Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

Archive 85

Approach to Pearl Harbor

Trying to resolve grammatical issues here raised the prospect of a split to address planning & doctrine issues surrounding the attack. Comment is invited here. Trekphiler (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit of a tangle, isn't it? Probably best if editors comment on the article's talk page to keep the discussion centralised. I've copied this to the US, Japanese and WWII task forces. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My thanks. I'm happy to see comment on it anywhere that's apt. Trekphiler (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Midtown Madness now open

The peer review for Midtown Madness, 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! —Giggy 14:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for SMS Von der Tann now open

The peer review for SMS Von der Tann is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, TomStar81, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of TomStar81's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FLC plea

Hi there, could anyone interested please offer an opinion on List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients which is currently a Featured list candidate. There are currently only two opinions offered in two weeks. It is getting to the stage where it can be closed under no consensus to promote so I would appreciate any comments either way. Thanks. Woody (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to reiview, but it's already closed. Unless the rules have changed two weeks isn't long for a FA review. What's the big rush? Anyway I going to support it :) Rebel Redcoat (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The FLC system is slightly different to FAC, although recently it has become more inline with FAC. With only one comment from someone who wasn't one of the Directors in two weeks, it could have been closed under the "insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met." clause in the instructions. As it was, it has been promoted now, so all is good. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Two nuclear weapons articles added to the project

I added the following two articles to WPMILHIST, for the Technology Task Force:

• B61 nuclear bomb : Start class
• Variable yield : Stub

Sv1xv (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also B53 nuclear bomb. Sv1xv (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dividers between links in Campaignboxes

Hi. Recommend these are {{·}} (or {{·w}} if using {{nowrap begin}}/{{nowrap end}}) as they are more discreet and eat less space than the current {{ndash}}/{{-w}} dividers and are also more commonly used elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they're too discreet, actually; given the small font size used, the floating dot is almost impossible to see, and creates virtually no spacing between the links. Kirill ^(prof) 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least it's not as insubstantial as the lone "middot". I guess, though, I'd prefer the dash to the "vertical line" character. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than the dot, there's also the more visible bullet {{•}}, which according to the template documentation "is mostly used for dotted lists that use small font sizes." —Kevin Myers 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think {{•}} is meant as a substitute for {{·}} when using a <small> font (at least, that's how it looks to me). Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian war on main page, and dates

As a random heads-up: I was recently looking at the future article-of-the-days, and the Military History featured article Russian-Circassian War will be on the Main Page on July 6. Except... User:Eurocopter tigre added some "dubious" tags to it back in March, which are still sitting on the article currently, mostly dealing with some murky dates. And Eurocopter appears to be on vacation right now according to his user page.

I'm not at all familiar with the issue myself, but it seems like something that should be resolved before it goes on the front page. Does anybody with some more expertise on the issue know if the complaints have merit? SnowFire (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Barbarossa-class ocean liner now open

The peer review for Barbarossa-class ocean liner is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) now open

The A-Class review for USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning copyright

Spain's Ministry of Justice has recently released an archive known as the Rojo Archive (Rojo, name of the general, not named after the color) - it can be seen [here http://pares.mcu.es/ArchivoRojo/inicio.do]. Does anybody know anybody on Wikipedia that I can go to who is an expert on Spain's copyright laws? I would directly ask the ministry, but I suspect they won't respond (I have contacted with the Ministry of Defense before) and my writing in Spanish is really not that great (I live here, but my education was in the United States). Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Radar frequency band nomenclature preferences

Do we have a standard or preference for which system we use for classifying radar frequencies (e.g., IEEE or NATO), particularly for military aircraft radars? I'm unclear on whether I should use X band or I/J band for fire control radars. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon now open

The A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Leopard 2E now open

I see that this isn't really done on this page, so I apologize in advance, but I'm looking for willing reviewers for the Leopard 2E FAC since it has seemed to stagnate. I would appreciate any feedback - thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of this shouldn't have too much of an effect on us. The B-Class guidelines are significantly based on our assessment-guide, the project has already indicated heavy opposition to C-Class, and the ACR System outlined has been used by this project for some time (It's the only system we've used since I joined the project in March '07). Cam (Chat) 04:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nguyen Van Nhung needs attention

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

A-Class review for 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden now open

The A-Class review for 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Ark Royal (91) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Ark Royal (91) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF now open

The A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon needs attention

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

A-Class review for Indiana in the American Civil War now open

The A-Class review for Indiana in the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 22:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 11th Airborne Division (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 11th Airborne Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 22:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class Review for Panzer I now open

Hey,

I have started an A-class Review for the Panzer I tank article. It can be found here. Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article M1 Garand rifle which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article Cannon in the Middle Ages, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article English cannon, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

New C-Class and Milhist

Discussion closed: the consensus was clearly that we do not adopt C-Class. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a month of discussion, and wide consultation, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team have decided, to add a new C-Class to the existing article assessment scale. The new class is for articles which are better than Start but fall short of B-Class, and is intended to bridge what is seen as a huge gap between the two classes. Adoption of the new scale is not compulsory and each WikiProject will decide whether or not to implement the new class for the articles within its scope. Here are the main arguments for and against the new proposal:

Arguments for C-Class

• More refined definition of the Start/B area, which is a very large and important stage in article development. Some Bs are close to GA standard, others are very poor.
• It's a lot of work to turn a Start into a "good" B – this would give editors something to aim for that is more within reach.
• For the 1.0 project, we need to distinguish between Bs that are OK for publication, and those which aren't. We need to tighten up standards for B, to exclude those lacking sources or with other problem tags (NOR, POV, etc.).

Arguments against C-Class

• The purpose of assessment is simply to provide WikiProjects with a rough idea of where each article stands, and the current system does this perfectly well.
• Keep things simple – we don't want people to obsess over the details of assessments instead of improving articles.
• The system is unclear right now, and this will only make things even worse!
• This will be a nightmare of work, trying to re-assess thousands of articles that have already been assessed as B or Start!
• There are enough levels already. Dealing with so many orthogonal parameters (breadth, depth, refs, readibility, etc.) means that many assessments are already haphazard/arbitrary, this makes things worse.
• More levels means more reassessment as grades change more often.

So we can determine consensus in Milhist, please say - giving reasons - whether you support or oppose the addition of this new class to the Milhist assessment scale. We propose closing this discussion and determining consensus after two weeks, that is, on 4 July 2008. Thanks in advance for your input, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. We don't need to spend a lot of time focusing our efforts on going back and re-assessing everything, we can just add C-class as we see articles that need it. I know that while working on T&A I've seen many articles which would fall under this new category, for example a well-developed article that doesn't have enough pictures, or that has some grammatical errors, etc. It isn't right to list these articles the same as those that are virtually stubs.Borg Sphere (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
2. It's much to easy to get a start class article but B-class requires a bit of work. I think C-Class would be a welcome addition to give the authors an idea that their work on the article allowed it to progress. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I've found that a lot of MILHIST articles fall short of only one or two B-class criteria. The new class would be a way to more accurately show just how far along an article is. I agree that we shouldn't take a great deal of effort to update templates on articles, only fixing as needed. But the way I have seen things, (and the way our Contest Department seems to see things), I have found that Start and Stub class articles are usually very similar, while B- and GA- articles have very similar criteria of their own, which is far above that of start. The new class would bridge this gap. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, KISS, too much work to impliment, Start/B is already well defined, this would require intense discussion on what C-class should rerpresent, everything else noted above in the arguments against C-class, and anything I forgot to mention that others may mention below my post in the oppose section. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I think there are other better ways to reduce the gap between Start and B-class (for example, slightly changing the B-class criteria). --Eurocopter (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Yes, all of what TomStar81 said but something else... To me, anything above Start-class should be a badge of merit. I'm very pleased to have an article I worked on classed as B by a colleague. I wouldn't assess articles I've substantially contributed to as B-class for that very reason - to me it's something a peer should 'award', not something you give yourself. I'm afraid C-class just doesn't cut it in the same way. For me, if there is perceived to be a significant leap between Start and B, so be it - that's something to aim for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
4. There doesn't seem to be any need for C-class in our classification structure as start class is working well, and re-classifying existing articles would be a waste of effort. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Adding another class will increase bureaucracy without improving the encyclopedia. Okay, let's say half of our "start" articles should really be labeled "C-class". So what? Both classes will remain a collection sub-standard articles that need some work. The "B-class" criteria is pretty high, but easy enough to reach for anyone willing to make a little effort. It won't break anything if we use "C-class", but we won't gain much by it. —Kevin Myers 13:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I agree that there isn't any need for a C-class assessment. The current system works well. Kyriakos (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Given that our B-Class requirements are already clearly defined (and rather more precise than those used by many projects, to boot), I see little benefit to adding another level to the scale; as Kevin points out, it'll just be another set of sub-standard articles. Kirill ^(prof) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   It seems likely, by the way, that the new B-class wiki-wide definition will be very closely based on ours.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

8. As Kevin has already pointed out, adds unnecessary bureaucracy. the lines between B-Class & Start-Class are fairly well-defined. Adding C-Class only complicates that. What constitutes a C-Class and what constitutes a Start-Class? How do we determine whether an article is B-Class or C-Class? Questions like these leave the assessment open to far too much subjectivity. As Kirill has pointed out, the MilHist Project has boundaries between start & B that are well established, and IMHO, the bureaucracy that would accompany the transition from the addition of C-Class would be detrimental to the project as a whole. For example, we can say hello to an entire new assessment drive (with significantly more complicated instructions) to reassess the 34,000 some-odd start & B-Class articles according to C-Class criterion. I'm not a fan of tons of bureaucracy, and therefore I oppose the institution of C-Class into the MilHist Project Assessment Scale. Respectfully, Cam (Chat) 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Would involve a great deal of extra work. Against. Buckshot06(prof) 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Unlike other wikiprojects, MILHIST's Start/B-class criteria are well defined. We don't need a dumping ground for bad B-class articles (C-class), because we dump them in start class. Also, oppose due to the amount of work required to implement one (unless it's gradually introduced, which would take far too long). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
11. I'm inclined to oppose as well, for the same reasons as have been listed above. It's just far too much work for what I see as marginal benefit; the time spent reassessing every Start and B class article to see if they fall into this new C class could be better spent improving these articles. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose for all the reasons mentioned above Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Too many classes already. Can't we just promote an article out of Start class by removing the start designation? Or shuffle the criteria to tighten the gap in the existing set of classes. —Michael Z. 2008-06-26 04:49 z
14. I agree with Kevin here; it will only introduce another grade of sub-standard articles. We have well-defined B-Class criteria, the formula for an acceptable article. Whilst I understand that it can sometimes be hard for some articles to meet the grade, this is merely to maintain the quality of our articles. I don't think achieving "C" grade is something that should be particularly heralded, or cherished by editors. Woody (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

1. We don't need more classess. Surely the purpose of grading an article is to provide a broad guidline for editors to improve the page, that's all. It's already confusing. Most people (except dedicated wikipedians) don't know the difference between GA and A for example. The system should be simplified not complicated further, providing yet another focus for arguments - "It's B-Class", "No, it's C-Class article", "NO. B-Class" ad infinitum. If you want to introduce a new class, you should introduce 'Failed Classification' for those appaling articles that seem to have been translated using Babel Fish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.73.190 (talk • contribs)
2. As an aside, the new B-Class colour is horrible. Who chose that one? Cam (Chat) 23:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   It was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Added C-class to the grading scheme. Woody (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of the use of animated gifs in infoboxes

I've started a discussion about the use of animated gifs in infoboxes at Template talk:Infobox Military Unit#Animated images. Your input is welcome there to discuss these images and to form a consensus about them. Fram (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the above discussion, a broader discussion on the appropriateness of any type of image (static or animated) to iconically represent the type of unit in {{Infobox Military Unit}} has been started on the template's discussion page. All editors having an opinion are invited to comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay) now open

The peer review for The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed category: Operations and Battles by Country and Conflict

Hi All,

I have been doing some poking around the categories of the Australian military, and have found it difficult to identify which military operations involving Australia where for which conflict. This required opening the article. On further examination, I found the same problem in a number of other prominent national military histories (if not all).

I suggest creating various category trees as follows (using Australia as an example):

Military History of Australia

Military operations involving Australia

Battles involving Australia

Military battles and operations involving Australia during World War I (new)

Military battles and operations involving Australia during World War II (new, see below)

Non-combat military operations involving Australia

Non-combat military operations involving Australia in the Middle East (new)

Non-combat military operations involving Australia in the South East Asia (new)

Military history of Australia during World War II

Military campaigns involving Australia during World War II (new)

Military battles and operations involving Australia during World War II (new, see above)

Also:

Battles by war

Battles and operations of World War II

Battles and operations of World War II by country (new)

Military battles and operations involving Australia during World War II (new, see above)

I feel this would clearly define the context of the article. This is becoming an ever-increasing problem as the list of battles increases such as [[1]] (not a large list compared to some other countries).

We already have a category for military units and formations of Australia in World War II, so it makes sense to have a category for the operations and battles involving Australia in World War II etc.

Any thoughts??

Glenn Sisson (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply in Category talk:Military history of Australia--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion best belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force rather than this central talk page. Would you mind moving it there please Glenn? Nick Dowling (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best way to approach it, actually; the example here is Australia, certainly, but anything we decide here is immediately applicable to other countries. Kirill ^(prof) 11:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - I only saw the 'Australia' bit and missed that this is a universal proposal. This is definetly the right place for it. Sorry about that Glenn. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need such intersection categories; but if they are created, I'd suggest using cleaner naming:

• No "military battles"
• Form names as "...of...involving..."/"...in...involving..." rather than "...involving...during..."/"...involving...in..."

Thus, we'd have things like Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving Australia, Category:Military campaigns of World War II involving Australia, and Category:Non-combat military operations in the Middle East involving Australia. Kirill ^(prof) 11:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill both that this is the right forum and with the suggestions he makes about the general naming principles. I am not persuaded about the need for a widespread intersection either. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill regarding using cleaner naming. But I do feel these categories are appropriate in some shape or form as the list of battles for some countries is getting very long and it should be clearer as to which battles belong to which conflict from that countries perspective. If I am interested in the battles Australia fought in Vietnam, I don't want to have to open up a variety of articles to find them, either in the military operations involving Australia category or in the military operations of the Vietnam War category. This sort of intersecting categorisation already exists for units and formations as explained above, and this seems to work well across the board for the various countries that utilise this category.

PS. I am new to these sorts of discussions. At what point will it be clear about the decision, who makes it etc? Thanks for your help and input. Glenn Sisson (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• What about India Pakistan war series and under what project does counter torrism comes? Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 14:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not much productive discussion going on there. The Land (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed.Wandalstouring (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Truces and ceasefires

Are they one and the same? Comments appreciated at Talk:Ceasefire#Truce.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Shuttle bombing

I create a new article called Shuttle bombing it is little more than a stub at the moment, but a relatively new editor has been making what I consider to be some unorthodox edits to the page. As user:Mugs2109 and I are crossing swords on a number of articles at the moment, I would appreciate it is someone else with an interest in this field would look at the short edit history of this article and make a decision on which is the better format, because edit warring over such a trivial issue is a waste of everyone's time. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I threw a few darts into the loo but eventually cast my vote with your version. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

As a suggestion, would it be helpful to create an infobox for articles on individual nations contributions to multi-national wars? (eg, Military history of the United States during World War II, Australian contribution to the 1991 Gulf War, etc). At present this is one of the few areas within the scope of this project which doesn't have any appropriate infobox and it might be worth creating one to summarise the war articles and ensure that their appearance is consistant with other articles. I'd suggest the the infobox include the following fields, which I've taken from the Military Conflict infobox:

• Article title (rather than seperate country and war fields - unless there's some way to link these via automatic text?)
• Image
• Caption
• Date (the dates the country entered and left the war)
• Result
• Opponents (is this worthwhile?)
• Allies (is this worthwhile?)
• Strength (the peak strength of the country's armed forces (eg, about 1 million Australians in WW2), or the total forces committed (eg, 6 warships and some aircraft for Australia in the Gulf War) - whatever seems more appropriate)
• Casualties (own casualties only - not those inflicted)
• Notes

Is this a good idea, or would it only add clutter? Nick Dowling (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian campaigns in East Africa in the 30s

Hi. I've noticed a series of articles - Second Italo-Abyssinian War, East African Campaign, Battle of Maychew, Battle of the Ogaden, Battle of Amba Aradam and so on - all of them are heavily based on the book "The Rape of Ethiopia" by lieutenant colonel A.J. Barker. I wonder how accurate that reference is. I mean, imagine an article on the Colonization of the Americas based on a book titled "The Rape of Native Americans"... --82.56.120.86 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting: change in Manual of Style

Howdy folks. Just now I've noticed that, according to the folks who edit WP:DATE, linking dates for the purposes of autoformatting is no longer recommended or required. So, where before you might wikilink April 8 2008 or 11 November for the purposes of enabling date autoformatting, this is now discouraged because it creates too many low-value wikilinks, and because most Wikipedia readers don't even have autoformatting enabled. This seems like a sensible guideline to me. If I've just noticed this, I figure some of you might not have noticed it yet. The actual wording on WP:DATE is rather noncommittal, but editors have been less ambiguous about the new recommendation on the talk page and elsewhere.

This guideline has some special considerations for this Wikiproject because, although the Manual of Style calls a date like December 9, 2002, the "American format", many Americans writers of military history will use the so-called "International format", 9 December 2002, because that format is common in the US military. So some non-military oriented editors might innocently change the date style used on a US military history article because they think it's "wrong" to use a "non-American" format. This is too trivial to edit war over, of course, because anyone who does much reading in English will be familiar with both date formats, so no harm is done if some military history articles use one format and some another. The only thing really important is that each article is internally consistent on the format used. In the past I've used both styles interchangeably, even in the same article, thinking that autoformatting will sort it all out, not realizing that most readers don't have autoformatting. Now I've turned off my autoformatting to help keep in mind what the average reader is seeing.

We might mention something about this in our own style guide, if anyone finds it necessary. —Kevin Myers 06:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that Kevin. I also agree that this is a change for the better - linking dates seemed a bit pointless. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's about time the trivial linking of dates has been thrown out. Low value, indeed! It only would have been useful if, say, one could go to 7 Dec 1941, for instance, and look up everything that any Wiki article mentioned had happened on that date. What should have been done, though, was to recognize dates within text without the help of a link, and to format the dates as before for the people who were using it. I think the process can be made seamless without our having to do anything. Ah well... Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The actual reason was formatting rather than linking. Linking a date meant that it would be displayed per the user setting in preferences, ie 7 July or July 7. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

An article should use a consistent date structure. For this reason, the first date structure used in the article should be employed for all other dates. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly the advice is: if the article is in American English use American month/day/year formatting (ie July 7, 1941); if it's in British/Commonwealth English, use day/month/year (ie 7 July 1941). Articles should be internally consistent, so use only one style or the other. Roughly, the principles in WP:ENGVAR should be applied to the date format. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to retroactively apply this to articles? Or should we deal with it as articles come up for higher assessment ratings? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I don't think that's the case. My read of MOS:NUM is that it's neither required nor prohibited. If there's a consensus on a particular article that autoformat dates are especially undesirable, I wouldn't see any problem with removing them.

Following up on what Roger said above, I believe that the date styles should be treated like American vs. Commonwealth English in that, once established, the style should not be changed without valid reason. I don't believe that the style choice should be explicitly tied to the variety of English (if that's what Roger was saying above). — Bellhalla (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. To clarify, the new date format guideline has the same strong national ties clause as WP:ENGVAR (i.e. use the format prevalent in the country to which the article relates) and in that sense is tied to the variety of English used. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles

Can an easily findable "Requested articles" section be added, as other WikiProjects have? Badagnani (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Full is, well, full of them. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can this please be made easily findable? I looked very hard. Badagnani (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are the requested articles in this list? I see no redlinks. Further, the terms "request" or "requested" do not appear anywhere at that list. Badagnani (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just about every task force has a "Requested articles" list there; you need to click on the "[show]" links to see expand them. Kirill ^(prof) 05:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(And since I suspect the question will come up: the reason the requested articles are split into multiple lists in this manner is because we've found smaller, topic-oriented lists to be more conductive to article creation than a single overly broad one, given the extensive scope of the project as a whole.) Kirill ^(prof) 05:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Warwick Castle now open

The peer review for Warwick Castle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 13:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30) which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank Task Force

Hey! Before I go into my plans for said task force should it be founded I want to apologize in advance if I go into tangental rants and into my life story and what not. :D In any case, I am moving out of my flat in Madrid, Spain, by tomorrow night and so my internet access will be extremely limited until 14 July 2008 - I will try to access the internet to see comments on various watched pages and what not, but for all intents and purposes I won't be around. So, this is just to see what people think until I get access to a computer in San Diego, California.

As you probably suspect by now, I have an unhealthy obsession with tanks and have taken three articles (to date) to FA class, with a fourth one hopefully being promoted soon (Leopard 2E). A few days ago I also started a new portal on tank, hoping to use it as a 'rallying point' for interested editors. I know there are two existing task forces which this can be included in - Military technology and engineering task force and the Weaponroy task force. However, I'd like a shot at an independent task force because I have a lot of ambitions on improving the articles on these topics, and it's not only related to actual tanks, but to the soldiers (whether enlisted or officers) and theorists which have made tank warfare what it is today (i.e. Heinz Guderian, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Basil Liddell Hart, et cetera). Also, articles for tank components (gun technology, armor, et cetera) and what not. Basically, it would be centered on motivating editors to improve articles up to FA class and for editors which may not be interested in doing 'large edits', but may be interested in peer reviewing, copy editing and helping with the small details to get the article to FA class. I think through an independent task force I can help channel users to cooperate. There are a lot of articles which will need said cooperation or they will not improve to A-class or FA-class, such as Tank (although Dhatfield's improvements of the article cannot be quantified with simple words) and Leopard 2.

I think there are enough users to warrant the creation of the task force, and I believe that members will increase over time. I have not taken the time to message anybody right now and I might before I move out, but I might wait until I get some comments on here about the idea in general. Without binding them, here are some editors which may be interested (remember, I have no contacted them) - User:MWAK, User:Mzajac (not sure how interested he'd be, but as the maintainer of the T-34 article I have him included - he also looks over the post Cold War tank template and the T-84 article, IIRC) -, User:Dhatfield, User:MoRsE (he edited quite a bit on the T-26's involvement in the Winter War and has been fairly active on the Leopard 2's talk page), User:Denniss (edits on Leopard 2 and Leopard 2E), amongst others I have missed. If such a task force gets endorsed or it's said that it is a possibility if I can get enough people to join it, then I will message these and others.

There are other reasons why I'd like this to be a separate task force. I have plans of introducing some type of award 'unique' to the project (although I can be awarded out of the task force, to people who are not in it but have made edits that help it), similar to the chevrons with oak leaves - basically, it would be awarded by consensus of the project members (just like the previously mentioned WP:Milhist award) - the target would be to use the award to motivate editors to continue to edit in support of the task force. Other ideas are similar and all of them have to do with motivation and making the area of tanks a well represented 'category' (4 FAs currently and perhaps 1 more soon - hopefully we can get even more articles to FA). The fruits of such cooperation, even without the task force, has already been seen (thanks to the WikiProject as a whole) - small copy edits are as necessary as the editor providing the bulk of the information, because without these copy edits the article's prose would never be good enough to reach FA status. Not to mention that without people double checking your information you might get something accidently incorrect in the article (for example, Denniss has consistently made sure that the Leopard 2 article says 1,500PS and not 1,500HP).

In any case, without boring people too much - what do other editors think? Thanks for your time, regardless! JonCatalán (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO the scope would be too small. I would certainly support the creation of a vehicle task force though, that takes in all military vehicles from long ago till present that would have a similarly-sized scope to our other taskforces.--Serviam (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the number of articles relevant to tanks, we're talking about thousands (once you take into account articles not yet created, all the tank articles, all the biographies and all the articles on tank tactics, tank components, et cetera). The scope is actually fairly huge for the amount of people likely to sign up. I would support expanding the task force if we can handle tanks well, but by itself what I'm envisioning for the group of articles relevant to tanks is ambitious (perhaps too ambitious). I don't know - what do others think?). JonCatalán (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is simple. How many people are interested in this task force? If there are enough it will be created. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the time to message the editors I think would be interested. JonCatalán (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It does strike me that it is much narrower in scope than any existing taskforce. That siad, if it ends up happening, good luck to you! The Land (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there are enough tank-related articles for this task force to be created. A very good example is the T-54/55 MBT. There are loads of sources on it and it's impossible for one person or even a few people to cover all of them. That said a military vehicle task force wouldn't be a bad idea either since tanks and other military vehicles like APCs, IFVs, ARVs etc. are very closely related. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I support creating a military vehicle task force and would join if it was created. That's three users so far--Serviam (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support the creation of a military vehicles task force. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If the military vehicles taskforce is created I would suggest it sticks to land vehicles, to avoid duplicating the Ships and Aviation wikiprojects and the Maritime Warfare taskforce. The Land (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I would prefer armored fighting vehicles - although something like the chariot might fall into the category, given that to some extent or another this was an older relative of mechanization (war elephant, et cetera). In any case, this is supposed to be narrower than say ... the weaponry task force. JonCatalán (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AFV task force is a good idea but military land vehicles task force would be even better since it would also cover unarmoured military land vehicles like trucks, jeeps etc. While studying the subject I found that Wikipedia to be lacking on this subject since most of those vehicles have either stub articles or no articles at all. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggest broadening the scope only when we can see that it will be useful, and why I suggest just starting with my original idea of covering tanks. At this rate we'll just turn into the weaponry task force and then there's really no point. If we see that we can get the interest to broaden the scope and the people to do so then why not, but until then I suggest just sticking to a narrower topic (like tanks or even up to all armored fighting vehicles). JonCatalán (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another comment; this is supposed to also mirror the portal - the portal was supposed to ask as a 'rallying point' for the task force. I rather see the articles in that template get little brown stars than become a broader scope and get less done. JonCatalán (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest going with armored fighting vehicles rather than exclusively tanks simply for ease of categorization; there's a lot of "tank-like" vehicles that have been used, but which aren't, properly speaking, "tanks", and I'm not sure that the editor groups working on them are really distinct. Kirill ^(prof) 01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. If nothing else, maybe it can resolve some of the infobox issues over specs the current box(es) can't accommodate. Offhand, I'd say there's enough material for a "tank-only" TF, but an AFV project including APCs & MICVs might not be out of line; could just as easily break out task forces (combat commands?) as needed. Get up & running, count me in. TREKphiler 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then armored fighting vehicles it is. I think we can now count on four. JonCatalán (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not. I'd be interested in completing the articles Panzer division and Panzer corps, However I have no idea about the tanks/AFV/military vehicles scope. Comte0 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include stuff like 110 Jeep and Humvee, as they have no task force of thier own? "Land military vehicles", or should we just sitck with AFVs?--Serviam (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Military vehicles like trucks and jeeps mostly either don't have their own articles or thier articles are stubs. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(od) It looks as if the precise scope needs firming up. Once that's done, the bright line for implementation last time was support from two coordinators and at least eight editors to make it worth the effort of setting it up. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A thought. Do you intend to include armored cars under AFV? Or tracked only? My thinking is, what's really needed is an umbrella group, a Military Vehicles Project, with TFs or sep Projects for AFV/tank, APC/MICVs, armored car, jeeps (incl M151 Jeep, Land Rover, Type 62, Mehari, & the like), trucks, amphibs (like LVT, BAV 485, & Landwasserschlepper, tho LVTs could fall under APC), & maybe a general "other" for things that don't categorize well. I'd also suggest a separate or crossover "experimental" task force for things like the M6 heavy tank, T30 heavy tank, Black Prince, IT-1, M4 Jumbo, & so forth, that never saw widespread use. TREKphiler 10:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stay grounded, there are hardly enough editors for one taskforce, let alone a project. The procedure has been that people choose what scope their intended task force should have, and not that we impose scopes, especially if one is not volunteering as a member. There are quite a lot of fields we hardly cover, so I don't see any reason why their scope should be expanded beyond their interests. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Black Prince, above. I'm in favour of a "land military vehicles" task force, that includes stuff that isn't tracked like the Stryker and Mowag Piranha, and also "soft" vehicles like the Humvee and the Russian Gaz jeeps.--Serviam (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Widening the scope"? Not my intention at all. Just making a suggestion for further consideration at a later time, if anybody wants to take it on. It seems to me MilHist has the remit to oversee all the above projects, should they arise, so the idea belongs here. Beyond that, I insist on nothing.

Judging by the distinction between tracked/not Serviam notes, it seems armored cars is outside an AFVs TF (my own feeling also is, they're outside), unless there's strong support for inclusion? Given Wandalstouring's (good) advice, a broader "land military vehicles task force" may be too big to take on. At the least, outside a narrow AFVs TF. TREKphiler 05:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How can an armoured not be an AFV? AFV stands for armoured fighting vehicle. So armed armoured cars fit the description. I still believe that land military vehicles task force would be a good idea. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I now presume the task force will include all Armoured Vehicles like; AVRE,BRIDGE LAYERS,CVRT,LVTP ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, we got two suggestion:

• land military vehicles
• armoured fighting vehicles

Could the editors interested in this task force please declare their preferences, then I am able to create the infrastructure. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The first one would parse a bit better as "military land vehicles", if I'm not mistaken. Kirill ^(prof) 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounded really odd to my ears, but I decided to stick with the suggestion. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm supporting the military land vehicles suggestion. Because this whole topic needs more attention, not only the AFVs but also unarmoured fighting vehicles and logistic vehicles like trucks and jeeps. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I rather just focus on armored fighting vehicles (including armored cars). It's still my opinion that we can widen the scope at a later date. There are a lot of areas not covered by any task force currently, while other general land vehicles are to a degree (under the weaponry task force) - that's why I don't support the creation of a military land vehicles task force. I think increasing the scope will be underproductive until we can get moving on what I originally wanted the task force's scope to be. JonCatalán (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your point. Lets start with AFVs task force and later we will expand it to military land vehicles task force. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Firm proposal

Let's try to determine where the support lies on this one. So comments please ... Once we've established which task force has potential, we can see if it has enough support to be formed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Military land vehicles (Support/oppose/comment)

1. support because is a super set of all the vehicles of military Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose as overbroad, contrary to original (narrow) AFV project (as noted above). TREKphiler 07:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I support expanding to this at a later date. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support This task force is going to have at least 8 members when it starts up, that's plenty, and considering how much our other task forces have grown, in a few months it should be quite large.--Serviam (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Armoured fighting vehicles (Support/oppose/comment)

1. oppose its a subset of above Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Needed, & useful. Slight oppose including armored cars (but I won't make a fuss over it); my sense of "AFV" has always been more "tank". TREKphiler 07:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I support it because its better to start with this and later expand to all land military vehicles. Also I strongly remind everyone: "An armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) is a military vehicle, protected by armour and armed with weapons." (Quote from Armoured fighting vehicle article) therefore armoured cars do fall in this category. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support But I can see a need for the above Military land vehicles Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Support, as I believe the abroad is too broad.

Compromise

How about this: We start the task force as an armoured fighting vehicle task force, then once it reaches twenty members and at least 3 GAs or 1 FA, we rename it the military land vehicles task force, and broaden its scope?--Serviam (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Make it 3 A class. The GA process produces rather mixed results. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

2 A class? A class are harder to earn than GAs, and I'm sure two would be better than three.--Serviam (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it this would be difficult to do, renaming/reorganizing a task force is suppose to be tricky and challenging from a number of different standpoints. That is, if I recall correctly, one the main reasons we ask for consensus on a task force and its scope before adding it. If this is in fact the case then I do not thinking adopting one name and then switching to the other would be a good idea, if it would even be allowed at all. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Enlarging the scope when the number of members will increase to a certain number is IMHO a good idea. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm Tom's comment: renaming task forces is a big, big pain, and ought to be avoided if at all possible. Particularly given the short timeframe being proposed here—1 FA and 3 A/GA articles can be done in a couple of months—I don't really see the point; if the broader task force scope is the one people think will work best in the long run, then we can just create it under that, and outline narrower initial priorities internally. Kirill ^(prof) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't yet see sufficient support for a new task force and am reluctant to support setting one up for the sake of it. What might be a better solution is to use the Weaponry task force talk page as a temporary home page. There's very little traffic there (other than notifications) so it might generate more interest and help crystallise the scope issues. It might be possible to set up semi-formal cadres within existing task forces as a half-way house as a way of building support for potential new task forces, and I'd much prefer this as an option, especially as we have so many inactive TFs. I suppose the way I'm thinking longer term is fewer, more active, TFs with broader scopes. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to show up late. I'll support this task force under either name, or as a group under the Weaponry t.f. I also think that other naming options ought to be considered. For better or worse:

• Tank task force I'm okay with this, if it's understood that it includes armoured warfare in general, including organization, technology and tactics surrounding the tank.
• Tanks task force
• Tank warfare task force More explicit about broadening the scope.
• Tanks and armoured warfare task force
• Armoured warfare task force Simpler version.
• Armoured task force
• Mechanized warfare task force Broader in scope, based on motorized vehicles.
• Mechanized task force
• Military vehicle task force I see no problem with the scope—this set phrase usually means motor vehicles, and not aircraft or ships.
• Military motor vehicle task force If you want to get technical about it, this is fine.

Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-12 15:07 z

I see proposals there for things we do need (in particular a tank warfare task force to cover the tactical/strategic issues currently unaddressed), but I understood this to be fairly narrowly "tank" & technical (including design, development, production, perhaps procurement, issues), rather than all mil vehicles, never mind operational matters. Not that they shouldn't get attention, just not in this tent (so to speak). Or am I way off target? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In a tan task force all matters concerning tanks should be covered. In an AFV task force all matters concerning AFVs should be covered. And in a military land vehicles task force all matters concerning military land vehicles should be covered. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Trekphiler is correct about what I originally proposed, and to a degree so is SuperTank17 - I wanted to cover everything that had to do with tanks, including tank warfare - using the portal as a table of contents of sorts. JonCatalán (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to an above comment about the amount of FAs and whatnot to justify the expansion of the task force, we would technically start with 4 FAs and one GA (that I know of) - T-34, T-26, Verdeja (tank) and Lince (tank) are all FAs and Panzer I is a GA, and upon my return to San Diego I plan to work on what I left off of last year and take it through the FA process as well. Since I center mostly on tanks, that's why I originally proposed the task force to just focus on tanks because I assumed that I would be the most active member taking articles through the FA process (three of the four FAs were nominated and written by me (not to forget all the crucial copyediting other editors did) and one more is going through FAC currently - Leopard 2E). To be honest, I was hoping of centering editors interested in tanks so that once I wrote the bulk of an article I'd have knowledgeable editors all concentrated under a single task force and with our efforts oriented we can get a lot done. This is why I disagree with widening the scope of the task force. JonCatalán (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that as I said before its impossible to focus on tanks without focusing also on a number of other AFVs such as APCs, IFVs, ARVs, SPAAGs, engineering vehicles etc. And that's not only because many of those vehicles are based on tanks. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not an Armoured Vehicle Task Force then those editors who wanted to concentrate on tanks would be free to do so, but it would not exclude those interested in APC'S, IFV etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, other military vehicles do not have a task force, and I'm particularly interested in some soft-back vehicles but I have no supporting task force. It seems a bit pointless to create a tank task force and not include other vehicles. Also, that scope would be miniscule compared to our other tfs.--Serviam (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It would kind of hard to create another task force for not armed vehicles like trucks, jeeps etc. That's why I think the military land vehicles scope is the best one. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The subject of tanks is practically the same as armoured warfare—tank are used by armoured, infantry and reconnaissance units in all types of operations, integrally with APCs and MICVs, and in coöperation with combat support, artillery, and air. It's also the same as mechanized warfare—AFVs entered the battlefield only two years after trucks did.

I think all of the suggested names are essentially synonyms. The question is merely one of emphasis. I think using tanks in the name helps provide novices with an image, but doesn't limit the scope. —Michael Z. 2008-07-13 20:40 z

Finding consensus: Military land vehicles

There seems to be strong consensus (and sufficient support) to start up a new task force. Unfortunately, no such consensus exists over the name and scope. So unless some agreement can be reached it ain't going to happen. However, Military land vehicles clearly has the edge though this doesn't seem to be acceptable to everyone. For what it's worth, in highly informal discussions, three coordinators also think "Military land vehicles" is the best choice (mostly because it's broadest). Perhaps people with strong views might consider the "I'd rather cut my head off with a rusty saw than join the Military land vehicles task force " test. If you can just about live with it, albeit under silent protest, and smiling fixedly through gritted teeth, please don't oppose. Can this name fly? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Although not particularly involved in Armoured vehicles on Wikipedia, I do recognize the need for there to be a new task force concerning Military Land Vehicles & Armoured Warfare. Cam (Chat) 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak support - I think it's taking on way to much at one swipe, but what the hell. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment We don't have to do everything at once. We could, for instance, restrict the scope initially. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can choose what they want to write articles about. It's not like everyone has to make contributions to each and every article that falls in the scope of the task force. Regards. -10:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Brilliant concept, nice start on the Portal:Tank, Jon. Comment I'm behind the portal & award concepts (esp. the 'to do' list - nice for focus, could we transclude from the task force to dos?), although I'd like to see more tank tech (tank guns, ammo, armour) - everyone has their favourites :) I'll generate an "AFV Award" pic once I have free time. I liked Jon's initial scope concept best, but that's POV. Nice work, no wielding of rusty saws here. Dhatfield (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank guns, ammo which is used exclusively by AFVs and armour of the AFVs and unarmed armoured vehicles all fall in the scope of Military land vehicles task force. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support - for the sake of getting somewhere. And thanks Doug for doing the award - I was going to try myself, but you are a much better graphic artist than I am. JonCatalán (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Best scope, we can work with this.--Serviam (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support If it doesn't work we can rename it and/or focus the scope. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created the infrastructure for the new task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force. Please sign up and so forth! :-) Kirill ^(prof) 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article Tsar Bomba which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Air Force Research Laboratory now open

The peer review for United States Air Force Research Laboratory is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hampton Roads FAR

Battle of Hampton Roads has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Halo (series) now open

The peer review for Halo (series), 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! Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving the article Julian the Apostate

There has been a discussion about moving this article to a new name here. It did not achieve consensus for the anticipated move, leading to a new vote for an anticipated move of the same article here. It looks like an endless debatte. For this reason, I encourage members of this project to drop by, read the arguments and make sure that the article is named according to wikipedia guidelines. Currently, all these repeated moves can achieve, is to exhaust one side, leading to a POV result instead of one according to the rules. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Sociology

A group of students in my course have chosen this article (one of the requested articles from the area of military science) as part of their assignment. They have just stubbed it, and will be working on taking it as close to a GA as they can over the next two weeks. Any mentorship, advice and assistance the MILHIST project members could render to them would be most welcome; however since the students are supposed to write the article, not have it written by them, I'd ask to keep any major content additions and such to talk (or just wait two weeks till they are done). PS. Do note that all the students are newbies to Wikipedia... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I can help them with templates and images. If the article is really good we can ask one of our copy-editors to improve it. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. May I suggest copying any offers of help, advice and so on to article's talk page, as I don't expect the students to be able to locate them here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We could add a {{todo}} template the article talk page and add suggestions there so as to not clutter up the talk page. Alteratively, if a peer review were filed for the article, we could make suggestions and comments there intead of the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas, although I think it is too early for any significant peer review.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish the students well on their project. My only concern is how to limit interference by those on WP who do not realize this is a class project. I'm thinking primarily of over-aggressive taggers, such as AFD, or other editors may try to make major changes to the article, constructive or otherwise (unless that is part of the project, but your comments above seem to suggest not). I'd suggest an {{inuse}} tag, but this is recommended for several hours, not 2 weeks. My other suggestion is to move the article (temporarily) to a userspace for the duration of the project, and then back to the mainspace after two weeks. Just trying to be proactive, not alarmist. - BillCJ (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All affected article have talk talk pages tagged with {{EducationalAssignment}}, linking to WP:SUP subsection on this project. Hopefully this will help. I wonder if Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination should design a main article space template, akin to inuse... As for userspace, I tend to dislike it (editors seem to forget articles there and others have trouble finding them there), so I've decided not to teach student about this option. Time will tell if this is enough, in the end we area learning how to teach with Wikipedia just as we are learning how to build it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

<--This is an intriguing idea. I've got the page on my watchlist. I'm going to be very interested to see how it develops. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the WP:SUP project? Check also the enormous success of WP:MMM project. I wonder how we could tie MILHIST more closely with such projects, in the case of mil soc it was an accident - I teach a course in sociology, students chosen a mil-related topic and since I was aware how active is MILHIST project, I've decided to inform you guys about it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 172nd Infantry Brigade (United States) now open

The peer review for 172nd Infantry Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles to merge ?

I don't know how this problem is dealt on wp:en (and where to go...) :
Both these articles have the same content but one with the bad title :

• Military history of Jordan
• Jordanian Armed Forces

Could someone take care of this ?
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Military history of Jordan was created in Feb 2008, and that was its only edit. Perhaps the user intended to expand it later, but hads since spent most of his time edit warring and being blocked for disruptions. COnverting it to a redirect is probably the best option. - BillCJ (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In theory both represent separate, notable concepts. But if they are forks, one should be redirected to the other. I am not sure which name is better, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Following your comment, I permitted myself to redirect the first one to the second one.

Thx. Ceedjee (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Tactical vs strategic

Just wondering what the guidelines on the use of "tactical" and strategic" (as in "U.S. tactical defeat"). It seems to be that a platoon level skirmish which took place less than a week ago in a small Afghan village is a tactical engagement, but the infobox for Battle of Wanat gives the Taliban a strategic victory. How can something that happened less than a week ago have strategic implications (that we're aware of currently)? Lawrencema (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In context, neither is accurate. As highlighted on the talk page, there is little inherently notable about it. Skirmishes such as this are happening all the time, and given the distribution of these platoon houses the operational impact of one loss isn't all that significant. If anything it could be said that it was a defeat for the US/ Afgh force, since they were forced to withdraw from the platoon house. The outcome is a loss of presence, erosion of reputation for US/ Afgh and an enhancement of reputation for the OPFOR.

ALR (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course something that happend less than a week ago can have strategic implications. If 4 days ago US soldiers captured some IED storage place, the obvious impications would be less IEDs. If the taliban shot down the only A10 in an area, obvious implications would be loss of air support, and probably more casualties because of it.--Serviam (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying a capture of an VBIED factory is a strategic victory for the Americans because there's less car-bombs? A single American platoon repelling a Taliban assault on a newly established base hardly has strategic implications for the overall direction of the Afghan war, but then, that was the point of my question. What are the WikiProject Military History guidelines (if any) for the use of the term "strategic" and/or "tactical"? I thought strategic referred to something that changes the overall direction of a conflict. Even if this was the case at the battle of Wanat, a few days after it happened is hardly enough time to make that sort of judgment.Lawrencema (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You could project an outcome, and make the suggestion that something would have a strategic effect, although this is probably not the case to try to make the argument based on. In WP terms the difficulty there is the OR aspect, if an independent, authoritative and informed analyst suggests a potential strategic outcome, then it's reasonable to make that statement.

ALR (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the thinking, perhaps because it lacks context. The effect of any action really depends on the operating environment. Using the examples you're proposing; the isolation of a store of IEDs, in either of the current TOOs would proabbly be considered a tactical outcome, since any individual store is quite small, and there are many of them. OTOH capturing, or turning, the bomb-maker would have a more significant effect through reducing the supply chain. Similarly, downing a single US aircraft doesn't have a significant military effect, since there are many replacements, however the effect in the information war would be significant.

It's worth working through the estimate process with these events, what are the outcomes, what might be the consequences. In this case, is the withdrawal from a single platoon house militarily significant? I'd suggest it's not all that significant.

ALR (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Radar frequency band nomenclature preferences

Do we have a standard or preference for which system we use for classifying radar frequencies (e.g., IEEE or NATO), particularly for military aircraft radars? I'm unclear on whether I should use X band or I/J band for fire control radars. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
[PS: I posted this query on the 17th (see History), but MiszaBot II archived it as having been posted on 22 June!]

List of battles by death toll

List of battles by death toll is an article with a high activity of IP editors inserting unreferenced material. After months with a template calling for sources and removal of every new unsourced edit, I decided to make clean sweep and removed all unsourced material. IP editors keep reverting my edits because I vandalized their beloved list. It is impossible to discuss matters with these guys. It would be nice if someone else could have an eye on it and keep it going into a properly sourced article. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty I don't see a huge amount (or indeed any) value in the article. Is there not some way to be rid of it?

ALR (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly needs improvement, but it seems to be of moderate interest. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I just don't see a lot of value in lists in the first place, plus I suppose there is the philosophical point that as a military professional the point of conflict is the outcome, not the number of bodies piled up at the end.

ALR (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Block expired, problem returned. It is 66.4.209.194, who has been warned because of vandalism several times, who keeps reverting my edits. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New article : Sea Breeze

I was wondering if someone can create an article on Operation SeaBreeze? If someone knows Russian perhaps, very limited sources exist for english.

There is an older version of the operation, can find some stuff here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/sea-breeze.htm http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/06/08/4757.shtml

And ofcourse, the current, and most controversial, going on for about 2 weeks: http://en.for-ua.com/news/2008/07/14/102051.html http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/14/europe/EU-Ukraine-US-Military-Exercises.php

Lihaas (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas, if you can list the Russian sites that deal with it, people can use machine translation to make the translations. Buckshot06(prof) 04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, don't rely solely on the machine translation! I've been working with User:Charles01 trying to clean up one from Italian WP on a car builder bio & it's a struggle; for something like milhist, the machines will have a devil of a time coping (unless you're using something better than I've seen). I tried Babelfish on a page from Spanish WP & it was...well, not unintelligible, but it'd be easier to use a Sp-Eng dictionary to begin with, 'cause it reads like it's gonna need one anyhow. And you risk introducing error for no good reason... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've used Ru-Eng machine translation repeatedly on military articles and it does produce confusing text, but if you know a bit about the Russian military and the way they describe things it is reasonably OK. But I take your point.. can be difficult.. Buckshot06(prof) 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Take your aim

Given the of importance volley fire to infantry tactics between 1600 & 1914, a better link than Volley gun or Organ gun is badly needed. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Then do something yourself and write better articles on these issues. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got enough on my hands now, thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Late Roman army now open

The A-Class review for Late Roman army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 14:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New B-class criteria

The new B-class criteria are along the line of our existing criteria, but a bit stricter on some issues. The coordinators have discussed to implement criteria six of the new system and possibly change criteria three and four of our system along the lines of the new assessment. They could not agree how this should be put to practice. Is there enough support for an assessment drive or should we just change things via bot and set criteria six automatically at yes? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need another assessment drive with one drive just completed. If we do adopt it, perhaps we can just have a bot set it at yes/no (not checked) and then correct them next time we do a drive, since it seems that one happens every six months to a year anyway. Borg Sphere (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If all the current B-Class articles were left with the new criteria not checked, they would all be automatically downgraded to Start. That is a bad idea. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be done as part of the next B-class drive? It has only been 3 months or so since the last. Narson (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way forward seems to be (1) use a bot to set existing B-Class to B6-y; (2) update the template to show B6; (3) assess new articles on B6 as they come up and (4) at some stage - perhaps during the next major drive - check B6. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If the "B" standard is being redefined upward, maybe the utility of a "C" standard should be reconsidered?

—WWoods (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Another point to consider is that WPAIR is using C-class, and there is consederable overlap on military aircraft. There is potential for some confusion in assesment, as editors have often filled out both templates at the same time, or simply copied the other project's assessment. - BillCJ (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not being redefined upward for Milhist as the new criteria are broadly based on our existing ones. Otherwise, in the recent discussion here on C-Class, the consensus was overwhelmingly not to adopt it. These things though are not set in stone, consensus can change, and discussions can always be revisited. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw someone add a B-class checklist to a Start-class article [2] to Talk:HMNB Devonport. As it's a Start-class and the next class up would be C-class there should be a C-class checklist. bsrboy (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As was just said Milhist isn't using C-Class at the moment, so it'd be pointless for us to come up with criteria for it. A better place to bring that up might be with the 1.0 assessment team. Borg Sphere (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

When Milhist uses C-Class please make a C-clss cheklist as soon as possible or even get one ready beforehand. bsrboy (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We won't be. At least, not without a pretty seismic shift in consensus. Narson (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Are there any other projects that I should know about who do not use C-class? bsrboy (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Search the ones using C-class, that might be faster.

So, no consensus for a B-class drive. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Become an image restorationist

Boston, 1775: British tactical map complete with cannon deployment details.

Here's an offer for Milhist members who have an interest in images. I've located a large cache of period military maps in high resolution digital files. There's enough to cover nearly every major battle of the American Revolution and Civil War, plus a smattering of world history. This is highly encyclopedic material and it's more than I can restore alone. Want to start collecting featured picture credits? Fire up your image processing software and contact me; I'll train you. Durova^Charge! 04:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This should better be posted at logistics.Wandalstouring (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Done as suggested, to a talk page that has barely been edited in two months. Suggest you read the edit summary.[3] Durova^Charge! 10:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, I worked on acquiring images for some time. As long as it isn't a must, people are not interested and hope some specialist will do it. However, the place is still better because someone will notice you there someday because s/he is interested in images. On this page here, you are unlikely to achieve anything on the short run and your input will soon be archieved. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost coverage of WikiProject Military history

Are any of the members of the project willing to lend answers to the WikiProject report for the Signpost. It took an absence recently, and to re-kick it off, I thought this may be the best place to do that. Regards, Rudget (logs) 11:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No response, so I'll leave this for another time. Thank you anyway. Rudget (logs) 11:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to dismiss Nick Dowling as Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject

Obviously no one had actually read the discussion on the relevant page or considered the case.

CyclonicWhirlwind, how can you have a better name for an event than the actual name?!

To the unsigned (User:Buckshot06?), I can only once again repeat that the names of Soviet operations are not "self-aggrandising title for a military action", but the actual name for the operation that describes place, posture, and scope of the operation. These were not made up by the Soviet General Staff as some sort of political promotions, but are related to the operations in a purely military way.

To Vecrumba, I am not promoting a "personal editorial POV", since this is not an editorial issue, the issue being use of straw polls to change names of titles from their referenced names. However, I know where you are coming from based on your edits, so this is falling on deaf ears

Pocopocopocopoco, the use of WP:DR was already suggested in an AN/I, but it does not apply. What I "don't like" has nothing to do with it. Its the fact that another editor is trying to change a legitimate name for one he likes better that is the issue

mgr3105, from what I can see, Nick Dowling didn't even create the straw poll, he just made a comment to support one of the choices in the straw poll. Aren't you being a bit excessive by trying to get him removed from a volunteer position as Assistant Coordinator? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter if Nick created the straw poll, or just endorses the practice through participation?

I think the step I took is commensurate with his action of using a process explicitly rejected by community to introduce original research expressly banned by the Wikipedia policy. Just like claims made in the articles need good references, so do actions require good basis for them in terms of Wikipedia practice. I would not like to think that people with some sort of bureaucratic or administrative status such as Nick or even more so, Raul654 can be above this requirement to conform to community-wide standards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ, no, I am not asking to dismiss Nick because he disagrees with the historical name of the article, but the way he is going about achieving this, by using a straw poll to change it to a fictitious name unsupported by references which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and community consensus on straw polls--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• There was another reason for closing this: in about six weeks the project will (re)elect nine or so cooridinators. By the time you gain consensus here that Nick has acted out of line - if you manage to gain that consensus (and that a long shot since I saw Rual654's name in the support section on the page in question) the effort would be null and viod because he could be up for reelection. Therefore, I thought it best to close the discussion and wait until after the elections; if at that time it is still an issue then you can plan your next move from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Mrg lodged a complaint about this yesterday at WP:ANI [5] and the uninvolved admin who reviewed the issue stated, rightly IMO, that this is a content dispute issue and no admin action is warranted. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you ought to provide a link [6] to the entire AN/I, and not the initiation of one. That is where you failed to suggest how the WP:DR is applicable to the issues raised (I provided a check-list), or offer any suggestions or arguments to counter anything I said in the AN/I. Can I be blamed for being left with the obvious conclusion?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you seem to think that this is some sort of a political "move" for me. It is not. I am simply objecting to methods of procedural adulteration used in Wikipedia to introduce into articles elements of original research in articles, regardless of who is doing it, or where in the article it is done. Nick, never mind Raul654, are supposed to set example for others by virtue of their positions, not undermine Wikipedia policy as a result of their positions and suggested influence. If it was one day to elections I would still have posted the proposal as a matter of principal. The earlier discussion on the article will show that even getting the article renamed from a titled based on a book cover was no mean feat, despite the author acknowledging that the original title was created by his 11 year old daughter 25 years ago. Based on this Nick should have deduced that I prefer facts to authority, something another authors assumed because the original author of August Storm was a serving Colonel in the US Army. If Nick was indeed elected to serve the community and improve Wikipedia, than his action of disregarding community consensus and introducing original research are far more inexcusable despite all his previous achievements and respect earned through them. There is nothing personal in my proposal, purely about the business of editing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The issue here is the name of the article; it has nothing to do with Nick until Nick actually moves to implement consensus. Based on this simple fact I see no reason to preemptively recall a coordinator for possibly implementing consensus on a straw poll at a date to be determined. Wait and see would be the best approach here; Nick's done everything by the book: his straw poll is intended to build consensus for a move, and is recognized in policy as one of the proper ways to go about such matters. Politics played no role in my descion to close the recall petition; I choose to close this as a neutral party, and this was done in accordance with our policy that demand contributers not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. From where I sit, the attempt to recall Nick at this exact moment falls squarely within the above, hence the closure. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not making a point. Its a proposal based on Nick's behaviour relevant to the Project. The intent to build consensus for a move is against Wikipedia original research policy, and counter to the rejection of conducting such polls by the community. The intent is to change a historical name of the operation, even if it is not "sexy" for some, to something that is fictitious. There should not even be the straw poll for the consensus to move!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you got too much spare time. Coordinators do maintenance work for the project. If he fails in that respect, kick him or warn him. What he edits, doesn't affect the coordinator position as long as he doesn't get banned from WP. However, you may voice concerns about his character and editing during the elections. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that the policy banning straw polls Mrg is claiming exists is actually a rejected proposal (see: Wikipedia:Straw polls). The guidelines which discuss the use of straw polls in this circumstance (eg, WP:DR and WP:POLLS) set conditions for their use and interpretation which I think were met when Buckshot opened the poll following a discussion of the article's name in which 3 of the 4 editors who commented supported a move. Mrg is also trying to get Raul censured for suggesting a new name and voting for it (complaints were lodged at: [7], [8] [9]). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Vimy Ridge now open

The peer review for Battle of Vimy Ridge is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

request for input on template guidelines

{{Externalimage}} was developed by the coordinators Kirill Lokshin and me to fight the large backlog of image requests of milhist. It took some time before it became widespread. The problem is, currently it isn't used according to the guidelines within and outside this project. I suggest to review and change the current guidelines or to enforce them stricter at least within milhist. It may be more difficult the more popular it gets, so right now it is still manageable. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Military sociology now open

The peer review for Military sociology is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator elections

These have traditionally been held in August and February. In view of the seasonal slowdown, it has been proposed that the August election is deferred until September with the February election going back to March. The advantage of September is that many of our members will have returned from vacation and the students will have access to high-speed college access. Whether this impacts on voter participation remains to be seen. Anyhow, it seems worth a try. Does anyone object? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it risk the opposite problem? That those who only have regular high speed at home rather than at uni where they have to go to a lab for it? Certainly over here no all uni accomodations are wired up. Not that I'm opposed to the idea, I just thought I'd toss it out there as something to consider. Narson (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea :)) The idea is really meant to address the issue of holiday absence, however, which appears to be currently affecting many parts of Wikipedia. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Book Review section?

This may be a suggestion for the Logistics department but at least here it will get more diverse comment hopefully. Recently I have certain books utilised by editors in maritime history articles which quite frankly aren't up to scratch - either because they are controversial, poorly referenced, inaccurate or are worded so poorly as to mislead editors into writing something completely different to what the book in question implies/states. I'm slightly fed up of arguing the merits of certain books either on article discussion pages or my own talk page, and think it could do some good for a book review section of the project or respective taskforce be started, so that editors can put on record their opinions, be they positive or negative of certain works. I recognise that such a concept could quite easily descend into a vicious argument or edit war, but I can't think of any otheridea other than to just discuss sources as they pop up on article discussion pages (which seems to me to be a very localised thing). Any thoughts, comments &c.? --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered directing such discussions to the reliable sources noticeboard? I di not know if they handle books, but it may be a good place to start. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom: the reliable sources noticeboard already fills this function, and it would be dangerous for us to set up our own sub-noticeboard. I agree with your point that not all sources should be considered useful (with the big proviso that WP:V and WP:NPOV requires that all non-fringe views be acknowldged), and it may sometimes be appropriate to post notifications of discussions of sources on this project's noticeboards to gain other editors' views. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

One project does have an essay on why one particular web source is considered reliable by them, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. David Underdown (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call such a move dangerous. That suggests the project rending itself piece by piece because of this. And how many editors (especially new ones with everything to prove) here regularly look at the Noticeboard at WP:Reliable? Until it was mentioned above I'd never looked at it before. You'd have to stick a big signpost somewhere on the project page in order for it to be useful.

And quite frankly, WP:V is a major reason IMO "reviews" would be useful. For example, strictly speaking, Robert K. Massie's Castles of Steel would fall under "Questionable Sources—Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking…" and every review I've seen praises only the "political and social sides of the narrative &c." and not the technical navy facts of the book. There are quite a few other books I can cite with proof which are of being of dubious merit and would probably get lost in the flow at WP:RSN. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 11:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant 'dangerous' in that the project would be exposed to serious external criticism if we set up our own internal dispute resolution noticeboards where Wikipedia-level noticeboards exist. I imagine that this would be doable, but we'd need a strong case to justify it. I personally find WP:V's assertion that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to be frustrating given that its basically an open invitation for people to use any professionally published source they like and it can be difficult to correct material which is demonstratably wrong if it is sourced to a mistake. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point there, but educate someone ignorant of these things. Who would be able to criticise a WP:Project for such a thing? Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 11:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair number of editors who have a broadly anti-WikiProject stance, and will jump on anything they see as a WikiProject exceeding its authority.

In any case: the "annotated bibliography" section of every task force page has a place for editors to leave comments about the works mentioned, so that might be able to serve your purpose here. Kirill ^(prof) 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone, potentially. Wikipedia places a lot of emphasis on the need for consensus and being seen to rock the boat by working outside the mainstream dispute resolution processes isn't a good idea as it can lead to people thinking that the project is trying to be an exclusive club with its own rules. I rather enjoyed 'Castles of Steel', by the way, but I do agree that it's not a great source to use on technical issues, especially given that much better sources are easily available about ships of this era. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Many editors see Wikiprojects as bureaucratic and centrist. There's often a fine line between adding a useful resource and adding instruction creep. What's more, the scope of Milhist is so wide that a central review resource would very soon become unwieldy. Adding comments to the bibliography sections in individual TFs overcomes these problems. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All good points, although I'm afraid I can't see the supposed swing towards a centrocracy, and usually I would be at the forefront of opposing such moves! I may as well as do what I planned to do a month ago, and just start writing my own reviews as a sub-page - and hope someone either reads them or comments on them - and act "unofficially". Thanks for the comments. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirill and me developed the infrastructure for book reviews as part of the task forces. However, it didn't achieve great impact. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction: User:mrg3105

A discussion is taking place at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents about whether the community should place mrg3105 under editing restrictions and all comments are welcome to help resolve this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has now closed, with the imposition of an editing restriction. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR

Iowa class battleship has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we will do this via templates and come back to you in case we decide else. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of the Trench now open

The A-Class review for Battle of the Trench is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam Civil Actions Ribbon

See Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Vietnam_Civil_actions_ribbon. Can someone who has the actual ribbon and device verify which "palm device" is more accurate? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI a nice SVG is now available. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2008 invasion of Anjouan now open

The A-Class review for 2008 invasion of Anjouan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Space units of the United States Air Force

The Category:Space units of the United States Air Force is currently well populated, and is itself properly placed within Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air Force. It seems obvious that Category:Space units of the United States Air Force should also be placed within something like Category:Space units of military forces, which would also include at a minimum Category:Russian Space Forces, and others. Does this proposal make sense? Is there a better name for the new category? (sdsds - talk) 20:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The conventional name would be Category:Space units and formations, to go with everything else in Category:Military units and formations by type. Kirill ^(prof) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 04:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class Review for the 102nd IW

The A-Class review for the 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open. I should've brought this to the attention of others earlier. I'm sorry I didn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Know any developers?

There's an upload limit issue I'd like to discuss with a developer. The file size limit at Commons has become a real problem. For example, my newest project is the official U.S. 12th Army position map from D-Day. It's gorgeous, it's incredibly encyclopedic, and this is probably the first restoration that's ever been done on it. But I can't think of any way to shoehorn it onto commons within a 20 megabyte cap without losing quality. I'd like to tug on a couple of sleeves about this. Would appreciate suggestions. Durova^Charge! 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You could try getting in touch with Brion... — E ↗^TCB 08:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've sent him an e-mail. This is my first time approaching the devs; any advice? Durova^Charge! 12:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Badge

Most projects have a badge to put in participants user pages. Could someone more skilful than me produce one please? Racooon (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach#User banners and userboxes has what you're looking for. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwieldy category

I have nominated the Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars for deletion here due to User:Mrg3105's insistance that it be used for horse artillery and many other articles. I would appreciate feedback from members of this project on this issue.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC

Roman–Persian Wars has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on partner peer reviews

How's it going? Is it fun and interesting? Is it delivering what you were expecting? Thoughts, gripes, comments? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We want to know whether it is in the interest of the project to continue this partnership and what could be improved. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's the goal?

If it's to get people in peripherally-related Wikiprojects to become involved in projects that may also interest them, a benign bit of advertising, it seems to be working fine.

If it's to get people to participate in discussions relevant to the other projects...less effective. I don't recall a single notice at WP:CVG that had anything to do with that project's scope.

So whether the mission was accomplished or not depends on what the mission was. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of the mission was something more akin but yet separate to your first point, in that it was an attempt both to broaden the horizons (of some editors), as well as to aid in finding where Video game editors' faults lie when peer reviewing video game articles — likewise, Military history. In essence, injecting fresh blood. To which, I would say it went well. I would like to say that a few more history review notices coming up would have been pleasant. --Izno (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Izno, that was the intention. I just looked over the VG talkpage and I don't see any Milhist notices. I think that was probably a failure on the Coordinators part when we add the notices here and to the task-forces. From my view, I think it has gone well. We had, at the beginning, a significant increase in reviews both here, and at the VGPR. Whether or not areas that were lacking were identified through the process, I don't know, perhaps someone who has put an article through a review could comment. Woody (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Milhist notices get archived pretty quickly at WP:CVG, as they aren't active threads for very long.

If the intent was to cross-pollinate the peer reviews, I don't know how successful that was. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it worked well. Generally speaking, some peer reviews just never seem to get that many comments. But as far as this WP:MILHIST and WP:VG partnership is concerned, I believe the amount of comments and participation did increase on both sides. Kariteh (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The one place I think we really helped was fighting game peer reviews, and thier editors helped a lot over here, I noticed a user called Giggy giving peer reviews on almost requests. I don't think we helped much when it came to racing games, or other kinds that aren't really within our scope.--Serviam (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I had an article go through the review that is now an FA and I noted at the time that the quantity of feedback dramatically increased with no slip in the already top standard of quality in the reviews avaliable through MILITHIST. If I had a suggestion, it is that Video game articles for review should have been listed on the same page as military history ones during the trial period. That way more people would have seen them, resulting in an even greater quantity of reviewers.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmh, so, what do we do? Kariteh (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Boston

Hi. I have recently been working on the Siege of Boston, and am currently in need of some advice. During the siege, the Battle of Bunker Hill took place. I am not sure as to whether to include those casualties with the casualties from the rest of the siege. Should I break it up in the infobox? Or just not include the casualties from Bunker Hill at all? Thanks. Red4tribe (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With the rather large proviso that I know almost nothing about these battles (I'm Australian), I'd say that you should include the Battle of Bunker Hill casualties as part of the siege's casualties in the infobox, as the battle appears to have been part of the siege. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can make it work, I'd suggest breaking it up in the infobox somehow, since it would be useful for readers to know at a glance that most of the casualties occurred in just one battle. For future input, it might be useful to ask at the American Revolutionary War task force. —Kevin Myers 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe now open

The peer review for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this article within the scope of the project?

I've been working on the article SS Czar, also known, among other names, as British transport HMT Czar in World War I, and as SS Pulaski, a Polish-flagged, British troopship in World War II. There's been a difference of opinion on whether this article is within the scope of WP:MILHIST after it was listed for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. I'm hoping that some additional editors might take a look at the article and offer additional opinions. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fish story

This page has had a claim, standing since at least 5 February 2007, of an aircraft carrier contact by Tarpon. I didn't believe it then, & I still don't. Confirmation or refutation is needed. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say take it out. DANFS is a bit unreliable at times, and uncited additions to material sourced from it are even less reliable! Nick Dowling (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a day or two & see if anything turns up. Blair isn't free of mistakes, & he may have missed it. (I don't think that's likely, but...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

According to "US Sub. Ops. WWII" (Roscoe): On 4/8/'43, Tunny SS-282 fired 10 dud torpedoes at two carriers, one of which was the escort carrier TAIYO(OTAKA) causing little if any damage. Rasher SS-269 sank TAIYO(OTAKA) 8/18/'44. Could find nothing about Tarpon's contact. The logs of all WWII boats are now available on CD. Perhaps someone has access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinosa (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Blair (Bantam 1976, p.412-3) confirms that, saying 4 prematures at 50m (firing from c800yd) near Wake. I suspect, as Tinosa suggests, that's the source of the confusion. Tarpon left Pearl bound for Empire Waters 1/43, where Wogan found very good hunting (Blair, p.405-6). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just Courious. Why is DANFS considered an unreliable source? http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/submar/ss175.txt Tinosa (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's 'unreliable', it's just problematic at times. As it was written by the US Navy some entries are biased and it's not free from mistakes (the same caveats apply the the very useful histories of Australian warships published by the Royal Australian Navy). Nick Dowling (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also relying on wartime records, which aren't necessarily the best; they denied (or covered up) flaws in the Mark XIV, which led to mistaken claims of damage/sinkings. Not to say JANAC is much better... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice of proposed moves

Several months ago, I moved Army Air Corps to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom), and created a DAB page in its place. After nearly five months with no complaints or concerns, an editor in now proposing to revert the move, and place the DAB page at Army Air Corps (disambiguation). Please weigh in at the respective talk pages, whatever your opinion. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be precise, it was done 4 months zero days ago, and I am requesting a revert to the situation that existed before that since Jan 2004. By the silence is consensus model you are trying to assert, there was no problem to fix with a move in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The problem was the page was at 'British Army Air Corps,' which potentially created confusion about the actual title of the organisation. After discussion on the talk page, AAC (UK) was the decided alternative. I would recommend since the move is now contested that we go through the entire WP:RM process and seek a few further views. Regards to all, Buckshot06(prof) 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing now open

The A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 11:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles

I've recently seen or worked on two articles that might be of interest to either this project or to the US Government project (already posted there). These articles are Defense Technical Information Center and Data & Analysis Center for Software. I just wanted to provide a heads-up to the people of this project. ThomasOwens (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class Review for Panzer I Reopened

The A-Class Review for Panzer I has been reopened. Your comments are welcomed! JonCatalán (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Airman Basic now open

The peer review for Airman Basic is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

William III of England FAR

William III of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. – Ilse@ 11:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Mercy (AH-4) now open

The A-Class review for USS Mercy (AH-4) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

North American Aerospace Defense Command

The North American Aerospace Defense Command article has ben subjected to POV additions by users trying to prove that NORAD was at fault for not stopping the 9/11 attacks, or something like that. WHile the additions have been cited (sloppily, but at least the sources are there), the conclusion of the section is entirely OR. I've not had a chance to check out the given sources yet to see if they are reliable or not. Other editors have tried to remove the sections, but they have been restored. If anyone is interested in tackling this, I'd really appreciate it, as I'm really not up to a massive POV battle this week (health issues). Thanks. (I am also posting this at WT:AIR.) - BillCJ (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Crush 40 now open

The peer review for Crush 40, 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! Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

retrenchment

I followed a link from wiktionary for retrenchment and discovered it was deleted June 12, 2008 as being too like a dictionary entry. Can someone suggest what we could redirect it to? RJFJR (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

An offer

Official U.S. 12th Army situation map from 2400 hours, 6 June 1944.

Sometimes people like to print copies of restored images. This one is special, so giving a heads up to fellow MILHIST volunteers. As far as I know this is the only large scale digital restoration of this historic image. Due to the file size cap at Commons I am not currently able to upload the full version. If you're interested, contact me via Skype for a copy of the 109MB .tif file. Trusted Wikipedians can e-mail me for my Skype screen name. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Spear Article

Hi, I just added myself to this group. I looked at the Spear article and was astonished by how terrible it was. It required a major cleanup. For example it didn't even have a defined history section, I've at least added that but it's missing citations and could do with a lot more info. I'll grab my books out and try to add sources and citations soon, but considering it's probably the most common weapon in military history it's a shame it's such a bad article. Articles about more specific weapons are actually a lot better, because they've been written by people who specialize in that weapon. I wasn't sure which taskforce would be most appropriate because the spear covers almost all periods and areas and the weaponry taskforce seems to be more focused on makes and models of modern weapons. Any help or directions in this effort would be much appreciated. Master z0b (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Overusage

I think that the use of "(United States)" starting to get out of hand. First of all, if it contains some unique name such as "Airlift Squadron", no other country uses it. Of course the USAF disambiguators have been removed but the Army ones still remain. Some of the ridiculous instances of unneeded disambiguations are shown in the "Maneuver Enhancement Brigades". This truly seems like a unique name in the way that it it worded. If no other country has this unique name, then why should we put a disambiguation there in the first place? They are meant to be placed only when there is a conflict. This usually occurs in units that are the oldest, as they are more likely to share names with European nations. Otherwise there is no point to have them placed. I will be glad to place them on pages when some conflict of titles arises but as of right now, half the units probably don't need them on them. I think that there should be some sort of amendment to the naming convention so that people can understand that there is a lot of overuse in these things. Hopefully people who agree with me can help to stop the madness one move at a time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The following response was transcluded from the Stress Hotline talk page:

You are right. Please voice your concerns on the main project page for other users to give their input. This way we can achieve a binding solution that backs up your changes in case (and that is very likely) you encounter some people objecting to your changes. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The best solution to disambiguations being applied to unique US unit titles would be to revert the change and politely explain why to the editor who made it. I know that when I see a generic-looking unit name being created for a specific country my instinct is to add a disambiguation, and I'm sure that I've made some mistakes in doing so. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried that, but they still move them back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin's thoughts. For example, National Military Strategy is now at National Military Strategy (United States), which seems an inappropriate usage of a unit term to a document. Personally I would have thought 'United States National Security Strategy' was better. The units & formations situation is a bit overdone as well. Buckshot06(prof) 22:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think, and I also would argue, that a passer by seeing the title 'national Military Strategy' would not have the least idea what the article was about. If anything, the title suggests an analysis of what a national military strategy is, and how those of different countries compare. Thus, I expect, someone added the (US) designator to make it clear that specifically the NMS of the US and no one else was being discussed? Wiki has gone global. Sandpiper (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF now open

The A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 11:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WW2 Mediterranean, African and Middle East articles proposal

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#WW2 Mediterranean, African and Middle East articles proposal

These changes should have been advertised on the talk pages of the articles involved. I am against this idea. It is like combining the five Allied Campaigns in Asia, into one, or throwing the Italian Campaign and the North West European Campaign into a Western Europe Campaign.

I would be in favour of breaking the Mediterranean and the, Middle East into two by chronology. Ie. Starting the Mediterranean theatre land operations with Operation Torch and ending the Middle East theatre when in early 1943 overall command of the 8th Army passed to AFHQ. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire thing was advertised iirc earlier this year when it all took place. It was met with overall support.

If you look through the archives i believe you will find the information.

As for "It is like combining the five Allied Campaigns in Asia, into one, or throwing the Italian Campaign and the North West European Campaign into a Western Europe Campaign." thats just nonsence.

Imo it does make sence to have the African, Middle East and Med fighting combinded in one top tier article as they all had the same basic goal - the defeat of the axis forces in Africa (and then the Middle East) to be followed up by a strike agaisnt the "soft under belly of Europe".

On top of that the original proposal also included the fact when writing about these three geograhical areas the British Official History lumped them all together into one series (althought split into 6 volumes).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Harry Murray now open

The peer review for Harry Murray is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate now open

The A-Class review for United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Eyes please at List of special forces units

There's a discussion going on here to determine what special forces are and which units qualify for special forces status. All interested editors are invited to comment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ribbons

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force‎#Ribbons. Some editors have been inserting a set of icons into articles to represent the full set of medal ribbons someone is entitled to wear. Discussion has started under the Australian task force since it mostly seems to have been applied to Australian service personnel, but I think wider input might be helpful, as we should have a consistent approach across the project. David Underdown (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 now open

The peer review for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Marquis de Lafayette

Just to let everyone here know, Wikipedia:Spotlight is going to be working on the article Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette, which, per a talk page template, falls under this Wikiproject; while we will certainly not be the only ones editing the article during this time, if anyone here is interested in the article and would like to join our effort, we use the IRC room #wikipedia-spotlight. Thanks!--danielfolsom 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers as Beligerents in Infobox

What are your thoughts with regard to putting volunteers as beligerents in the miltary conflict infobox? Specifically see the article on the 2008 South Ossetia War. I think it's getting out of hand where they have different Cossack hosts as beligerents. My experience with other articles is that we leave out voluteers and mercenaries as it makes things get out of hand for wars. For example, the Vietnam War many countries for example Canada sent volunteers but it makes no sense to put Canadian Volunteers as beligerents. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

TAM tank A-class Review Open

An A-class review for TAM (tank) has been opened. Your comments are welcomed! Thanks!. JonCatalán (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve personnel of World War II

Can anyone give some input into this category. It was recently created as a rename by CFD of RNVR Wartime personnel. It is listed as a sub-category of Category:Royal Navy personnel of World War II. Most people in the category have two cats for their military service; Category:Royal Navy officers and now Category:Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve personnel of World War II. For me it is more sensible to have Category:Royal Navy personnel of World War II kept for all those who served in the Royal Navy in WWII, i.e. Royal Navy (regular), Royal Navy Reserve and Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve and keep this as service by branch. The distiction between type of officer could then be made by a new category, Category:Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve officers. What do people think?? Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kiev Expedition (1018) now open

The A-Class review for Kiev Expedition (1018) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 13:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

UAV Infobox

Please can someone design a UAV infobox template.

The following types of things are worth mentioning:

• Dates
  • Project start:
  • Role
  • Manufacturer
  • First flight of prototype:
  • In service date:
  • Out of service date:
  • Replaced:
  • Replaced by:
  • Number produced
• General characteristics
  • Length:
  • Wingspan:
  • Main rotor diameter:
  • Height:
  • Maximum all up weight:
  • Empty weight:
  • Main rotor area:
  • Powerplant:
  • Fuel
  • Launch method:
  • Landing method:
  • Control method:
  • Communications:
• Performance
  • Maximum speed:
  • Cruise speed:
  • Endurance:
  • Service ceiling:
• Payload configurations
• Launch and Recovery vehicles
• Used by

The reason for asking this is that there are lots of articles on UAVs, and no standard info-box. If someone does not create one soon, we will end up having painful mass replacement exercises just like we have seen for ship articles. Let us please avoid the stress by creating an infobox template--Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Wouldn't a UAV take whatever infobox is specified for aircraft? The fields should carry over fairly well, I think, aside from the lack of a pilot and the associated changes. I'm rather hesitant to develop an entirely new template where something existing could be used; and, traditionally, we have let WP:AIRCRAFT set standards for the templates on those articles rather than imposing our own, since they're not restricted to military applications. Kirill ^(prof) 14:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Woody (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Radar frequency band nomenclature preferences

Do we have a standard or preference for which system we use for classifying radar frequencies (e.g., IEEE or NATO), particularly for military aircraft radars? I'm unclear on whether I should use X band or I/J band for fire control radars. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no particular standard. Military aircraft radars would be considered under the scope of both the Military aviation, the weaponry and the military technology and engineering task forces. Only one of these task forces has a style guide and I doubt it would answer your question. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, which is why I have posted this request in several places. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At the absence of a standard, be bold and see what other editors would think. Otherwise, we can create a standard and include it in a style guide.

I personally would prefer IEEE (representing a worldview, neutrality). Military radar band nomenclature is used for both military and commercial applications. But I'll be still tempted to use NATO standards for the military expertise. I know that the current IEEE version is a 2002 revision but here it says that it is considered obsolete - a bit odd. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Thomas Hines now open

The peer review for Thomas Hines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I never officially announced it, so even through it's been up for a few days, Thomas Hines peer review is open. If anyone wants to learn more about the James Bond of the Confederacy, feel free to review.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Bedford, we do it, so you don't have to! Woody (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I never saw that Kirill did this. *embarassed*--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to amend Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide-Naming conventions-Units, formations, and bases

As seen from the the discussion above about the overuse of the disambiguator (United States), there are many people who think that its use has been stretched out of the context of it's original purpose. I propose that we amend the naming conventions so that we can let people know that this is unneeded most of the time. Below is a link to the naming conventions for this topic: Wikipedia:MILMOS#UNITNAME

What follows is the part that this discussion really focuses on:

For units, the optional disambiguator should be the common name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs to (as in 4th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)), or, if such usage is still ambiguous (or where the unit does not serve a country), the name of the service branch to which the unit belongs (as in 1st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)). The disambiguator is not necessary in cases where the name of the country is already present in the name of the unit (as in The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada), or where the name is clearly unique (as in Preobrazhensky regiment).

In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be pre-emptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit. If this is done, the un-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version).

Basically, the disambiguation was originally intended to be used for units that share similar names with European nations. This stems out of them being created before the armed forces diversified. Units with names that include "Infantry Division" or "Cavalry Division" share names with other countries. People have now used this term so liberally that almost every unit of the U.S. Army has the disambiguation attached to it. Most of the time, this is unneeded, but sometimes it does make sense. This is really unneeded for units that have "Maneuver Enhancement Brigade" or "Sustainment Brigade" attached to their name are unique to the United States. This is becoming ridiculous and I think that this needs to be addressed because it is getting out of hand.

The following sentence from the second paragraph leads like this and should have the following added to it (The suggested addition is in bold):

In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be pre-emptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit. If the unit is unique in name to the country of which it is part of, the disambiguation should not be added because this basically restates the obvious. For example, the 92nd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade is unique to the United States. The United States is also the only country with a Maneuver Enhancement Brigade and thus the disambiguation is unnecessary.

This should follow the paragraph that is above:

For units that are unique in name to a country, they should be created without a disambiguator. This keeps many units from having an unnecessary ending tagged onto them. For example, the U.S. Army's 101st Engineer Battalion does not need to have the disambiguation added to it because no other country has a battalion with that high of a number. The 4th Engineer Battalion name is shared by both Belgium and the United States and should thus include the disambiguator. If you are in doubt about the usage of a name by different countries, do a quick Wikipedia or other search engine search. If the name of the unit is used by another country, you can add a disambiguator to it. If it is not, then don't add one.

Occassionally, another country will create a new unit or change the name of a unit so that it shares the name with another unit from a different country. If this is the case, move the old unit to a new page with the disambiguator added and create the page for the new unit and also put a disambiguator on it. For the old page, turn it into a disambiguation with links to the units in both countries.

I think that if we amend the naming conventions so that people know that this is unneeded, people will be less inclined to do something that might be disliked by others. People seem to respond to authority on this site and by letting them know that there are rules regarding the overuse of disambiguations, they might think before they act.

I understand that others do not agree with me and have suggested that we move the pages back. I tried that and people who moved it cited the rules. I believe that by changing this information, people will be able to understand that the disambiguation is unnecessary most of the time and we really should think before we make unnecessary changed to perfectly good page names. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad general idea, in my opinion; but I think the text goes into rather more detail on routine editing practice than is helpful for a guideline. I'd suggest that we could get the same effect from a much briefer addition:

In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit. If this is done, the un-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version). Preemptive disambiguation should only be used when there may be a reasonable need for it; designations whose forms are unique to a particular country (such as the 92nd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade) or which carry numbers sufficiently high as to not be likely to occur in other militaries (such as the 101st Engineer Battalion) should not be preemptively disambiguated.

Somewhat more substantively, I'm not convinced about discouraging preemptive disambiguation purely on the basis of the unit having a high number; once we start getting more thorough coverage of Soviet & Chinese units, which have absurdly high numbering schemes, a batallion number in the hundreds will be nothing special. Kirill ^(prof) 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here by Kevin. I agree completely with the thrust of his argument; we do not need to preemptively disambiguate everything, and it should be carefully done. I would advocate that we adopt Kirill's slightly amended version as a basis for further discussion. I've been working with Soviet line or rifle armies, which carry numbers up to 70. I have been removing the disambiguator (Soviet Union) from the 65th - 70th Armies because as far as I know, even the Chinese did not have a 70th Army. Comments on this are welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 07:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Kirill says concerning the amending of my proposal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the people who is involved in adding the disambiguator to unit pages. I thought I'd put up my rationales for doing so, to add to the discussion.

1. Unit names, especially the ones that are numbered, are by nature not very clear. Right now we're just scratching the surface of all the military units that can be included on the encyclopedia, and I fear that not putting the disambiguator on these pages will create confusion in the future. There are a lot of countries in the world with Airborne, Infantry, Armored, or Cavalry units, but some (such as "maneuver enhancement") are exclusive to one nation only for now. The disambiguator makes it much more clear which unit a person is looking at from the outset.
2. I would be unsure about when exactly the disambiguator would be needed and when it wouldn't. If we remove the national disambig on all the units that are unique now, then it will create a mess for the creation of future units. The 101st Airborne Division is the only "101st Division" on the encyclopedia right now, so by policy it would only be right to remove the "United States" from its title. What happend when the Russian 101st Infantry Division page is created? We will need to go back to the page and add the disambiguator again. Will we need to add it to the "101st Airborne Division" page because it is Airborne and not infantry?, even though it began as an infantry unit? All that said, the rule will make things very convoluted. On top of that, there are all kinds of style things that would make the system problematically complex. For example, America doesn't officially have a 2nd Armored Division, it has a 2d Armored Division. Britian doesn't have one either, since they have a 2nd Armoured Division. For the sake of the average person who is just looking for the right page, it makes more sense to me if the "2nd Armored Division" page disambiguates to two pages with (US) and (UK) titles. Its easier to tell the difference with the national title at the end, rather than change the spelling of each title to match each nation's absurd little variations on the name, which we would have to do just to determine whether they needed national titles or not.
3. This would simply create more work for us. In order to enact this policy, we would have to:
   1. Check every single unit (ie- 101st Infantry Division (United States))
   2. Check if that unit is the only one with an article on wikipedia in order to determine if the "(United States)" needs to be taken out. (this one is, for now)
   3. Check if there are any units in history that are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia someday (like the Russian, Chineese, and Japaneese 101st Infantry Divisions) Because if so, we would be removing the "(United States)" only to have to add it again later.
   4. Check that there is a disambiguation page with redlinks to all the other units that will eventually be created.
   5. Move all existing units to their official titles ("2d" Divisions, "Armoured" divisions) so that each title specifies exactly which unit we're officially talking about in its title. Otherwise, we would need to add more 'out of hand' "(nation)" disambiguators in each title. An unnecessarily complex process.

The system already works fine. It is unfortunate that the existance of these "(nation)" disambiguators can create a problem for some, but they are the best system that I see for organizing units, and for clarity's sake, they should be included on all unit pages. It is best, in my opinion, if there is a uniform standard for unit names, which makes things easier and simpler in both writing the articles and organizing them. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CommentI think that this would be a bad idea. So what if we have to search for units. A little work doesn't hurt. Besides, most countries do not have units that share names with the United States. Many countries share names with the United States. This doesn't mean that China might create an Infantry Division because each country has its own naming rules. This is not meant to burden us but rather to give a better reason for not having hundreds of unnecessary disambiguators. I would personally be happy to do what you said above because it will help get rid of unnecessary baggage to title names. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 172nd Infantry Brigade (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 172nd Infantry Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ranks in lead

I think we may have discussed this in the past, without a definite conclusion. When is it appropriate to include a rank in the lead. There generally seems to be agreement for General/Flag/Air Officers, but in UK/Commonwealth practice more junior officers are sometimes specifically allowed to retain their rank on retirement, particularly if they have served with particular distinction in combat. Also when someone is killed in action (or in service more generally), then they unambiguously held that rank at the time of their death; or if they are they are still serving so it's a current rank, so it seems fair enough to include it, even if it's a fairly junior rank. David Underdown (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that ranks should only be included in the lead before the person's name if they were of General/Flag/Air Officer rank, otherwise it should be covered in the infobox or later in the body paragraphs of the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the lead was supposed to summarise the article. Putting the rank in in the lead provides a very efficient summary of prose that would occupy at least a couple of sentences. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, although not of flag rank, having attained OF-4 or OF-5 indicates that the military was a very significant part of someone's life. Even a "lowly" Army Major (OF-3) is in command of a hundred men - as far back as Roman times the fact that a guy was a centurion was a significant piece of information. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to mention the rank, subject to it being germane to the notability. That said I'm also of the view that it's unlikely that a junior officer is likely to be all that notable anyway and in general more likely to be notable for something else. I do acknowledge that there is quite a lot of recentism which maybe elevates the profile of JOs, it influences other articles as well though (Illustrious has some 25 years history and the last six months dominates the article).

Is the fact that the current EU Ladies boxing champion, and Captain of the English Ladies Boxing squad a Lieutenant all that important?

ALR (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was particularly thinking of the examples of Eric Lock and Marmaduke Pattle, I'd tend to agree that if notability was in another field, there would be no particular reason to include the rank (I seem to remember in a previous discussion someone came up with the example of, Jimmy Stewart a Hollywood actor who was also a USAF Brigiadier General). I note that Captain Murray Maxwell, RN has just been passed to GA by Woody with the rank in the lead. David Underdown (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that has any relevance really. Cunningham amongst others use the Admiral of the Fleet (though I realise that 5 stars don't ever retire). I won't hold/fail an article over the prefix especially given the MOS gives us license to do it. Woody (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to include, because he's not born with the rank, it's earned. It's like saying, "President JFK was born". Well, no; he became Pres. Don't tell me he "retains the rank" (or title); it's of no moment, for the same reason. And do you want every former solder, sailor, airman, & marine listed as "Pvt Benjamin" & "Ensign Kirk"? I don't. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 56#Ranks at the start of military biographies (April 2007).

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Archive 6#Military Rank which links to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#First word in biographies (November 2007).

Some previous discussion: though the best place for this discussion is over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) because I suppose it is linked into honorific prefixes which has been discussed ad nauseum over there. Personally, I prefer the Officers ranks in the lead for all the reasons listed in the bio archive above. Woody (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"And do you want every former solder, sailor, airman, & marine listed as "Pvt Benjamin" & "Ensign Kirk"?" - If it is relevant, yes, I do. (But then I guess it won't always be relevant, so I guess the answer is actually no.)

However, I think Pvt Benjamin is a really good example - a film title of "Judy Benjamin" wouldn't mean anything. However, Pvt Benjamin tells you that she has a relationship with the military (or vice-versa) that is of some significance, and by watching the film, you'll find out what the significance is. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically RN and RM never relinquish the rank, since they don't retire as such, merely transfer to the retired list.

ALR (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Politics about the military

I've just discovered this strangely named category. From its talk:

I have seen requests in various articles in talk pages of Category:Military to clean up because there are 50 sub-categories and 50 articles in there ... I created Category "Politics about Military" to group topics like Military use of children, how people get drafted into the military, gender roles in the military, and related topics. This will still be in category military, through the new sub-category. AlMac|^(talk) 17:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The category has an explanation: Here are articles about the politics of military service, including how people are selected to serve, child soldiers, mixed genders, civilian relations, etc. The category is further categorized under Category:Military and Category:Politics by issue. Well, it seems to me like the category is trying to collect issues related to military sociology, not politics. I'd therefore suggest renaming the category to Category:Military sociology, and making the newly created military sociology article the top article of this category. PS. I found that category when I was looking for a category about "military involvement in politics". Haven't found such a cat yet, any suggestions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We can create Category:Military sociology and Category:Military politics (there are plenty of articles fitting into the latter as well). Their parent category would become Category:Military science or just the main "Military" cat. Just after doing that we can populate the newly created ones and delete Category:Politics about the military. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two aspects here Category:Politics in the Military (as part of Organisational politics?), and Category:Military in the Politics (as part of Political participation?). Military Sociology is meaningless because militaries are not societies, but organisations. Rather, as a larger scope that includes dependants and veterans affairs, there can also be Category:Sociology of the military (as part of Social groups?)

The problem here as elsewhere is that the category is poorly defined (forgetting its an article?) as "Here are articles about the politics of military service, including how people are selected to serve, child soldiers, mixed genders, civilian relations, etc." How people are selected is called Recruitment, child soldiers is called Human rights violation, mixed gender is called Employment policy, civilian relations is not politics, but Occupation policy given on home soil these relations are guided by laws--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of what's currently in the category does seem to be military sociology. Personally, I was expecting something more like "political issues related to the military" (e.g. disarmament, the military-industrial complex, anti-war movements, and so forth); do we have (or need) a category to cover that sort of thing? Kirill ^(prof) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Siege of Bangkok now open

The A-Class review for Siege of Bangkok is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Napoleon I of France now open

The A-Class review for Napoleon I of France is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange new fonts for Roman numerals

User:Lee Carre is busy changing a bunch of article titles to include a specialized font that not all browsers can understand. Under his system, World War II would look like World War Ⅲ, which uses (U + 2162) in Unicode. My Mozilla Firefox browser doesn't have this font installed by default, even though I'm viewing the page in Unicode. I strongly disagree with Lee Carre's actions. Such changes will detrimentally affect thousands of readers who don't have the font installed and won't bother to or know how to fix it. Lee Carre is also changing the designation No. to something vintage-looking, an 'N' with a small 'o' up above a small underline, such as in making No. 611 Squadron RAF be № 611 Squadron RAF. I disagree with this undiscussed change of his as well, though not on such strong terms. The reason the little vintage "Numero sign" (U + 2116) isn't appropriate is that many modern readers won't know how to search for an article with that trick in its name. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this sort of font tweak is only suppose to occur via a user's preferences, not actually included the articles themselves. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved No. 611 Squadron RAF back before seeing this. The RAF themselves use 'No.' or 'No' (see here) rather than the '№' character. Benea (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Any move to change an article name ought to go through WP:Request Moves unless the name changes is non controversial, and in this case the move appeares non controversial. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you think the moves are okay? I'm still bent on reverting every one of Lee Carre's moves to non-standard fonts. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Before going to that extent we all should discuss the matter here to establish consensus; if you set out to revert by yourself, you may indavertently start an edit war, and that benifits no one. Lets wait for others to put there two cents in. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am against using unique Roman numeral fonts. It's way easier to just type the normal alphabets, easy on the eyes, and causes absolutely no display problems. If it ain't broke, don't fix. Blueshirts (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried looking for the examples, and my browser kept it represented in clean Latin fonts - perhaps it's how I've got my preferences set. Regardless I am definately against using non standard fonts. The standard fonts are good for accessibility - using others will make Wikipedia harder for people to use who have limited vision. Viv Hamilton (talk)

I am also against the use of 'unusual' characters (I don't see it as a font issue, rather the use of rare Unicode characters). It will cause unnecessary heartache from people trying to search for articles. PalawanOz (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think this is a bad idea, and it violates a ton of guidelines (WP:NAME and WP:MOS) for instance. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone is searching for "World War II" (two capital Is) anything with "World War Ⅱ" (roman numeral 2 character) would not match. I think the Unicode characters are great idea if you're typesetting a book or some such, but here, for accessibility reasons, they're a bad idea. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't specifically cover either the Roman numerals or the numero character issue. However, WP:NAME strongly suggests using the simplest form of the name, while WP:NCP actually spells out the use of Roman numerals as ordinals e.g. King George VIII. That, and common sense, would suggest that existing practice is exactly what we should do. The Land (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have alerted User:Lee Carre to the discussion here and imagine they will comment soon. I have not the slightest doubt that the changes were done in absolute good faith and in the belief that they were an improvement, albeit without consensus. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see where Lee Carre was coming from and it seems quite logical, but yes, well intentioned but not suitable for the situation. Special characters are problematic in general. Narson (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this was good faith, but I don't think these are suitable - the standard text versions are clearly more accessible and don't lose anything in clarity (indeed I find "lb" rather clearer than "℔"). At Supermarine Spitfire this was taken to its logical extreme, creating several redlinks - it's not just the numero sign and the Roman Numerals, but also the aforementioned "℔" sign and the single quotation marks used as apostrophes which are potential issues. Pfainuk talk 13:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the changes to Spitfire. The Land (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, the changes made could not be read in most browsers and looked positively weird. This is not a good direction to go. Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC).

Unicode Roman numeral two glyph not rendered in browser

For the editors who, unlike me, can see the glyph of Roman numeral two rendered just fine, here's an enlarged screenshot of what I've been looking at. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the editor seems to have stopped and all the Milhist articles have now been reverted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my 2¢, there's no technical reason why searching for "World War II" should fail to find an article named "World War Ⅱ". The Unicode standard includes a standard normalization process that would allow the wiki software to compare those two strings successfully. That it does fail is merely a bug or defect in the wiki software that should be corrected as soon as possible. However, I agree that the problem with fonts is enough of a problem that we shouldn't blindly start using the "real" roman numerals. It's a bit of a shame, really, because that sort of thing can really help screen readers and the like. — db48x | Talk 06:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle or Siege ?

Hello,
We wonder what title is the more appropriate to talk about the events that occured in the Jerusalem area in Palestine between Feb.48 and July 48 during the 1948 War. Would it be better to talk about :

• Siege of Jerusalem (1948)

or

• Battle of Jesuralem (1948)

We noticed that there were articles such as Siege of Paris and Battle of Stalingrad but it is not simple to make comparisons. We have also some scholar's choices on the topic.
Nevertheless, we would highly appreciate some comments about what to chose and why...
Thank you ! Ceedjee (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

After confessing a virtually complete lack of knowledge of what happened... ;D (Not that it's stopped me before! =] ) My impression is, Jerusalem was the center of activity, including some terrorist bombings along with fierce political stuff, rather than merely surrounded. On that basis, it leans, for me, toward Battle, per Stalingrad. "Siege" leaves me thinking of blockade, a much quieter, or more measured, application of power. (Of course, not always...) Is that muddy enough? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Trekphiler,

Thank you for your answer !

Well... What you say about the events is partly true. But it is not that easy. There were also a blocus during long time.

In fact, if you don't have precise ideas of what happened, that is even better : what questions would you ask yourself to determine if we must use "siege" or if we must use "battle" ?

If you tell me what to choose in function of the answers, I can give the answers and we have a solution ;-)

(To be honnest : there is disagreement on this issue between several editors : that's why we try to ask some help in respecting NPoV :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You use English sources. These sources use a certain name for the events. What the majority of the sources uses is the appropriate title according to the WP:naming conventions. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wandalstouring.

That is the way I suggested to the other editors to solve the issue because the answer is precise

But I prefer not giving the details here right now so that people could suggest other approaches.

But thank you. Your comment is a good point for my own opinion on the issue...

Ceedjee (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think TREKphiler probably has it about right. A battle is a general engagement but a siege involves total encirclement and a blockade. The common English name, though, for the engagement should prevail here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Here are some facts about the events : from 1.3 to 1.4, Jerusalem was blockaded by arab irregulars. From 20.4 to 11.6 it was blockaded by Arab Legion. But from 1.4 to 20.4 the Israeli attacked and took several arab villages in the area of Jerusalem. Around 15.5, they take several formely british and also arab zones in Jerusalem... Ceedjee (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From what you are saying, it started as a siege but turned into a battle. The burning question though is how do scholars refers to it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is my mind. See below. Ceedjee (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The name is widley known as Siege of Jerusalem (1948) - not other wise (as discussed in depth on Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (1948)#Yes, it was a siege) - other names are newlly invented history by Ceedjee.

palestinehistory website

Since he refused to recognize histrical facts - and kept moving the page to the newlly invent one, and deletd historical facts, (as well as other pages, like israel war etc) - I noted the admin board and the page was locked from moving (along with some other pages he done the same) --Shevashalosh (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shevashalosh,

We were trying here to get a constructive discussion.

I am disappointed we could not discuss more. Here is the material :

Could you develop your reasonning ? I don't understand the link between what is written in WP:MILMOS and our case.

• Ytzhak Levi, Nine Measures (1986) talk about "the battles for Jerusalem"
• Arie Itzchaki, Latroun (1982) talks about "the battle for the road of Jerusalem".
• Meir Avizohar, (2002) titles The Battle for Jerusalem, 1948,
• Benny Morris, 1948, (2008) uses the word Battle for Jerusalem.

On the other side, I found :

• Dov Joseph who titles The faithful city: The Siege of Jerusalem, 1948 but he is not a scholar, he is a protagonist...

And there is what could sound as a "compromis" but again from a protagonist :

• Shamir, S. (2001). The Battle for Jerusalem: How the siege was lifted. Jerusalem: Posner & Sons.

Nevertheless, last two ones are not historians. There are Israeli protagonists...

Based on that and editors wrote here, I think it is clear... I would have been interested to hear some arguments to go the other way. Ceedjee (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

nb: nobody missed the fact that for some Israelis (not me) it is important it is refered to a siege because usually, the besieged is the victim...

(od) If this is a content dispute, which is how it seems to me, the best place to discuss it is on the article's talk page and not here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger,

No, it is not a content dispute. It is also discussed quietly at another place.

I think it is an interesting discussion for that case to get some analys (or consensus) here.

I think it would be good to go on the discussion on that issue quietly.

Thx. Ceedjee (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You were turned down by eveybody, and every prjoect you turned (besides deleting my messages - so people could not see the historical facts I answerd) - I have nothing more to add to to this disscussion, It is impossible to change History just for ceedjee.

My advice to you, leave it to rest - in order not to make a fool out of youself. --Shevashalosh (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok...

Sorry to have bring him here guys.

Here was the place of the discussion : [10]

Even if I think I am right, I am still convinced that wikipedia needs discussion and consensus. Reason why I posted here and how you could see, I defended the "siege" approach anyway.

Just for your information and because -unfortunately- we have to protect a little bit our image of editors, here are 5 FA I wrote on wp:fr. And there will be a sixth one soon.

• fr:Émeutes de Jérusalem de 1920
• fr:Protagonistes de la guerre de Palestine de 1948
• fr:Guerre civile de 1947-1948 in Mandatory Palestine -> translated on wp:en 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
• fr:Guerre israélo-arabe de 1948-1949
• fr:Massacre de Qibya

Soon FA (I think) : fr:Bataille de Latroun (1948)

I take the opportunity to ask people who speak both French and English that I would highly appreciate the support of a translater for this last article :-)

Sorry for the problems... Ceedjee (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee. You might also note that in Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre's O Jerusalem!(1972)Granada ed.1982 index, under 'Siege' we are cross-indexed not to 'Jerusalem' but to the Old City. This is again an issue of precise denotation. How can Arabs lay siege to the whole of a city (Jerusalem) when what is described as a 'siege' refers strictly to one of its quarters? Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture Copyright

Here is one for you, I have a picture of 582 Squadron RAF taken a month before disbandment (Aug 1945), has them all infront of a lancaster. The Photograph was taken at the squadron's request by a London photographer (whose name is on the bottom right of the panoramic picture). If I can get a scanable version, what would the copyright status be? Narson (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be in copyright in the United Kingdom (see Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and Copyright law of the United Kingdom), though since the Wikipedia servers are located in the US, that may not be entirely relevant. I'm never quite sure how the various treaties etc e.g. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which sets a minimum term of 25 years for photos, apply to this sort of situation. David Underdown (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know if Bundesarchive images are free to use, such as National Archive photographs? JonCatalán (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no, though state-produced WWII German propaganda is in the public domain. Perhaps [link] may help. Alternatively, a message left on the talk page might produce the answer? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Spitfires at IDF

Hi,
In september/october 1948, Israel's army started to receive spitfires from Czechoslovakia. There was a weapon supply contrat between Czechslovakia and Israel. That is well known. But I wonder how CZ could get spitfires through the Iron Curtain... Does someone know ? Ceedjee (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the sources? As for how Czechoslovakia could get them, we gave some to the USSR I think. I imagine as the nicer new planes came on, the Russian spitfires got tossed down to the sattelite states. Narson (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Many WP:RS talk about them. Just to give one : Benny Morris, 1948, Yale University Press.

On this website they are some pictures. There have been some dogfights between Israeli spitfires and British planes in the Sinai in January 1949.

So, Britain gave/sold spitfires to USSR during WWII but also went on after... It is amazing.

Would anyone have more information/references about that ? Ceedjee (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd bet they're ex-Red Air Force, supplied by Britain under (a variety of) Lend-Lease. (IIRC, a few hundred were sent.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In the article Supermarine Spitfire, USSR is not liste in the operators while Czecoslovakia and Israel are and even Nazi Germany (???!)... Ceedjee (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The germans operated quite a few captured planes. They reportedly had a Blenheim bomber still in RAF markings near Berlin as one plan to get Hitler to safety. Narson (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds logical.

Are there references for the use of Spitfires by the USSR ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out our Supermarine Spitfire page or the Supermarine Spitfire operational history page, I'm sure it must have something there with sources. Narson (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look in Red Phoenix; IIRC, it mentions Lend-Lease Spits & sez Sovs not impressed w 'em... (Beware, tho: it follows Sov propaganda line.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Red Phoenix tells some of the story. Since it was printed, more VVS pilots have come forward to recount their experiences. There's some fantastic detail about Soviet Spits at Spitfires over the Kuban. Tales of dogfights and tactics, friendly fire, narrow escapes, steady wins countered by sobering losses, supply & service tribulations and battle honors. The VVS Spitfire units performed at parity with neighboring units flying Yaks and Airacobras. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much !!! Ceedjee (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Czechs got their Spitfires from the RAF at the end of WWII - in particular, the three Czech manned squadrons operating with the RAF took their Spitfires home when the war ended.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple units, same name?

Do we have a guideline on what to do with cases where multiple different units have the same name (or same designation) but an independent existence? I ask because of this discussion; consensus was to merge, which was done; I spotted and reverted it as a bit odd before realising there had been an afd at all, and now I'm wondering quite what to do. (I probably ought to revert back to the merged version, but, well, it seems wrong)

I'd be curious to know what we tend to do in these situations. The units weren't contemporaneous so there's no direct confusion between them - there were never two Nth Regiments at the same time - but neither are they successors to each other in any sense, or any other kind of direct linkage bar the name. Shimgray | talk | 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who did the merge, because I had suggested it on the AfD discussion. I am not a participant in this project. These three articles are certainly about different units, but they are about units that had a very short life. The three separate articles are unlikely to be ever anything other than a very small stub. I support the merge. I also note that the closing admin made the point that if the merge was not done by someone, it was likely that the article concerned would go back to AfD. I am going to revert the merge of the article that was at AfD, but leaving all the material on all there at the old redirect page. I will then tag the other two as targets for merge. The correct procedure for 118th Regiment of Foot (1794) would have been to take it to deltion review and that is what shoud be done now if anyone disagrees with my revert. --Bduke (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a very sensible way of dealing with three stubs. Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Mario Power Tennis now open

The peer review for Mario Power Tennis, 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! Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg

For information. The image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg has been removed from several articles related to the Falklands War topics, then nominated for deletion here Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 12#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg. I was looking to add it to topics for deletion under this project and failed dismally. Would anyone be able to help me do it, if its appropriate. Justin talk 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Basil W. Duke now open

The peer review for Basil W. Duke is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 03:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for AMX-30E now open!

An A-class review for the article AMX-30E has been opened. Any and all editors are invited to participate! Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Maestrale class frigate now open

The peer review for Maestrale class frigate is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for SS Pennsylvanian now open

The peer review for SS Pennsylvanian is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I asked this on the talk page for the American Revolutionary War, but no one responded so i will post it here.

How should the countries/armies be reffered to as in the infobox? I notice that some say Great Britain, while others say the British Army. The same is for the United States and the Continental Army. I think we need to be consistent with this, so which one do you think would be better to have? The country or the army? Red4tribe (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Country seems most sensible, especially since for things before the modern period the "national army" didn't really exist as such. (The obvious counterexample would be civil wars and revolutions, where listing the army or group is perhaps more sensible than country, at least on one side.)

A related problem is one I noticed at Siege of Calcutta recently - one side is given as the local ruler. This seems wrong, but try as I might I can't think of a better solution. It wasn't any obvious political entity, it's very hard to identify a specific geographic entity, etc... Shimgray | talk | 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress now open

The A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Add to our list of featured sounds?

This one's kind of borderline: JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech from the Berlin Wall. Media:Jfk berlin address high.ogg A few weeks ago I added Eisenhower's farewell address (the military-industrial complex speech) when it got featured. Not sure whether to count this one too. Durova^Charge! 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, swinging to no. It would be within Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War though. Just not sure about us. Woody (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

air raid or airstrike

This edit and several more to pages I monitor has bought to my attention that at the moment air raid is a disimbaguation page. However AFAICT airstrike ("air strike" in the OED under air: "an attack made using aircraft." and has its fist use the Times in 1942) is not a synonym for air raid which has its own entry in the OED "An attack by aircraft, esp. one in which bombs are dropped on to a ground target." first use the Times in 1914. A Google search of the UK dominan: returns

• about 24,000 English pages for "airstrike" -game site:uk.
• about 25,700 English pages for "air strike" -game site:uk
• about 263,000 English pages for "air raid" site:uk

If it were a synonym one would expect that the 1,000 bomber raids during World War II would be called strikes as often as raids. A Google search returns:

• about 710 English pages for "1,000 bomber raid"
• 2 English pages for "1,000 bomber strikes" (both
• No results found for "1,000 bomber airstrikes".

The current article airstrike is about tactical actions and does not really describe large strategic raids such as those in Operation Gomorrah.

I am not sure what is the best thing to do about the naming of the articles, because this seems in part to be a linguistic divide between British English and American English and would like to here some other opinions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Without looking up any sources, my understanding of the current usage is that an 'air strike' is an attack mounted by a small number of aircraft, typically on a specific target, while an 'air raid' is an attack by a large number of aircraft on an area or several specific targets in the same area. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I favour, for the moment, directing "air raid" as in the (big) bombing attacks to strategic bombing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Air Raid indicates carpet/strategic bombing, as the previous peopl said. Airstrike generally means targetted, for more WW2 context, a P-51 being called in to take out a tank. Narson (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the current usage, but up til the late 90s the use of strike indicated use of instant sunshine whereas other usages implied use of conventional munitions.

ALR (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To Graeme...But an airstrike is also part of strategic bombing - though distinguishing between strategy and tactics can be blurry. I believe Nick and Narson are correct. By "strike" I understand precision, limited and specific target and swift action (see military strike), (i.e. IDF with Hamas militants, targetting a military convoy or a single infrastructure of a country, etc...) By "raid" I understand a relatively long and less limited/precise action using a small group of military aircrafts (i.e. targetting a country's multiple types of infrastructure within days or weeks). And as Philip says, in terms of usage, "air strike/airstrike" is newer than "raid". That makes sense since warfare was less tactical during WWI. Also, military aircrafts' technology knew a rapid enhancement in terms of precision, speed and performance during WWII and that hasn't stopped until today. However, some use/consider them synonyms. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that is not appreciated by many people is that by 1945 the RAF and USAAF sorties in a raid were deliberately delivered very close together for example 253 Lancasters of no. 5 Group that were the first to bomb Dresden delivered their load in less than 2 minutes (1 bomber dropped its load about every half second) with each bomber flying at a slightly different trajectory with a slightly different timing from a pathfinder marked target causing a fan shaped area of destruction.

So are we agreed that air raid should be moved back to Air raid (disambiguation) direct to air raid put back to a redirect to strategic bombing. (if so it would be best to add a header to strategic bombing with an explanation and a link to the Air raid (disambiguation) page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I get it. I'll still have to fix all the pages that I erroneously put to airstrike, I assume 80-90% will go to strategic bombing and just a few will stay at airstike. I'll wait awhile in case one of you wants to do it yourself or has a better idea. If I end up fixing it, I'll make a short list of all the vauge ones and bring it to guys to expertly disambiguate it. Pirate^Argh!!1! 15:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think of the term air raid as being a general concept, large enough in scope to include the more specific airstrike. "Air raid" can be synonymous to air attack in that a single air attack is indeed an air raid. However, "air attack" can also mean a succession of air raids; a planned program of air raids. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Nick Dowling and Narson: The traditional usage of “air raid” connotes a massed strategic or operational attack, whereas an “air strike” is a tactical attack that can involve as few as a single aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I have to pick between

• Aerial bombing of cities
• Strategic Bombing
• Strategic bombing during World War II
• The Blitz
• and possible keeping some at Airstrike

It shouldn't be too hard to decide when a specialized or more general term is needed, but I'm not sure when to pick Aerial bombing of cities vs. Strategic Bombing. I know they are different, but isn't 95% of Strategic Bombing going to be Aerial bombing of cities?Pirate^Argh!!1! 15:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you are having problems, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force#Aerial bombing and the links from that section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Strategic bombing is the broadest of these topics. While Aerial bombing of cities is a major component of it as a counter-value option, counter-force options can include missile silos, space launch facilities, WMD facilities, key rail and road chokepoints (which might not be in an urban area), hardened command bunkers, major dams, strategic military reserve forces, etc. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Who won this battle?

I've been debating with myself on who won the Battle of the Assunpink Creek. I can't find any reliable references that say who won the battle, and it is very difficult to make a conclusion becuase the British suffered so many casualties trying to crush the Americans, just to see them withdraw unharmed, and defeat 3 British regiments at Princeton. But then you can argue that it was a British victory, just because the Americans withdrew. I have listed it as a Pyrrhic Victory for now, but should it be changed to indecisive? Or a tactical British Victory but an American strategic Victory? Thoughts? Red4tribe (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Possession of Trenton was not an important objective for either side. Fischer in Washington's Crossing says "For the American troops it was a great victory" and a "brilliantly managed defensive battle" (p. 307). —Kevin Myers 18:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Horses in warfare now open

The A-Class review for Horses in warfare is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 17:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New A-Class medal

The new Milhist A-Class medal

A new medal encouraging and recognizing excellence in Milhist article creation and development has been introduced. Any editor who has made a significant contribution to three or more Milhist A-Class articles promoted since 1 August 2008 under the new A-Class criteria is eligible. Nominations for the medal should be made on here; should list the three A-Class articles for which the medal is sought; and must be subsequently supported by three or more project coordinators, who will be responsible for making the award. Editors may nominate themselves or any other qualifying editor. Good luck and happy editing! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

There is currently a move to depreciate Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date autoformatting. This will have a very large affect on all articles in this project, because if autoformatting is no longer supported almost dates in all articles will have their links removed. Whether you are for or against it or just don't care, please keep an eye on the Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and add your tuppence worth if you consider the issue important.

This issue has been also been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Proposal to remove date-autoformatting and Chris Colonies Chris has been active removing date links from some articles that come under this project's umbrella (recently US ship articles like USS Wilkes-Barre (CL-103) and USS Stack (DD-406)) which has raised a few hackles (see User talk:Colonies Chris) but not many for the number of pages edited.

Also at the moment there is a specific discussion if autoformatting should be removed from Julian dates as it has been argued that the ISO option in users preferences means that to link Julian dates (as used for all British Irish and American articles and biographies before 1752) is misleading. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Gregorian calendar --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment As a note, during a FAC they will more likely than not ask you to remove links from dates. As a result, I no longer wikilink dates. Perhaps we should also stress this during A-class reviews? JonCatalán (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Ke now open

The A-Class review for Operation Ke is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 23:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle Cry of Freedom (book)

I just created a stub of the above article. Frankly, I was very surprised it didn't already exist as this is a seminal work in the historiography of the American Civil War. As I am not familiar with the categories, WikiProject tag, etc. I am leaving a note here. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize winning history books

If someone or even the project is looking for something to do, Wikipedia's coverage of Pulitzer Prize winning history books is poor at best. These are some of the most important historical works of all time and we are lacking even basic articles on the majority of them. I created an article today on a book I have read. It would be good if everyone could just read through the list and if you have read a book create an article, even a stub. Every little bit helps. KnightLago (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Pennsylvanian now open

The A-Class review for SS Pennsylvanian is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Hughie Edwards now open

The peer review for Hughie Edwards is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Arctic military history

I couldn't find a taskforce covering this, so I'm posting here. I've been populating Category:Military in the Arctic. Does anyone want to help populate it some more, and/or come up with a better category name and/or structure? Also, the articles might take someone's fancy if you'd like to improve our coverage of military operations in the Arctic (Territorial claims in the Arctic is quite topical at the moment). I haven't figured out yet how to include the nuclear submarines (that go under the Arctic) in the category, though they could easily be mentioned in an article. Also, the military were involved in some of the Arctic explorations (see Category:Exploration of the Arctic if interested), including the Soviet transpolar flights in the 1930s. Anyone interested in this sort of stuff? Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On the exploratory side John Franklin, and Franklin's lost expedition would seem to be potential candidates for inclusion. David Underdown (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Submarine operions under the Polar ice would be a great topic for an article - lots has been written about this, and it had a big impact on nuclear submarine design and naval strategy during the second half of the Cold War. As a note, there's also Category:Military in Antarctica and editors with an interest in this topic might also wish to keep an eye out for articles which fit into its scope. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In considering boats operating under the ice it's probably worth looking at what the tasking was, they were in the main using the route as an approach for intelligence collection operations. UK and US, and other, boats used it as an approach route to the northern operating areas, whereas I don't think there is a great deal of evidence of soviet boats using it as an approach route to Northlant, it's difficult and dangerous so little value. Soviet boats which did operate there tended to be operating in the ASW role, trying to restrict UK/ US operations. There were some collection jobs, but not many.

There is also the strategic information ops aspect of ICEX, demonstration that the boats can operate under the ice; surfacing demonstrates that.

Agree with Nick, there is a fair amount written about it, and some of it is even informed ;) The problem is that it's overwhelmingly written from a USian perspective, single-handedly winning the cold war etc.... UK and French tend to be a bit more reticent and the Soviet sources are patchy.

ALR (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about the land stuff? Radar stations and stuff like that? And what is ICEX?? Distant Early Warning Line, Soviet Northern Fleet, Arctic convoys of World War II, arctic warfare and Arctic Submarine Laboratory are the most interesting ones for me so far, but I'm sure there is a lot more that could be written on this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Knowing something is one thing, sourcing it is another ;)

ICEX is a routine exercise under the ice, leading to a surfacing through the ice. Sometimes a single boat, sometimes two who converge on a fixed point for a surfacing and some PR photos.

The ASL article is amusing, it suggests that all of the transits were for research purposes, whilst the research was to make it easier and safer to conduct the transits. Whilst some missions were purely research, the majority were just a consequence of being there anyway. Under-ice navigation is horrendously difficult, the oceanographics are very complex.

Arctic warfare I'm more familiar with, the annual training exercise in Norway is something that 3 Commando have done for years., again sourcing is an issue. The name of the base is Clockwork, although that's informal, driven by the early exercise codename.

ALR (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that some of the battles of the Winter War, Continuation War and Lapland War were within the arctic circle, if that helps. Leithp 14:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re SSNs under ice, while U.S.-centric, 2 sources may be worth looking at, as written by actual submariners: Blair's Nautilus 90 North & Beach's Cold is the Sea. CitS, while fiction, gives a look at practical problems to be addressed by all; Blair, IIRC, mentions a few, too. These'd be universal. The sea is hostile to all sailors equally; she doesn't recognize politics. (In that vein, regardless whether you believe he was responsible for what happened, von Suskil made a bad call refusing to render assistance after K-219 suffered a casualty. It's not the call I'd have made. Maybe I'm old fashioned.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I gather this topic-area would include the Hans Island "war" recently, and the voyage of the St. Roch and such. On that tangent, there was an article, I think by James Delgado, now with a Florida oceanic museum but formerly the curator of the Vancouver Maritime Museum for several years, or another historian-journalist, about Norway's Arctic claims to the west of Greenland, and their argument (apparently) that the various Norwegian explorers, as military personnel, constituted "exploration and occupation" of a region which the British Empire had a mostly-map claim, decked with the cruel legacy of the Franklin Expedition....I can't remember all the details, only that for a while early in the 20th Century, after gaining full independence, Norway sought to assert their claim to Ellesmere, Baffin, even I think Ungava and western Greenland (in defiance of Denmark); never got anywhere with it of course, but hte argument suggests that the Norwegian expeditions were military in character, though personal in inspiration and execution; they were presented (if post facto) as military in nature as part of a political agenda. Anyway no article on this in Wiki, so no need to cat it; but just a reminder that military history goes back in the Arctic, and not just back to the early 20th Century; some of the explorers were military rather than private adventurers, no? Anyway, just some late-night thoughts on seeing the discussion....Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)