanded a division), but in the context of the North Russia Campaign he is quite important. Does he qualify? My concern is that the project is limiting itself too much by having guidelines that are too strict - will they be used in Afds as an absolute decree or as a starting point for discussion?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say as a starting point for discussions. If the individual meets general notability guidelines for a biography article, then regardless if they meet any of those that are listed, then the article should be able to stand. If anything the requirement that "they have received significant coverage in multiple independent" (that reminds me we should add the word verifiable (done)) means the should already meet said requirement. If anything I think this serves as more of a backstop, for those articles that show that they meet one or more of the criteria listed, but allows the article to be saved by meeting one of the criterea set forth via a a single verifiable reliably sourced reference. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The WP:MILBIO shortcut is taken, by the Military Biography task force. Perhaps it could be given five shortcuts for each of the five branches, those would be WP:SAILOR, WP:MARINE, WP:COASTIE, WP:AIRMAN, and WP:SOLDIER. Or we can find a different shortcut or reuse WP:MIL#NOTE, and then add it to the page WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BIO#MIL, perhaps? WP:MIL#NOTE can't be reused, since that's just a section link off of the core WP:MIL shortcut. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well each of the other professions have a named shortcut, that is common to the profession. Unfortunatly, there is no single common name for servicemembers of multiple branches from different countries which is common throughout. Thus why I proposed multiple named shortcuts. But I can completely see the reason for a single shortcut, for simplicity sake. How about WP:MILITBIO?

Also how do we make this official? Does there need to be a consensus polling on this? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a fairly major initiative that will affect most task-forces, it might be worth writing up a summary (perhaps in a new thread or sub-thread of this one) stating the wording of the suggested guidelines and identifying any areas that need further discussion. It looks to me like there's general support for some kind of guideline, but the details still have to be settled: the wording; the location/shortcut; the level of prescriptiveness etc. To get as many eyes as possible on it, perhaps we could spam a link round the task-forces, and mention it in the next edition of the newsletter. Personally I'd rather avoid polling if possible - a discussion such as this has been, with comments rather than support/oppose !votes, tends to be more informative :) EyeSerene^talk 09:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that proposal other than #5: senior NCOs don't receive all that much coverage and I've seen a few articles about the senior NCOs in US Army divisions be deleted as a result of AfDs, so they shouldn't be assumed to be notable and articles on them should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, as senior NCOs have just as much time in service, and often just as much prestige due to their position (as a senior enlisted advisor of a significant command) and service, as a general or flag officer of that command. As the proposed guideline indicates, as long as the individual can be sufficiently referenced to meet WP:NN notability requirements, then the article should stand on that alone. If anything the exclusion of #5, from the current WP:MIL#NOTE may have been the reason why those articles were deleted in the first place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

'Prestige' is, by itself, not relevant to Wikipedia notability; what counts is the availability of reliable and independent sources. Senior NCOs don't normally receive much coverage beyond military-published sources. The AfDs were decided in reference to WP:BIO; one example (from memory) was that no-one could find any non-US Army published sources on the current (or very recent) senior NCO in the US 1st Armored Division. As this guidance can't override WP:BIO, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to include a clause which asserts notability on the basis of anything other than the expected availability of in-depth and independent reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that prestige is not relevent, as for the basic part verifiability and notability is at the most basic, what counts here. As long as secondary or tertiary source can be found to support, even if it is from the organization's (which would be secondary) which the NCO is a part of, then Notability should be achieved. And in its present wording the proposal doesn't assert notability based on expected available sources, but due to the criteria itself. However, even if the subject falls under those listed in the current proposal, it is still subject to notability guidelines, and base bio guidelines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me correct myself, rereading the current proposal, it does say that those should have sufficient coverage. Therefore, I say, that as long as there is verifiable reliably sourced references can be found to support of the criterea set forth, then the individual who is the subject of a biography article, should be considered notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree EyeSerene, the more eyes on this proposal the better. But that being said, there is no reason why this initiative shouldn't be able to produce a good guideline for us to add to WP:BIO. Why don't we spam link this to all the task forces? Futhermore, the reason why I posted this discussion here rather then the TF that I am active in, is because it effects all TFs under this WPP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion would be that we should extend the current guidelines to be automatically notable those who have achieved the highest rank in a nation, everyone else on the standard bio together with the current milhist guidelines Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but as the originator of this discussion, I respectfully disagree due to the fact that there is not a current military criterea in WP:BIO, and the present WP:MILMOS#NOTE is insufficient when it comes to biography articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a word of caution about assessing notability automatically based on 'highest rank'. I believe that in some nations there is actually some fluidity in what the term highest rank actually means. For example technically the highest rank in the Australian Army is Field Marshal, yet it is rarely achieved (only twice, I think, if we don't count the Duke of Edinburgh, and probably really only once if we ignore Birdwood, whose Australian rank of field marshal was honorary). Basically what this means is that many Australian officers who rise to be Chief of Army, or even Chief of the Defence Force, while not achieving the technically highest rank, achieve the highest rank possible for them to achieve. Also, I think a similiar situation exists in the US Army with the rank of General of the Armies technically being the highest, but only having been bestowed twice (again, not sure of this figure, so apologies if I am wrong). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to be exclusionary. However, my opinion on the matter is that anything that is not outlined above, should fall under general BIO or notable guidelines, whereas, those listed so far, should only require one or two verifiable reliably sourced references to establish notability under our WPP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Field Marshal is not currently awarded so General is the highest awarded rank, In more general terms, there are far more exceptions to the rule in assessing notabilty, lets keep guidelines that can be interpreted and not go for an exclusive approach as some projects have adopted. Common law v Roman law Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is limiting notability of flag/general officers to being only the highest ranking officer, but rather, including ALL flag/general officers, the highest lvl military command position, not necessarily, rank. Therefore, although only a Colonel, the Head of Monaco's military would be given a lower verifiability requirement due to their position (maybe one or two econdary or tertiary reliable source(s)). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed change to the current proposal, that the criteria listed above when verified by two reliable sources secondary or tertiary references, establish automatic notability, and that for those not on the list that notability be established through the standard bio requirements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Let us take the temperature of the room, say over the next 14 days (until 3 November), to see who supports and who opposes establishing a more significant biography notability guideline then the current WP:MILMOS#NOTE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Support creating a new guideline

• --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• --Farawayman (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Largely ambivalent because I think it's already covered by the WP:GNG, but if clarification is felt necessary I see no harm. EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Horrorshowj (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose creating a new guideline

• Developing a guideline is a very big project, and it isn't needed as WP:BIO is working fine for articles on military people. What is needed is some guidance on how it's works in practice, including indicators that the subject of the article is very likely to be notable. There's no need to take this beyond the level of WP:MILMOS or an essay, and there's very little chance that this would be accepted as a guideline without a strong case being made for the gap it's filling. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I'd support expanding the essay on notability in WP:MILMOS, but I think as Nick states above, a stand alone guideline is probably not necessary, or likely to be accepted as it would always fall (in order of precedence, for want of a better term) behind the wider community guidelines of WP:N and WP:BIO. I definately agree, however, that further guidance is needed on who is or is not notable, based on some of the AFDs that have occured of late so for mine, expanding MILMOS would make the most sense I feel. Having said all of this, I'm not sure I have the time to contribute much in this regard, so my vote is rather redundant. Sorry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Outside view: not necessary and too restrictive. WP:BIO is sufficient. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: I fear that the guideline would lead to a rush of stub articles on obscure peacetime brigadier-generals as someone scours the Army Lists for anyone who qualifies and does not have an article. I would prefer guidance on who is not notable - perhaps by saying that rank or awards do not of themselves create notability, and that independent narrative sources are required for notability - not just lists, medal citations or contemporary press coverage. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Nick-D. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose a guideline, though perhaps someone could do an essay from the criteria above. Buckshot06(prof) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:BIO hasn't failed thus far, so why fix it? An essay tailored to military biographies would serve to answer the proposal. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose not needed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let the guidelines present work for now. If a glut appears, bring it up again. This is a can of worms we really do not want to get into unless absolutely essential to the survival of the project. You only need to see the inanity that passes for featured articles in flavor-of-the-day entertainment to see what I mean. Some here-today-gone-tomorrow "star" is permanently ensconced while someone we by our participation in this project hold some value gets told, sorry, no room. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not just to pass along information per se, any more than the purpose of passing along information is an end to itself. It is to pass along values to another generation. Let us not limit ourselves simply because fellow editors have an interest in XYZ in our field instead of ABC. Because that's exactly where this sort of thing goes.Reedmalloy.--65.185.127.109 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. A stand-alone guideline certainly is not necessary at the moment. However, I do agree with AustralianRupert that expanding the essay on notability in WP:MILMOS would make the most sense and is all that needs to be done. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Results

It appears that there is presently an insufficient number of supporters to have a project wide guideline for Military biographical article notability. That being said, we have a sizeable number of supporters and a significant amount of work done that could lead to a future guideline, if we can ever reach a consensus on creating it, and/or at present an essay which we could add to WP:MILMOS.

Now the question I pose to all involved is, now what? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just received October's Bugle so only just learnt about this debate! And it's over!!! So, just a few comments, FWIW. What is the problem that needs to be solved here - space running short? Seems like a solution looking for a problem. Judging by much of the above, fixed criteria are likely to cause boundary problems, while case-by-case assessments are likely to open much argument - one nation state's national hero is another's nonentity - perspective was one reason that MILHIST abandoned importance ratings. What if top-level awards are thrown around like confetti for propaganda reasons and it's known that some actions were better recognised than others? We can easily weed out real nonentities that lack support as and when they arrive, or form summary lists when info is short or one-dimensional. Otherwise, we could expend much effort on article trawls and arguments that could be used improving articles. In addition we are in danger of similar efforts on all aspects of military history, eg, is this action in this revolutionary war notable, or this military unit, or that ... whatever. My main criteria has been "Is it interesting (to me) and/or does it illuminate an aspect of something else? That serendipity is the glory of wiki!. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my verbosity, but here's an addendum to the above: the Victoria Cross (UK's top award) for some time was not awarded posthumously. This might apply elsewhere thus eliminating some v notable people, if criteria are very tight. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Me and thee. I have some strong opinions on this. Issues affecting the project must be disseminated in a timely manner to all members.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we take this forward as either an addition to WP:MILMOS or as a notability essay (with a note explaining that it was developed by this Wikiproject). There appears to be support for Kirill's suggested wording (though I still think that #5 is unlikely to guarantee that someone will meet WP:BIO), but just not as a new guideline. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should replace the content of WP:MILMOS#NOTE with Kirill's later edit of the proposal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That certainly merits examining; after all the work you and others have put in on this, I don't think it should be allowed to die away without a proper conclusion (and it'll only come up again). There does seem to be general support for something less formal than a guideline; an essay or MILMOS addition or whatever, so perhaps it might be worth writing that up to allow any late-comers to have their say? We could then maybe spam it round the project via bot, or make an announcement in the next newsletter (which is still some time away). Setting a time limit for closing the discussion, after which the consensus viewpoint will be enacted, might also be helpful. What do you think? EyeSerene^talk 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my question is the MILMOS a guideline or an essay? If it is in fact a guideline, then that already goes against some editors view here that we should not establish a Military biography guideline regarding notability. However, as presently written what we have created doesn't stop the article from having to meeting WP:NN; so I don't see what the conflict was to begin with. And if it does, then perhaps the compromise is that it should be written to include it, which would satisfy many of the objections to it as it presently stands as of Kirill's last version. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As the MILMOS page banner states, MILMOS is a guideline and essentially a sub-section of WP:MOS. However, I see your point - on the face of it, some have objected to creating a new guideline but support the addition of an essay to MILMOS (thereby apparently creating a new guideline). However, the relevant section of MILMOS {WP:MILMOS#NOTE) already has a disclaimer that the section is an essay, so technically outside the more formal scope of the rest of the page. Replacing MILMOS#NOTE with Kirill's version, and creating a new header template to make it clear that although it's still an essay it has consensus within the project, would seem to be a logical solution and one that's in line with opinion so far. I have no firm views on whether this needs further discussion; my above was motivated by the additional comments from editors who felt they'd missed the boat. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since discussion continues, I'll add another two-penn'orth. I really think that hard and fast criteria could be a problem. Under them, a nonentity at a Ministry who happens to be a Brigadier or junior Admiral would qualify, whereas important, interesting or iconic figures might not. Examples: Frederic John Walker (not sure if the DSO was the 2nd ranked award at the time), Rodger Winn, Robert W H Everett, etc, etc. These might qualify under significance, but if so, I suspect that so will many more. So perhaps boost the relevance of significance (and add public prominence - since that will interest readers) and reduce that of rank. On awards, the VC is indisputedly tops in the UK, but in some countries awards are issued in ranks, eg, the Iron Cross and additional, superior degrees were added on top over time - how is this to be assessed? Some awards are awarded not for valour but for merit, why not include these? I'm sure that there are other issues, which is why I have reservations. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another case: David Irving. I'm sure that he's not "... recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing". Folks at 137 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

These criteria are those needed to support an assumption that someone is notable on the grounds that sufficient reliable sources are very likely to exist to meet WP:BIO. They don't mean that other people aren't notable regardless of their coverage in reliable sources, so there's no danger that Frederic John Walker and the like won't be considered notable. The problem with reliance on public prominence is that it's hard to define in ways consistent with WP:BIO - if it means the availability of sources then there's both no problem and no need for new guidance, and if it's on the some other criteria then it will be hard to establish a fair method. I agree that reliance on rank is probably the weakest of the proposed criteria - there are no shortage of obscure very senior officers in modern militaries and senior NCOs don't have much prominence outside their service and rarely interest journalists or historians (rightly or wrongly). Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the multiple otherwise non-notable general/flag officers and senior NCOs, I think they'd be similar to some criterea set forth in WP:NMG, in that many bands or musicians are not notable outside their own field/subject, however are considered notable enough within that field/subject to warrant an article. In that sense, although outside of the military subject those general/flag officers and senior NCOs are relatively non-notable, within the subject they are notable, and thus may warrant an article if sufficient verifiable reliable sources can support the notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Any chance that I will receive a response, or does my last post provide sufficient inclusion of those two points which was in question? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that you'd responded. Given that we're not developing a guideline or equivalent, I think that we need to stick very carefully to a conservative interpretation of WP:BIO and limit the guidance to people who we're sure will have received significant coverage in sources which are unrelated to the organisation they're a member of, so senior NCOs are out. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Therefore, what you are proposing is as follows:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources.

In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or
6. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or
7. Made a material contribution to military science that is undisputedly attributed to them; or
8. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
9. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to a capital ship, or a division or larger formation, and their historical equivalents.

Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.

and what is being removed is

# Held the position of senior enlisted advisor for a substantial body of troops; or

Do others share this opinion or disagree with this opinion? I for one disagree with the opinion, as I believe that within the scope of their own military organizations that they are notable within their own sub-culture, just as those relatively minor compared to the overall scheme, but important within that subculture listed in WP:NMG are. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's my view. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mine too, broadly speaking. How I read the current proposal is that we're first saying: significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article. We then go on to say: these are the types of people that will probably (but not always) have this significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Given that, I think the senior enlisted advisor item is the weakest example, as it's unlikely many will be widely covered in suitable sources. A secondary consideration is that SEA is a US term as far as I'm aware; other nations use different terms and/or have no direct equivalent position. EyeSerene^talk 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Although, I hold differing views than Nick-D, and EyeSerene, it doesn't appear that others don't hold my view. Enlisted personnel can still be notable via WP:GNG; therefore, it looks like, due to others not commenting in support of my view, that the last posting of the change stands. Would anyone disagree with replacing the current content with the most recent edit to the proposal? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary. No objections here. EyeSerene^talk 09:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall I make the change than? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. This thread has been open for a month now, so hopefully we can assume that anyone interested in participating will have done so. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have made the change. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good :) I've made a couple of minor organisational and prose tweaks, but nothing that would change the meaning. What would be nice would be to replace that generic essay template with one more specific; I think it's worth mentioning that, although it's 'only' an essay, it was developed by the project and has consensus within the project. A link from the template to this thread (updated once it's archived) would be useful too. EyeSerene^talk 10:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. To bad that there isn't consensus for it to be elevated to guideline, however, that may come later down the line, and I am patient. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a link to the essay at WP:BIO in the see also section. As soon as this discussion is archived, we should link to this discussion in WP:MILMOS#People. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for possibly beating up the dead horse (I did not participate in the above discussion and only came to this page now, after seeing a link to it at WP:BIO), but it seems really strange to me to have an essay, WP:MILMOS#NOTE appear as a section of a guideline. Moreover, the guideline WP:MILMOS is a part of the manual of style, and the latter is traditionally concerned with matters of style and presentation rather than notability. I am basically in agreement with the current text of WP:MILMOS#NOTE, but I would think that it would be better to make WP:MILMOS#NOTE into a separate page, marked as an essay, and have links to that page from WP:MILMOS and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The initial intention was to create a military biography notability guideline; however, failing consensus, a consensus was formed to expand the essay MILMOS#NOTE already located in MILMOS with what has been developed. I don't see a reason why the project cannot separate it into its own page, keeping the old wikilink with it, wherever it goes. However, to do so would require some discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)