Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83→Archive 85

Punitive expedition nominated for deletion

The article Punitive expedition has been nominated for deletion and the deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punitive expedition. I suspect that this is a distinctive form of warfare, but don't have any sources handy - can anyone add references? (I may be wrong, however). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Victory types

Hi. I've found a few articles that I believe are within the scope of this project: Decisive victory, Strategic victory and Tactical victory. All three are unverified stubs. There's also Pyrrhic victory, which seems to be a slightly more serious article. They could be merged into a single article. -- Nudve (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if they should be merged. Perhaps they could be expanded to good sized articles over time, whenever someone takes interest. This is true for Pyrrhic victory, given the history behind the word itself. JonCatalán (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment tend to agree leave for now but if they don't improve we should review and think about merging. Justin talk 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment The issue will be sources. Self explanatory things rarely have people go out of their way to explain it and even then, we look more like a dictionary definition which belongs on wikitionary. Narson (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Examples will require references, and the definition can be expanded beyond the dictionary definition. Furthermore, the articles aren't just on the definition, but how those terms came into being. I'm sure sources will be found, but there may be no definite source for the article (in other words, the article will have to be created out of a large amount of books, with a little bit of information coming from each). If anything, I don't believe that Pyrrhic victory should be merged, or perhaps they could be merged into one article for now, but with the option of creating separate articles if someone thinks they have enough information (for example, Leopard 2 is not redlinked, but I created the Leopard 2E article when I felt I had enough information to do it). JonCatalán (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In the case of the Decisive victory the author of the book is misquoted. If he was fully quoted, it would require rewriting about 80% of all Wikipedia "battle" articles--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2nd Canadian Infantry Division now open

The A-Class review for 2nd Canadian Infantry Division is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for Panzer IV opened

Panzer IV is now going through an A-class review. All comments are welcomed! JonCatalán (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention for an amphibious landing

I am looking to write an article on Spain's amphibious landing at Al Hucemas during the Rif War (the first successful modern amphibious operation and the first amphibious operation with tanks). What would be the most appropriate name for the article? Battle of Al Hucemas? Landing at Alhucemas? I won't be writing this for a while (I want to get a couple of more references first), but I should figure this out as early as possible. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Battle of X" always implies an official name to me, whilst "Spanish operations at X" or "Landings at X" all sound more descriptive - and if there isn't any generally-accepted historical name for it, I'd go with a descriptive one like "landing". Shimgray | talk | 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking a little further, eswp calls the article Desembarco de Alhucemas. Most of the "Desembarco de..." articles there are redirects (things like "Desembarco de Normandia" or "Desembarco de Gallipoli"; one, Desembarco de Mallorca has an article here, which starts "The Battle of Mallorca, known as the Mallorca Landings in Spanish..." - so perhaps "Alhucemas Landing[s]" is closest to the Spanish name? Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Punitive expedition at AfD

Greetings, I've added the Military history project on the talkpage - unsure of what parameters are most important - if anyone could help add to the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punitive expedition and possible add sourcing to the article it may be helpful. Banjeboi 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Joseph Maxwell now open

The peer review for Joseph Maxwell is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 11:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


A-Class review for Thomas Hines now open

The A-Class review for Thomas Hines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Anglo-Zanzibar War now open

The peer review for Anglo-Zanzibar War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Trenton now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Trenton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Iowa (BB-61) now open

The A-Class review for USS Iowa (BB-61) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A notability question

I have a question of notability regarding Sarah Bryant, a soldier serving with 15POG in Lash. the assertion of notability is that she was the first British female soldier killed in Afghanistan. Most of the content is cut and pasted from the MoD obituary and the only other sources talk about the repatriation of the body.

Given that she was an intelligence soldier do we think that the article has got legs? Personally I'm unconvinced of notability at the moment but would be grateful for other views before considering an AfD.

ALR (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I ran a Google search on Corporal Sarah Bryant and found that her death has been picked up heavily in the UK press. In that respect I think there is some notability; so I would not mind if it stays. Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
She is covered in multiple reliable sources. It was a big thing, albeit temporary. I would support keeping it, though it needs a rewrite and the image is obviously a copyvio. I checked the MoD sites and I can't see it being released into the public domain? Anyone find that before I delete it? (and quite a few others uploaded by the same user). Woody (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't given it the hacking at it needs, figured someone would complain that I was trying to undermine discussion by culling all the superfluous information. I think it boils down to about three or four lines.
ALR (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that it was covered pretty heavily in the UK media, but does that make it notable? Do any of the sources actually say anything unique or do they all essentially boil down to pretty blonde dies, *shock horror*. Do we create articles for the other three occupants of the vehicle?
ALR (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That is our definition of notability. The media concentrated specifically on Bryant and not on the other members of the vehicle; if you can find sources on them, then yes, under our guidelines they warrant an article. We are not arbiters on how famous or deserving someone is of an article. I do understand your concerns though. Woody (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Woody. The criterion of being the subject of at least one substantive article is more than met. Also from the perspective of social history, it is only very recently that women have served in the front line, so both the facts of the sad death of this soldier and her colleagues, and the reaction in the media (and indeed in the MoD PR office) to the death of a woman soldier are social history worthy of being recorded in WP. Viv Hamilton (talk)
As far as I interpret comments Woody (or me) did not make a statement about worthiness, but we both acknowledged that the article (objectively) meets notability guidelines for reasons of media reporting. Worthiness is a subjective issue, that I try to avoid in notability discussions as that inevitable leads to heated debates (example in extremis: my pet kitten is very notable to me and hence worthy of a Wikipedia article and anybody who denies that is a nasty cat-hater and therefore should not be taken seriously). Arnoutf (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think worthiness is a discrete issue, my objection is mainly down to a fairly stringent approach to source interpretation. All the media appearances talk about the same things, all the media outlets talked about the deaths on the same couple of days, they then all talked about the repatriations on the same couple of days, and then talked about her funeral, in the same couple of days. At the time I wouldn't have described any of these media appearances as independent, they were in the main sourced from the MoD press machine either in the form of press releases or a small selection of interviews; Cpl Bryant still had to talk to the press via the media handlers as he is subject to the same constraints on military discipline as everyone else in the services.
The current content is taken from that single source, and over a very short time window.
Still, I raised the issue for other views, I'm not all that surprised that there is little appetite to get rid of it.
ALR (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I meant agreement regarding the minimum criteria of notability, and went on to say also, that IMHO the social history issue will make this interesting to researchers in the future. Sure, all the articles are probably all sourced from the Mod Press releases, but that doesn't stop it meeting the criteria of at least one substantive article. The national newspapers (and also radio 4 as I recollect) did deem it of sufficient public interest to run national stories, at both the time of the announcement of the death, and the repatriation of the body. Sorry, I'm definately not a cat hater, but I doubt that the national newspapers will be interested in running a story about Arnoutf's kitten.Viv Hamilton (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling that the social history aspect may be a bit of a diversion. Women have been involved in operations for a long time, and the front line has been an outmoded concept since the end of hostilities in Korea. In this instance we don't know enough about the Op to say much about it, we have one vehicle containing two SF, an SFC and a female linguist. we don't know what the tasking was, or how many other vehicles might have been involved.
Anyway, all that is of little encyclopedic value until someone else writes some form of commentary on it. I find it incongruous, and ironic, that we write about an Int Corps soldier using a standard of evidence that wouldn't be acceptable from an Int Corps soldier. fwiw I'd probably expect anything more substantive to come from the media studies factory, looking at what drives media focus on particular stories.
ALR (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've tried to tidy it up and get rid of the blatant copyright problem. I still think there are about three lines of actual content, but....
ALR (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Blair Anderson Wark now open

The peer review for Blair Anderson Wark is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Guadalcanal Campaign now open

The A-Class review for Guadalcanal Campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Washingtonian now open

The A-Class review for SS Washingtonian is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:15, 29 August 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) 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review Spanish Armada

An article that this project has tagged, Spanish Armada, has been placed on hold following its GA Sweeps review, which can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review Kipchaks in Georgia

An article that this project has tagged, Kipchaks in Georgia, has been placed on hold following its GA Sweeps review, which can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the procedure for delisting an A-class article?

It's a sad day I have to ask about that, but it appears I an article I've moved to A-class, Kiev Expedition (1018), has been hijacked: it was renamed, rewritten, and my attempts to discuss the issue at talk are coming to naught. I invite comments at Talk:Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018; at the same time I have to point out that I believe that the current version of the article is inaccurate, missing a significant POV, and as such, the article cannot remain A (or even, GA) class. PS. I currently lack time to merge the two versions; and the author of the new version refuses to do so. Perhaps somebody could merge them and save the article that way? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. I see you are posting around in search of support across half of wikipedia. I very much, however, encourage more input. Piotrus' response has been so far little more than tendentious edit-warring. The article had numerous factual inaccuracies and scholarly distortions in it, which I have fixed using more reliable sources, aw well of course as my knowledge of this subject area's sources and historiography. It also contained lots of incongruities. It was obvious that the main authors of the article didn't know the historical sources despite citing them, as, for instance, Thietmar and various secondary authors were cited separatelyat different stages, despite the source for the sentences in question still being Thietmar. Moreover, Thietmar was inaccurately cited. For instance, the impression given is that he gives numbers for the Polish army, whereas he only gives numbers for the Hungarian, German and Pecheneg contingents. I could go on, and have specified more problems at talk. Piotrus so far has failed to dispute anything I've added. That this project has rated this article "A" ... well ... that's what prompted me to edit the article. I completely understand that it's totally impossible to consult sources and do significant background reading on every article rated. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For GA, go to WP:GAR, for A, simply go to WP:MHR and post another A class review but argue for going the other way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GAR is the wrong place for discussing content issues. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The Greco-Persian Wars were demoted from A-Class quite recently. I'd suggest that you just make a normal A-Class review page and but state that you want it demoted. Kyriakos (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for North Yemen Civil War now open

The peer review for North Yemen Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

When did this battle end?

Having a dispute over at Battle of Ramadi (2006). The current date given for the end of the battle is November 15, 2006. However coalition forces continued to conduct major operations in December 2006 and January and March 2007. The violence only subsided around mid 2007. The current date also has the problem of painting the battle as an insurgent victory, whereas violence dropped to almost zero following operations by the 1/1AD, the 1/3ID which relieved them, and the Anbar Awakening/Iraqi Police. It seems that the date of November 15, 2006 is pulled out of the air with no evidence on the ground to suggest that it is the case.

The date for the start of the operation is given when the 1st BCT/1AD arrived in Ramadi in June 2006, so I propose that the end date for the battle should be in February 2007 when the 1/1AD left. However, this neglects major operations that the relieving brigade (1/3ID) conducted after 1/1AD left.

Any comments would be helpful. Lawrencema (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen I have a proposition. The 2006 Battle of Ramadi was clearly a lost battle as far the Marine corps was concerned, as they themselves admitted. The situation in the city was clear as day by the end of November, the insurgents were the ones in control. Now, I admitt the subsequent operations starting since early December, with the arrival of the Marine reserve force, and ending by mid-2007, most probably with the battle of Donkey Island, with the clearing of the city of insurgent forces. So here is my proposition, start another article, called Battle of Ramadi (2007). This would be the Third Battle of Ramadi. It should be distinguished from this previous one. The Third Battle practicly started when the Awakening Councils came into the fight, which didn't happen before December. Like in World War Two, you had, I think five consecutive battles for Harkov, but they are all recognised ass different battles and not just one. So again, I propose starting another article. And I think that most of the things you have already written in the Aftermath section of Battle of Ramadi (2006) could be used as a bases for the new article, excluding the Devlin report section. So, what do you say?Guyver85 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like a third opinion on this from someone not editing the article. In the meantime I've reverted your edits for the reasons given before. Lawrencema (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, this is tricky. I think that another article is unneccessary and would be a content fork as it is essentially only offering a different POV using the same information. What we have to do is synthesise the sources and present this from a neutral point of view, that is to not place emphasis on either POV, unless a plethora of sources say otherwise. As it is, I can't see many sources for either view. I think the current version is acceptable, though I would not offer a concrete date for the end for the battle in the Lead. I think that, given the sources, the changeover of February 2007 would be an acceptable compromise in the Lead. If neccessary, just remove the date field from the infobox, it is not mandatory. Remove the wording "In the final days" from the November offensive section. Then in the beginning of the aftermath section, state both points of views backed up by sources: ... states that the Battle ended on...,[1] this is refuted by ... who states that the Battle ended with the handover to .. brigade.[2]
Both sides are represented and provide verifiable links. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Francis Hassett now open

The peer review for Francis Hassett is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Operations versus Battles

Hi all,

After flicking through some of the discussion archives, I remain unclear as to how to categorise some articles which describe long term commitments to a conflict (eg. Operation Slipper and Operation Telic). These do not discuss particular battles but is more the codename for the countries committment to a particular conflict.

How should these be categorised?

Thanks Glenn Sisson (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You can probably put them under the relevant top-level categories (e.g. Category:Military operations involving the United Kingdom) for the time being; but I'd go so far as to say that the articles ought to be integrated into the article(s) on the actual events in the long term. Kirill (prof) 11:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, Operation Banner might be a bit difficult to fully incorporate, though perhaps British military invovlement in Northern Ireland 1969-2007 would be a more descriptive title. David Underdown (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

These articles are the main articles for a countires committment to a conflict. All Operations/Battles fall under this codename for that conflict. A good example is Operation Herrick. This is the case for numerous Operations (articles) which have not been categorised clearly.

Once again I raise the concept of having military operations by conflict and country categories such as:

  • Category:Military operations of World War II involving Australia
  • Category:Military campaigns of World War II involving Australia
  • Category:Non-combat military operations in the Middle East involving Australia

I feel this would solve the above problem and also clean up the long lists of battles that active countries are developing. This is already the case for weapons, equipment, units and formations, and military personnel. So why not operations, battles etc?

The end result of the proposed category structure would be (using Australia as example):

  • Military operations involving Australia
    • Military operations of the War in Afganistan (2001 - present) involving Australia (all generic artiles would come under this category with the main article being Operation Slipper.
      • Battles of the War in Afganistan (2001 - present) involving Australia (all articles about specific battles would come under this category).
      • Non-combat military operations of the War in Afganistan (2001 - present) involving Australia
      • Cancelled military operations of the War in Afganistan (2001 - present) involving Australia

This seems a logical step to me. It would certainly improve navigating to articles if interested in a particular countires military history (as most people here are).

Thoughts??? Glenn Sisson (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Is there enough information around to create a similar Military operations of the War in Iraq (2003 - present) involving Australia, with Operation Catalyst as the main article?Lawrencema (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This would apply to all countries and conflicts. Operation Catalyst is another example of the problem that could be better categorised with the proposed structure. Glenn Sisson (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As proposed, this is basically a straightforward application of WP:MILMOS#INTERSECTION to the operations categories, so I don't think this should be particularly controversial. Kirill (prof) 01:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So, the proposed category tree would look like this (using Australia as an example):

This proposed categorisation would apply to all significant conflicts and all countries. Thoughts...please advise Glenn Sisson (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that all countries need to have category trees of this form, or we'll wind up with piles of near-empty categories. Really, only those countries whose participation in a particular conflict included a number of different operations need to have sub-categories for that particular conflict.
On another note, the depth of this scheme on a per-conflict level will probably vary as well; if there's no "Military operations of the X War" category (as there isn't for the majority of pre-20th century conflicts), then we wouldn't expect any "Military operations of the X War involving Y" categories, and so forth. Kirill (prof) 08:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The all conflicts and all countries was a line to ensure there was no confusion that this was just for Australia. At what stage can I begin work on this concept, or do we need more consensus/discussion. Glenn Sisson (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Nevada (BB-36) now open

The A-Class review for USS Nevada (BB-36) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for FLC input

Currently the FLC for List of Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients has had little input. It is currently reaching the point where consensus cannot be adequately judged. Would anyone with any spare time, please review the list against the FLC criteria and comment accordingly. Thanks. Woody (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone spare a few minutes to review this? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Woody (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Now closed as promoted, thanks to all who commented. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlantique Incident v Operation Searchlight

I recently was doing some copyediting on the Atlantique Incident and Operation Searchlight articles and noticed the disparity in quality ratings (GA v. B) which seemed completely unwarranted to me. I don't know whether this is the forum to raise the concern, but it's not easy to figure out where to go, and quality ratings are not an area I want to spend much time with.Vontrotta (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can assign a B-rating by doing a check against the project criteria. Good Article requires a review via a specific process external to the project - on a very quick glance Searchlight doesn't appear to have sufficient citations for it to pass GA at this stage - there are many paragraphs completely uncited. David Underdown (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but my real concern was that Atlantique seemed to be overrated when compared with a number of the India-pakistani military B articles that I had been editing. I was also amazed to see Kargil War rated as a feature article when I got to it; it is certainly better than some, but there were some major copyediting needs that I thought were required. But you answered my question whether the project was the right place to bring this. I was just hoping there was an easy place to send a note when I thought an article was overated. Guess not, but thanks anyway.Vontrotta (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If you think it shouldn't be a GA, Good Article review is what you're looking for. David Underdown (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kargil War was promoted in early 2006, when standards were very low. WP:FAR is available if you wish. Also, sometimes GAC can be a bit random. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks everyone.Vontrotta (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting merges for the Afghanistan years 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 .. Any comments?

The page Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is a mismatch of different styles. However, I suggest that all months be moved into one year 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. While I understand the idea behind the different months, two of the busiest years for Coalition forces in Afghanistan have been in 2006 and 2007 where the format was changed again. Comments on each years page !! Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluenorway#Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Bluenorway#Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention Bluenorway (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a proposal or what, but a better place to address any concerns you may have about existing practice would be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Europa Barbarorum now open

The peer review for Europa Barbarorum, 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! It Is Me Here (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed link. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) now open

The peer review for Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Minnesotan now open

The A-Class review for SS Minnesotan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Montanan now open

The A-Class review for SS Montanan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Harry Murray now open

The A-Class review for Harry Murray is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

Russian Ground Forces

Russian Ground Forces 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.

Moving articles

Sigh...another technical question. Several recent articles, such as Greco-Persian Wars, have been moved to a different title. However, this seems to have destroyed the links to their Peer-reviews and A-class reviews, which are still listed under the old title of the article. (In the given example, it was moved to use a different dash in the title.) How is this fixed? Cromdog (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Easiest is probably to move the missing components to reflect the new name. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I think reverting some moves might also be a solution. This seems somehow fishy to me and I know of a history of POV issues with GPW. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Chief of Operations

What does a chief of operations do and should we have an article on this (currently red linked). RJFJR (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Gilbert_du_Motier,_marquis_de_Lafayette now open

The peer review for Gilbert_du_Motier,_marquis_de_Lafayette is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Lüttich now open

The A-Class review for Operation Lüttich is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Ohioan (1914) now open

The A-Class review for SS Ohioan (1914) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to amend Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide-Naming conventions-Units, formations, and bases, Part 2

This discussion has been revived and this time I will make sure that everyone will be able to input on it. This way it will not fade away without a decision. I am also including the corrections suggested by Kirill as he was able to fix up part of a suggestion for me. To see the old discussion, click on the following link: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_80#Proposal_to_amend_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history.2FStyle_guide-Naming_conventions-Units.2C_formations.2C_and_bases

Please note that the comments are here purely for the reason that these people don't have to restate their opinion.

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 its 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 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.

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 do not 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) 23:07, 11 September 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)
Comment Leave 'em. Better needless dabs than needed ones absent. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The current text ultimately says the same thing as the proposed change, and there's no need for instruction creep on what should be a simple rule of thumb. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Murray Maxwell now open

The peer review for Murray Maxwell is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Isaac Brock under FA review

Isaac Brock 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.

Military history of Canada

Military history of Canada 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.

Task force tagging

Since I've just managed to get back into the swing of things after summer break, I thought I'd start simple by working on the Category: Military history articles with no associated task force. However, right of the bat, I've run into a bit of an issue. Seems a large numb of disambiguation pages are in that file, and they either don't seem worth putting into task forces or even if I attempted to, they could have dozens of them (ie. 1st Cavalry has links to US, Soviet, British, French, etc). What to do? Cromdog (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are they tagged as Dab-Class? That shouldn't be generating the TF needed category, but perhaps there's a mistake in the template code; some examples of this behavior would be very useful. Kirill (prof) 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1st Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, and 4th Engineer Battalion all do it. At that point I stopped. I'm assuming it's the code. Cromdog (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it was the code; thanks for spotting this issue! I've changed the template to no longer go through those checks when the article is marked as a disambiguation page; they should clear out of the category in the near future. Kirill (prof) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the template could be tweaked to take NA pages out of the calculation too? Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It's possible in theory, but it would be considerably more difficult. As the code is set up now, tagging a page as DAB-Class eliminates not only this category, but also everything that normally appears in the "Additional information" block of the template. This isn't a practical issue at the moment, as nothing there is applicable to disambiguation pages; but there are things which are relevant to some NA-Class pages. Unless we want to lose those features, we'd need to rework the code to do the exclusions explicitly. Kirill (prof) 01:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. My specific question was prompted by the large number of Category talk pages in Category:Military history articles with no associated task force, most of which seem to have bot-tagged for Milhist. Can you think of an easy solution for dealing with them? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, actually; as it turns out, there's a very obvious solution that I hadn't thought of. I've changed the template to generate a distinct "class" for each non-article namespace; the subsidiary content is therefore now selectable by namespace. I've left it enabled for images and portals (since those sometimes go through project reviews and so forth), and disabled it for user pages, project pages, categories, and templates. Please let me know if any of that needs to be changed (or if these changes broke anything else in the template). Kirill (prof) 03:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirill :) That works very well indeed. No problems that I can see. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks...taking those templates out saved me an awful lot of headaches. Cromdog (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Err...I take that back...maybe its my comp, but I'm still seeing the tags on them. Cromdog (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also seen the DAB pages in this category so it's not just you :) As Kirill says, it'll take a bit of time before the template updates and the DAB pages are removed from the category. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, now I can get back to working on this some more. Cromdog (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FA review for Battle of Incheon

Battle of Incheon 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. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray FA candidate

Hi, I just thought I would let everyone know that Harry Murray is currently a Featured Article candidate, and anyone willing to comment on (or support!) the article is invited to do so. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I would remind everyone that Harry Murray is still a Featured Article candidate and that the reviews have been a bit slow lately, so could anyone with a minute or two to spare please review the article against the FA criteria and post their comments on the review page? Thanks in advance, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Harry Murray has now been promoted to Featured Article status. Thanks to those who commented or supported the article's promotion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

List of battles by casualties

I put a template on the article List of battles by casualties threatening to delete all unsourced material and after several month I did exactly that. Ever since there have been attacks by IP editors and now wikipedians reverting my 'vandalism'. Their argument is that I have no right to delete the unsourced work of others and some material is just unsourced in this article, but is sourced in another wikipedia article, so it should count as sourced. Currently, two editors have ganged up on me and we are 1-2 other wikipedians editing the article that has a grim history of edit warring. The new sourced material that has been inserted since my removal of unsourced content has been deleted in favor of the old unsourced version. I don't think somebody caring about sources would do that. I will ask an admin to do what he thinks necessary with the article until this issue has been solved. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To explain why I oppose this deleting, let me show the paragraph taken from the World War II article.
The Soviet Union and the United States emerged from the war as the world's leading superpowers. This set the stage for the Cold War, which lasted for the next 45 years. The United Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict. The self determination spawned by the war accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa, while Western Europe itself began moving toward integration.
There is no direct reference there, therefore, according to Wandalstouring (if I understand him correct), the whole paragraph should be removed, because it is unsourced.
I cannot understand why the Battle of Berlin item, for instance (that was removed by Wandalstouring), is considered to be unsourced if any reader in one click can go there and obtain all needed numbers supported by references to high reputable sources. There are at least 3 different sources there describing losses of each side in details. In contrast, every new reference introduced after Wandalstouring deleted "unsourced" items was supported by only one reference and validity of that source is somewhat disputable. Therefore, I don't think that improved the article.
In conclusion, I support reversal of the editing done by Wandalstouring with subsequent deletion of those items citing poorly or inappropriately sourced Wikipedia articles. However, I wouldn't say most WWII articles to belong to the latter category. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The para you refer to in the World War II article is in the lead section, and the text of lead sections generally doesn't need to be cited as long as any facts/claims made are cited when they appear in the body of the article (see: WP:LEADCITE). That para is cited in the 'Aftermath' section of the article. It seems to me that Wandalstouring gave appropriate notice, and that if he's removed material which is supported by reliable sources in other articles then you should restore the material with the citation to the list. Citing reliable sources is not optional in any articles, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As I being User:dt23 was the one who allerted Wandalstouring of possible reprocutions as a result of his editing of so called "unsourced" articles and refrences i believe that the sources for those articles removed are well within Wikipedia guidlines. I believe Wandalstouring should be punished for his reoccuring edits. (which may start more edit wars with others)--Dt23 (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A few quotes for those who believe that citations are not necessary. The first one here is from an essay (Wikipedia:Reliable source examples)"Are wikis reliable sources? Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources." The second one here is from WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
Both of these say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and therefore, that a wikipedia article on a specific battle is not a reliable source for that battle. Simply because an article contains a citation for a piece of information does not mean that that information does not need a citation anywhere else it appears on wikipedia. By that reasoning, if I cited that, for example, Omar Bradley commanded an Army Group in World War II on his biography, I wouldn't need to cite that it was commanded by him on the Army Group's talk page. All information must be cited every time it appears. Joe (Talk) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Do I understand correct that usage of any reference is impossible, because, "Wikipedia article are not a reliable source". In other words, any reference must be accompanied by external citation[3]. And, if the daughter article cites several sources on this account the link will look like this[4][5][6][7][8][9], because each source relates to the topic and each of them cannot be omited. I think, you agree that would be ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Wikipedia isn't a suitable reference for Wikipedia articles, and on topics where reliable sources differ it's appropriate to cite all the sources. For casualty figures where sources differ no more than two references are needed - one for the lowest reliably sourced figure and one for the highest. These can be combined into a single reference like User:Cla68 has done for the articles on the Guadalcanal Campaign to avoid ugly multiple citation flags. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree completly thats why I revesed Wandalstouring edits. Not only are most articles on wikipedia not sourced in that manor but it would be imposible to do so. I issued the warning to him because deleting peoples hard work like that over and over again(look at the history of the article list of battles by death toll ) is simply wrong and against guidlines.--Dt23 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What guidelines are you referring to? Nick Dowling (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidlines as to how its users carry out there activities. Some guidlines are about writing and sourcing articles. And the articles I brought back in list of battles by death toll are properly refrenced. Wandalstouring constant removal of such articles destroyed peoples hard work. Work that met the guidlines of wikipedia. That is why I sent User:Wandalstouring the warning.Dt23 (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If people wish to contribute to Wikipedia, they must follow these guidelines, and these guidelines clearly state that specific facts and statistics must be cited. Work that is not cited is not verifiable, and WP:V is one of Wikipedia's Core Policies. Regardless of whether or not the information is cited in the main article about a battle, it still should be cited in other places where that information is listed, in this case the deadliest battles article. The guidelines are indeed very important, and Wandalstouring and I are trying to make sure they are enforced on this page. Joe (Talk) 02:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are so concerned about that why didn't you simply insert appropriate references from the corresponding articles? To my opinion, it would be better to leave the article in the pre-Wandalstouring state and gradually introduce references, than de facto delete the whole article. I see now that would I start doing that by myself I, probably, wasted less time than I have already done in that discussion. Therefore, my proposals are: You request unlocking the article and restore it in the present form. Then we go to appropriate papers and introduce relevant references. Items having no appropriate sources are removed. I'll try to take care of Eastern Front battles, although can't promise to do that fast. Is it acceptable for you?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This is similar to something I suggested earlier: by all means copy over the battles, as long as the sources are also copied over. If you'd like to do that, that would be great, otherwise, I'll get to it in a couple weeks once I finish some other things I'm working on currently. Joe (Talk) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. But I would prefer to delete disputable items from old version rather than re-insert items into the almost empty article decoy. I see no considerable problem if the article will exist in the incomplete form for a while.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a relatively simplistic problem. Just cite the stuff (which doesn't take long), and then you're good to go. the issue with "list of battles by death toll" is that it is a high-traffic list. Everything on the higher-profile lists needs to be cited. Cam (Chat) 04:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Another issue is that you deleted references made by Joe. That is vandalsim and you have to restore all of them within three days, otherwise I call an admin to take action on Dt23. Deleting referenced material is one of the biggest sins you can commit in wikipedia.
You are free to source whatever you find references for . The rest will be deleted at the end of this month. You had time since February to do this and the template on top of the article states the wikipolicy of deleting unsourced material. Removing such a template is another violation of wikipolicy and I could call an admin to take action on Dt23 for doing that. So do respect that I made several attempts to solve this via discussion and not seeking outright vengeance on newbies violating the policies. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason I removed the template is Wandalstouring had plassed there without just cause. If someone where to put a template warning of spam on a pefectly good page then there would be choas. I believe Wandalstouring should be heavily punished for vandalism and deleting months possibly even years of hard work. What gives him the right to asert his false jurisdiction on a perfectly well sourced page. Thats why I took action. The people of Wikipedia dont deserve to have there hard work destroyed because Wandalstouring said they were "unsourced". I call upon the people of Wikipedia to stand up once and for ALL to have this vandal Wandalstouring punished to the highest extent of the Wikipedian Law. That is why I sent the warning , thats why I reversed his vandalism ,and thats why I removed the template.--Dt23 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, read the discussion above. We have agreed that the information must have a source there, making what you say a moot point. And, as also said above, hard work is meaningless if it is not properly sourced, per Wikipedia guidelines. Wandalstouring has also worked very hard on this and other articles in this project, so, if I were you, I would recommend not removing and undoing his work without discussing it with him, as well as removing the template. You can hardly call upon us to "stand up" to this "vandal" when he is undoubtedly acting in good faith and trying, like you and I, to make this encyclopedia and article as comprehensive and accurate as possible. Joe (Talk) 16:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This vandal has destroyed well SOURCED work without just cause. He acted un responsibly and again without just cause. That is called vandalism , destroying hard "well sourced" work. He did not act in the best intrest of wikipedia in best intrest of himself. Thats why I sent the warning , reversed his vandalism , and removed the template.Sincerly--Dt23 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring has not removed sourced material. If you examine the history of the article, you will find that all the information that he removed was not sourced properly. He only removed this information after making notes on the talk page and adding referencing templates. However, when no references were added, he removed the information, to comply with WP:V. Joe (Talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Borg. Frankly, I opposed Wandalstouring mostly because his behaviour looks questionable from the point of view of conventional scientific community and common sense. While doing that I absolutely missed the fact that Wikipedia articles are a subject of constant changes. Therefore, formally he is right. The only thing I cannot understand is: if Wandalstouring worked hard on this article, why most of the items there still remained unsourced until the global deletion he performed? If he is really willing to improve that article the best way to do that would be to introduce references where it is possible and then delete a remaining garbage. Therefore, the Dt23's point of view is understandable, although formally he is not right. I would propose to stop talking about sanctions and punishments and to start improving the article instead.
And I wouldn't say that speaking in the manner Wandalstouring is doing (You are free to source whatever you find references for . The rest will be deleted at the end of this month. You had time since February to do this and the template on top of the article states the wikipolicy of deleting unsourced material.) is the best way to create an atmosphere of friendly and productive collaboration. Especially, taking into account that Wandalstouring (in contrast to Dt23) is not a novice in Wikipedia.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on Wandalstouring's behavior, but here's a plan to try to solve the problem: revert dt23's edit right before it was protected (to [1], then go along, add every single battle you can think of (I'll help too), and also add the reference for it that appears on another article. That way, the material is still there (which you want) and still cited (which I want). That way, everyone can be happy, and there won't be any need for Wandalstouring or anyone else to make posts which anyone could possibly want to question. Joe (Talk) 20:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
As noted by Joe, none of the material Wandalstouring removed back in July was supported by a citation [2]. Dt23 did not provide any citations for the material they re-added [3]. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is not the only problem

How do we rank battles when we have several figures of the number dead? Why should one battle be ranked higher just because the ancient writers who are the sources for those battles indulged in greater flights of fancy? Why should some battles be ranked higher because the modern historians of those periods have been less willing than others to subject those claims to critical scrutiny?Dejvid (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes casualty reports are always sketchy. I recall a description of a battle in the book of judges in which it was claimed 300 men killed 120,000 men by raiding their camp during the night. More than likely it was only a few hundred, perhaps a 1,200 at most.--Serviam (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Im resigning

Today I am grieved to state that not only am going to have to withdraw from the conflict but I shall have to resign. Im afraid as a former US Marine Corps officer I have ben called into active duty in Afghanistan. There fore in the best intrest of Wikipedia and its diligent users I shall resign. Thank you for your time. For The Last Time , Sincerly --Dt23 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I join with all of us here in wishing you the very best of luck as well as a safe and speedy return. Thank you very much indeed for your contributions to the project. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good luck, and we hope you get back safely.--Serviam (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep your head down & your butt covered. Come back safe & whole. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hope you get back safely and thanks for doing your bit for Afghanistan.Dejvid (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. My thanks for your contribution to the project, and best wishes for a quick and safe return. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who you are, and I have never seen you on Wikipedia before. But that doesn't matter. I already know that you are one of the bravest people I know. Regardless of what people/the media say about the war here, you guys are doing a humanitarian service there...never lose hope. Friend, good luck to you, and come home safely. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Chances are good that you come back and do some good editing. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Stay safe. We will be praying for your safe return to the states. Semper Fi. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what as that British battle?

I read a quote once, moons ago, about a British battle, probably WWI, with appalling losses for the British. It was so appalling that... if I remember the quote correctly.. some politician or general or other was trying to rebuild the British army, and someone remarked, "Can't you see, you're fighting against X?" where X is the name of the battle... sorry so vague. Thanks in advance. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it could be several. Probably, if it's WWI, it's the Battle of the Somme or the Third Battle of Ypres. Maybe the Gallipoli Campaign, but since that was mainly Commonwealth forces it's less likely. Somme and Third Ypres were the ones with the most British casualties, Somme most famously so, as the first day of the offensive was the bloodiest day in the history of the British army, ever, with over 60,000 casualties. Joe (Talk) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
My question is obviously too vague, and I appreciate your excellent answer. I'll look into those battles. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried to find a book of military quotations? I've seen one (but the online catalog can't find it...) at my local library, so if your local is half as good, a reference librarian ought to be able to point you. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks once again! That's a good idea... will try... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia's reference desk: there's some good people there who are great at finding obscure half-remembered quotes and elusive information. Gwinva (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC) In fact, I've copied your question there; hope that's alright. Gwinva (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Task force 'holes'?

As I've been going through the articles without task forces and tagging them, I've noticed a few apparent gaps in coverage. While a number of articles (people, weapons, vehicles, etc) have task forces specifically for them, some types of articles can only be classified by country currently (battles, military units, medals and decorations, etc). The problem with this is that there are several nations with a significant number of articles that I don't know if an existing task force already covers them. I've already asked about Afghanistan and Pakistan at the Middle Eastern task force. However, I have coverage questions concerning Sri Lanka, Ireland, Hungary (as well as several other European nations outside current task forces), Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, and North American military history outside of colonial issues (wars among Native American tribes for example or Mesoamerican peoples).

There may already be rules or projects covering these cases, and if so, I would appreciate being informed of them. Thanks Cromdog (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I had once suggested something like a "European Military History Task Force" that would include everything from the British Isles to the Urals. British, French, etc. could be made as subordinate TFs to it, something like ARW is to Early Modern, or Weaponry is to Technology. We could do a Central American TF too, but I've noticed fewer articles that would fall under that that currently have none than would in a European TF. Dunno, maybe noone would like my idea, but hey, might as well throw it out there. Joe (Talk) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The thing that we have to remember is that task forces are not a way of classifying articles; they are a way of pooling resources and editors around a particular topic. I don't think we should be making any new task forces that don't have a good number of editors willing to make a start of them, and make them a productive feature. If you have an idea about a task force that you think would be a benefit, then suggest it here and see if anyone else is willing to sign up and help get it going. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we could use a Latin America task force, combining anything in the Western Hemisphere south of the US border.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Latin America can have a variety of meanings and can include or exclude, depending on what definition one is using, non-Spanish- and non-Portuguese-speaking countries. How about something along the lines of Joe above with an "Americas Task Force" with US and Canada as subordinates? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The difficulty with creating subordinate task forces is that each of those task-forces already has a significant number of articles in their own collection. I would suggest "Central and South-American Military History Task Force". Keep Canadian and US Military History separate. Cam (Chat) 23:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It should also be considered that the Spanish Military History task force includes South American and some North American military history between the late 1400s and the early 1800s (beginning of colonization to the end of the colonies in the Americas). JonCatalán (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NFCC Image Policy and Uniformed Professionals

I thought this discussion at NFCC Talk maybe of interest to those in the project military history. Normally non-free images of living people are not permitted by policy as there remains the possibility of a free image whilst they're alive. However there is an exemption for for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. As military personnel have the uniform as an essential part of their image, it may be that images of uniformed professionals fall under this exemption. On that basis I've proposed a simple 4 hurdle test for images to decide whether they conform with policy and would welcome additional input. Justin talk 08:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Marion now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Epsom now open

The A-Class review for Operation Epsom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Military history

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Continual vandalism by school kids to battle pages

Hi there, As soon as the school year starts certain battles become a target for vandalism as WWI, the Napoleonic wars, the American Civil war and so on are on the syllabus. E.g. Battle of the Somme, where apart from one edit, all edits since 2 September have vandalism or reverting vandalism, see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Somme&action=history . When I try to get pages semi-protected (see Talk:Battle of the Somme#Time to lock all these Battle pages ?) the admins on the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection decline on the ground that the level of vandalism isn't high enough to justify semi-protection. Apart from the complete waste of everyone's time and energy, as User:Rcbutcher wrote to me "Allowing these pages to be open to such corruption is an insult to the men who suffered and died in these battles." Does the Military history project have a friendly admin whom we could ask to semi-protect pages for us? This problem won't go away until school finishes next July. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For info, there's a list of admins in Milhist here. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely here... First Battle of Ypres has just gone through a cycle of vandal attacks and reversals. It is really disrespectful to the dead to allow web pages about battles to be continually vandalised. Such sensitive pages which act as a magnet to vandals should be protected, and only users who have posted e.g. 20 good-quality updates should be allowed update access to such pages. It is disgraceful for Wikipedia to have online a page about a major and bloody battle, which contains crude sexual and homophobic insults - the typical types of vandalism. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am. That's the benefit of being an admin I guess. If some useless clown keeps on vandalising a page, I can lock it, especially if I'm the only one patrolling it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, YellowMonkey, for protecting both the pages mentioned so quickly! I suspect you and the the other admins mentioned by Roger Davies will be called upon many more times as the kids migrate their vandalism to other battles. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys for getting that done... Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've got all the most popular Australian military history pages on my watchlist to protect them against vandalism, and have found that anything relating to Gallipoli is a common target for vandals. Unhappy ex-military personnel frequently take out their frustrations on the Australian Defence Force article. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Bravo, YM, & thanks. I'd go further, tho: block the b*st*rds. Let the schools find out the hard way what being denied access feels like, & get them to do something. It's really not WP's problem. Schools've got paid admins who're supposed to be dealing with bad behavior. Let 'em earn their keep! TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The only problem is that those admins won't care—why should they? They have enough on their plate with declining budgets and shrinking student populations! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It is possible to ban IP editing for up to a year for persistent vandals, and the {{Schoolblock}} template provides instructions for students from banned schools who want to create accounts for productive editing. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep. My Junior-High had one of those, and then the Calgary Board of Education banned Wikipedia in school (morons). Cam (Chat) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
My district banned Wikipedia randomly one day...and it stayed banned for most of my sophomore and my entire junior year under the reasoning that Wikipedia was "personal pages". Go to Myspace, and you know what came up? Blocked because it's "personal pages"....I never really understood that. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 04:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
See, ours blocked it because of "inaccurate information" and "you don't know whose written it". So whenever the MilHist Project gets praised by external resources, of Dr. J. B. Murray of UBC uses Wikipedia as a classroom tool, I just send my fiercely anti-wikipedia librarian the link, and let them fume over it. Cam (Chat) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll make no defense of stupid admins (of any description; choose whichever ones annoy you most ;D ). And my dad was a teacher for about 20yr (& later principal), so I've heard stories of stupid admins (all pre-WP, mind). All you can do is try & reason with the ignorant, who don't realize what WP's about, & show 'em (as best you can) WP articles are as reliable, accurate, & complete as is possible on a wiki. I sometimes wonder about reliability on changes moment-to-moment (forget vandalism), but if somebody asks, tell 'em to consider a book (or even a journal): it's based on the best available data one writer can accumulate at the time of publication; WP is the best date thousands of researchers/writers can get, up to date to the minute (more/less). I recall the quip in "STVH", "This news must be hours old."... On a WP (or PSW, or MA), it's hours, or maybe minutes, old, rather than months or years for paper. (The standard for a book is, it's out of date before it gets on the racks.) And it's as thorough as specialist knowledge can make it. I know there are serious people watchlisting articles in areas they're interested in, & I've seen the high caliber of their attention. If anybody doubts it, have 'em look at some FAs, or the top GAs. I think of this offhand, 'cause I know it's as good as it gets on the subject, even if it isn't quite up to WP's top standard; it's sufficiently controversial (!) to attract nuts & vandals, but it still manages to be excellent, 'cause there are serious people who care about it paying attention to keeping it right. Invite the critics to look at it, & especially at the page history, to see how the process works. And try & recruit experts every chance you get (if you don't already...). Do you know somebody who superdetails model kits, for instance? These guys are nuts for getting it right, & doing that demands good sources. (Sound familiar?) Or car restorers (& often customizers & rodders), for the same reason. (Who else knows how much overspray there should be in the wheelwells of a white '68 Camaro RS with auto & 4.10 posi? You can find guys who do...& can show you the paperwork.) If you can recruit 'em... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First admin to see this, please protect Mexican War of Independence Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Woody. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

3rd Madras Cavalry

Please would somebody write a stub about this. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A Class review for SMS Von der Tann now open

Hi all, the A-Class review for SMS Von der Tann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Percy Herbert Cherry now open

The peer review for Percy Herbert Cherry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Triarii now open

The peer review for Triarii is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Fort Henry now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Fort Henry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Fort Donelson now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Fort Donelson is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad Axe Massacre

Hi all. I am looking for tips on Bad Axe Massacre for an FA bid in the near future. Anything missing from the article or glaring problems pointed out, these are the things that would be appreciated greatly. Thank you ahead of time for anyone who has a moment to stop by and leave some comments or make some edits. --IvoShandor (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet would be a Milhist A-Class review. The standard is close to FAC. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The article should probably be renamed "Battle of Bad Axe" to avoid POV. JonCatalán (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Casualty Counts- Manual of Style

During reviews, I came across a usage of N/A for casualty count. I would like to have the word unknown set as the style standard in this area. Geoff Plourde (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a big problem and have you encountered difficulties simply editing the data yourself from "N/A" to "Unknown"? --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to set it as a standard as some editors seem to be using N/A. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way to change the style guide is to suggest draft text here and then leave it a week or so to see what the reactions to it are. If there's consensus for the change, then go ahead and modify the style guide. That said, I should mention that changing the style guide won't stop editors using "N/A". --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
"N/A" should not be used because it's ambiguous: by definition, it can mean "not applicable" (no casualties) or "not available" (number of casualties unknown). The style guide should probably recommend using "none" and "unknown", respectively. —Kevin Myers 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, "N/A" is ambiguous, though it's an ambiguity that appears in probably thousands of tables and info boxes right across Wikipedia. At the moment, MilMoS says very little about casualties (though there's a general injunction to cite sources for all quoted figures) even though they're hugely contentious ... --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a note (which could probably use further refinement) about this in the infobox instructions now, so there's something concrete to point people to. I'm not sure if it's something that needs a MoS entry in and of itself, though; we haven't really gone into detail on the specifics of each infobox field there, but only link to the more detailed instructions. Kirill (prof) 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
An interesting question is whether this ought to be limited just to casualties or given much wider currency. For instance, we could include a note on all our info boxes along the following lines:
Avoid the ambiguous abbreviation "N/A", and instead use "unknown" or "none". All subjective or qualitative judgements and numerical quantities or statistics must be footnoted to a reliable source (see WP:MILMOS#Cite).
Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a really good idea. As one of the best military resources on the internet, people expect quality, not ambiguities. Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New categorisation of battles

Hi All,

I have completed the transition of World War I battles into the new categorisation. What new categorisation I here you asking. I have simply subcategorised the 'Battles by X' with the new 'Battles of X War involving X'. This has been completed for all major contributing countries in World War I. See example below using Australia.

Category:Battles involving Australia


Category:Battles of World War I


Category:Military history of Australia during World War I


This has been discussed and agreed to here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Operations versus Battles.

This should go a long way in cleaning up the Battles categories of various countries which were getting very long and had no reference to which conflict these battle articles related to until you viewed the article.

I will do the same for all major conflicts (feel free to help...): Glenn Sisson (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. We should probably also have some other intermediate link categories:
and so forth. Kirill (prof) 23:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill. I agree with the further intermediate categories. Will amend. Glenn Sisson (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
After adding the category Category:Military operations involving Australia by war, I feel there is nothing to gain by doing the same for battles as you suggested. The Battles category is already subcategorised by conflict by the nature of the category name. By adding Category:Battles involving Australia by war would result in an extra (unnecessary) layer eg.
Category:Battles involving Australia
Thoughts?? Glenn Sisson (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another minor style issue

when referring to the idea of marines, should we upper or lower case it. My feeling is that we wouldn't write Cavalry or Infantry when referring to them generically, so why hsould marines be any different. See the openign paragraph of Royal Marines for an example, in the general description of what they are marines has been lower-cased as long as I can remember, but a user has just come along and is insisting it should be upper-cased. David Underdown (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My preference (which I use) is "marines" for the generic (Bootnecks, Leathernecks, Морская пехота), "Marines" for the specific. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is to capitalise proper nouns and lowercase case ordinary ones: that's broadly what the military terms section of the relevant style guide says. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The tricky thing in a case like this is that sometimes people use a shortened form of the proper noun, so what sometimes looks like a ordinary noun is actually an abbreviated proper noun. For example, the two following sentences could be considered properly capitalized, if the capitalized "Marines" in the second sentence is just an abbreviated rendering of "Royal Marines": The Royal Marines are the marines of the UK. The Marines are also the United Kingdom's specialists in mountain warfare. Because it can sometimes be stylistically tedious to repeat an entire proper noun (i.e. Royal Marines), a shortened form might be used. Whether or not it's standard to shorten "Royal Marines" to "Marines" is an altogether different question that I don't know the answer to. —Kevin Myers 12:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the countering argument would be that Wikipedia doesn't normally use informal contractions of proper nouns as proper nouns (if you see what I mean). --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: Good work on "N/A" in the conflict info box/doc last night, by the way. (see above) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't remind me, the amount that's been typed over whether we should use Church as a short for Roman Catholic Church, to help distinguish from the use of church as a building, or similarly Communion for Anglican Communion to distinguish from the more general concept of communion between churches (or Holy Communion)... David Underdown (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to butt in because am bored and to possiblly answer a rhetorical question, i believe the correct abbreviation would be 'RM'. Considering in Orders of Battles published by respected authors the have shortened the Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery to 'RE' and 'RA' respectfully.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The conventional abbreviation is RM, never Marines. The Marines are a US organisation.
ALR (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
RM is an initialism, but that's a different sort of abbreviation than at issue here. I'm talking about a kind of common, informal abbreviation, where for example of instead of using the proper noun Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you'd just use an abbreviated form and call it Parliament, even though parliament is also a non-proper noun. If you say that no one ever calls the Royal Marines simply the Marines, then my entire point is ... pointless! —Kevin Myers 13:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure some people do call RM Marines, some because they're not in the picture and some inexperienced pongos trying to get a rise. In general communication the abbreviation would be RM. Contemporary slang would be Royal or Booties.
One of the reasons for the distinction is that Marine formations operate more like the British Army than the Commando Brigade.
ALR (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the official history of the Royal Marines does use (at least once) the short form of "Marines", e.g.: "The policy of "Imperial Policing" took the Marines to the bombardment of Algiers in 1816...." But that's just a single example and doesn't seem to be common. Their usual short form, for the sake of stylistic variety, is to use Corps as an occasional alternative to Royal Marines. But now I've taken us far away from the original point. —Kevin Myers 13:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that is there "Official history". Each regiment of the British armed forces, as well as Corps and divisions have all released Official Historys following the war or major conflicts - there is also official campaign historys released. I would assume there is one floating about for the RM and that would be the Official History of said conflict/campaign etc not the history section of there website.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me started on the quality of the web site... They only recently removed some items that were six years out of date.
ALR (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
We may have 2 distinct & separate issues, here. (Or I may not understand the issue at all, equally possible. ;D) Is the formally correct abbrev "Marines" or "RM"? And is the informal "Marines"? Formally, USMC is "Marines" & Brits RM, per RA/RE; informally, it's "Corps" & "Bootnecks" (Booties? Never came across it, but in no way expert.) I'd lean to formal use of Marines (U.S.)/RM (UK), if only because the overwhelming majority of readers are liable to think USMC for "Marines"; failing that, "Royal Marines", for those not accustomed to the abbrevs (& those unable, or unwilling, to learn them...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (Don't say I let complete ignorance inhibit me from expressing an opinon. ;D)

FAR opened for Battle of the Bulge

A featured article review has been opened for Battle of the Bulge. Any and all input would be welcomed. Thank you. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Military occupations

Category:Military occupations has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

We're considering a number of different options, so your input would be greatly appreciated. Cgingold (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Morotai Mutiny now open

Hi all, feel free to comment on this article's FAC. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:1945 disestablishments

In the Category:1945 disestablishments, there are so many military articles that it is difficult to look through the non-military articles. I think it would be useful to add a sub-category for some or all of the military articles in this category. I would do it myself, but my knowledge of military history is insufficient. Coyets (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested can simply create the subcategory Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1945, which would correspond with Category:Military units and formations established in 1945. —Kevin Myers 12:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Aleksei Brusilov now open

The peer review for Aleksei Brusilov is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 18:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Panaman now open

The A-Class review for SS Panaman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 18:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Iowan now open

The A-Class review for SS Iowan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 18:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) now open

The A-Class review for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 18:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Royal Air Force template

After realising that there wasn't a template for RAF squadrons, I created one, Template:RAF squadrons. It lists every flying or past flying squadron within the RAF, as well as foreign-controlled ones. The guys at WPAVIATION have given this the thumbs-up, any comments from you guys? As we speak I'm rolling out the template across RAF squadron articles; this also gives us a better idea of what's done and what isn't. LGF1992UK (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see the need to separate out the roman numeral identified squadrons from the arabic numerals (I think I'd probably find it easier to work out the roman numerals if they were put in the regular order). Can we have it hidden by default? it does take up quite a bit of space. Is foreign-controlled the best description - maybe foreign-manned would be better. For much of the time the whole point was that these were actually under direct RAF operational control, rather than that of their nominal country. David Underdown (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are those four Australian expeditionary support squadrons included? AFAIK, they were formed by the RAAF in the last 10 or so years and I don't think they have any connection with the RAF - I'm happy to be proven wrong though! Nick Dowling (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to add, under foreign manned, the NZ squadrons 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, and 490, please? Buckshot06(prof) 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that those Article XV squadrons were, at least in theory, units of the various dominion air forces. The Australian squadrons appear on {{List of RAAF Squadrons}} and are still claimed by the RAAF to be Australian units, even though Australians were often only a minority of their air crew and an even smaller proportion of ground crew. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The squadron number was allocated from the RAF sequence, and early in the war they were entirely under RAF operational control. There's a good case for counting them as both British and Australian in order to get the full picture. David Underdown (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
File:Captain Ref Desk.gif

Captain Ref Desk.gif IMFD seeks discussion about an animated version of U.S. general Curtis LeMay that utilizes shifty eyes and chatter mouth. Please consider participating that that discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 14:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Percy Herbert Cherry now open

The A-Class review for Percy Herbert Cherry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

TAM (tank) up for peer review!

Greetings, the article TAM is going through a peer review. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed! JonCatalán(Talk) 21:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Hoax Article

Area 58 pop up on a routine flyby of the black project template and its associated links. I cursory glance at the article suggests some notability, but I get no hits from the google test. Input would therefore be apreciated in determining whether this stays or goes. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It kinda reads like a conspiracy theory website, especially all the bits about the government "suppression" of the facts and such. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Since it sounds dubious, the references should be checked, and any facts that depend solely on self-published websites tagged or removed. If after this the essence of the article doesn't stand up, then tag it for deletion. If no one else has time, I'll do so in a few days. —Michael Z. 2008-09-24 02:07 z
Yeah, a broken link at FAS (which has always had a bit of an odd site) is now taken as clear evidence of a suppression program and "reclassification"? Such a place may exist, but that whole chunk's a bit wild-eyed. Shimgray | talk | 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I may get to it tommarow at some point, I'm on here halfway becuase my homework is drawing bit and pieces from Wikipedia to fill in some blank spots. School work does come first. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought that it was common knowledge that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) was relocating to a new facility at Fort Belvoir. If so, Area 58 isn't as secret and mysterious as the article's author is making it sound. There should be plenty of open sources discussing the move, and, If so, the article should probably be merged into the NRO and/or Fort Belvoir articles. Cla68 (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard anything about NRO moving to Belvoir, but I know NGA is building their new HQ there, as evidenced by the article on it: "In 2011 NGA expects to consolidate many of its Washington D.C., Maryland, and Northern Virginia activities in a new east-coast campus near Ft. Belvoir as part of the BRAC." But that isn't what the article in question is referring to, or at least it doesn't seem to be. That's my take anyway. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't personally vouch for the information or provide any actually sources for this information, but my father was stationed out in Nevada where the gov't owns massive amounts of land, and I distinctly remember him mentioning that the land was divided up into different Areas for different projects and departments, with almost 100 of them in all. If this is so, any Area 58 would be out there, I would think. Cromdog (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
That all looks like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. As is depressingly common for this type of article, many of the citations don't support the claims which are attributed to them and others are original research and speculation. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The ax it is then: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area 58. All are invited to comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Admiralty Islands campaign now open

The A-Class review for Admiralty Islands campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cluttered page

Most of this talk page is covered with headers about ongoing reviews. Are these reminders considered useful by the members of the project or should they be reduced/totally removed? Opinions. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do use these alerts to keep track of A-class reviews and peer reviews. But, I keep this talk page on my watch list. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this gizmo - {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} - will help? It's compact and shows them all at a glance. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant idea. Perhaps it's just me, but I want to keep thinks focused and this page is for discussions. If we adopt it we should tell every new member about it in the welcome newsletter. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I dropped by to see what gives after a number of surprising declarations lately on MilHist articles. I hope that "gizmo" isn't partly responsible for any downturn in the quality of declarations on MilHist articles at FAC and FAR: in the past, I could count on MilHist for maintaining FA standards we could be proud of and hold up as an example for other WikiProjects. I'd encourage reviewers at FAC and FAR to engage the featured article criteria when entering Suport, Oppose, Keep and Delist declarations. In the past, this wasn't a problem with MilHist: it was a group with a solid respect for FA standards, so I hope the "gizmo" isn't encouraging editors to blindly support listed MilHist FACs or FARs. FAC and FAR are not "votes". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I would be very surprised if the template has anything to do with it, given that it has had fairly low visibility, and even that only among highly experienced editors. If anything, I suspect we're simply becoming as susceptible to drive-by voting as other projects are. Kirill (prof) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Y'all have three (at least) FAs listed at WP:FAR, all needing serious attention; wondering why those aren't listed on the "gizmo"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Resource allocation strategy, really. The articles at FAR are so deficient that they would require effort equivalent to a full FA creation in order to bring them up to par; absent someone at the project that cares enough about the topic to take it under their wing, it really doesn't make sense to spend significant effort pecking at the articles, given that such effort is unlikely to result in them not failing FAR. It's more efficient, at this point, to let them be removed and then work them back up to FA at our own pace. Kirill (prof) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for the feedback, Kirill; unwatching now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I for one think this page should list the reviews since those not immediately enrolled in the project ranks may see an announcement here they can take action rather than on the gizmo which if you are not looking for you can miss. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Empirically speaking, announcements here in conjunction with template listing seem to be better at getting people to look at, say, peer reviews than only template listings would be; I'm not sure if the templates have enough of an audience, at this point, to offset the loss of participation that would likely result from discontinuing announcements. Kirill (prof) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Can somebody merge Haitian Invasion of Santo Domingo into Haiti Invasion of Dominican Republic? Fclass (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to nominate it for speedy deletion. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Fclass (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The shorter one, I'm guessing. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I was going to just redirect, but I've noticed it's categorised as 1805 - any idea why? Were there two such situations? Shimgray | talk | 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It is about the same event. The category is wrong. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring is right. The articles are about the same thing. The first one is wrong because the conflict never occured in 1805. It occured in the 1820s. So please redirect or delete the first one. Fclass (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shimgray | talk | 12:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for MS West Honaker now open

The A-Class review for MS West Honaker is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Bellhalla (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:16th and 17th century warrior types

CfD? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a CFD for a whole set of these - "Napoleonic military units", etc - a while back? How did that go? Shimgray | talk | 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It ended with the category being deleted. I agree that this category should also be deleted. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of West Ukraine (1944)#Yet another proposed move

Third opinions would be helpful at this page in order to decide what the name of the article should be. Options include 'Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation,' a simplified 'Dnepr-Capathian Offensive', or the existing page name - or potentially others. Buckshot06(prof) 10:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rocket name cleanup poll

User:GW Simulations has implemented a poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll concerning GW's rename proposal found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Clinton at GAN

Henry Clinton (1730–1795) is at GAN. Currently it is on hold. Could someone with access to the sources please add page numbers? Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try how many of these 7 books I can find on Saturday. What genius did nominate this article for GAN? Wandalstouring (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I nominated it. Also I nominated a Messerschmitt article, that I found during the 0.7 review. Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Sry, had no time, will try next Saturday. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Help

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate I've hit a bump and need a few more people to weigh in on a matter asap: the name has been ided as being out of MoS compliance. Suggestions for a new name move include "U.S. Naval gunfire support debate", "United States Naval Gunfire Support debate", United States naval gunfre support debate", as well as others. SandyGeorgia needs this issue settled quickly becuase of the work involved in reordering the pages so everything points to the new title, the sooner this issue is resolved the better. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Lord Nelson

Hi. I don't edit in this area, but I noticed that there is a long Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Nelson here: http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html

It is the Life of the Day today, and available for a free substcription to Life of the Day. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

728th Military Police Battalion

I keep running across references to the 728th Military Police Battalion being a part of the 8th Military Police Brigade and others referencing it as part of the 18th Military Police Brigade. Anyone know where I can find out which it is a component of or are there two 728th MP Battalions within different brigades? Very confusing. Notice the captions for the photo here for the 18th MP Brigade and then here as a subordinate unit of the 8th MP Brigade. Thx. --JavierMC 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Random guess - it's assigned to 8th Brigade when in Korea and 18th when deployed to Iraq? Shimgray | talk | 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC for SMS Von der Tann now open

The FAC for SMS Von der Tann is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, I believe that FAC alerts on the talk page are suggested against because it may seem like an attempt to provoke vote stacking. At least, that's what I was told when I did so a while back—I'm not sure if this opinion has changed. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
See, we sort of use the talk-page alerts more for ACRs and PRs as a method to get people involved. the thing about FACs is that there is frequently a highly dedicated core of FAC reviewers (Ealdgyth, Sandy, Raul654, Tony) who are checking every FAC for the usual stuff (technical errors). ACRs and PRs are always more difficult to find editors for, as they're typically in-project..just getting my two cents in. Regards, Cam (Chat) 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sure there are some articles though which do not get mentioned here either for Peer Review, ARC, GAR or FAC. I could name one, which if I had noticed it during the review stage would not have made it to FA on account of its extremely poor reliability. If an article gets as much exposure as possible in the project then you're helping to ensure that the article is evaluated properly and updated accordingly, in conjunction with the FAC team's recommendations. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pershing Rifles

The article about the national university-level ROTC drill team, the Pershing Rifles, is up for deletion here. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR: Virtuti Militari

Virtuti Militari 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. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kargil War

Kargil War 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vontrotta (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 September 2008

Requested name change

Pkkphysicist (talk · contribs) has requested that Battle of Hurtgen Forest be renamed and moved to Battle of Hürtgen Forest. All editors are invited to comment on this request at Talk:Battle of Hurtgen Forest#Requested move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.166.142 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 September 2008

Question

Can anybody confirm these conflicts, Siamese-Vietnamese War (1841-1845) and Siamese-Vietnamese War (1831-1834), actually happened? I think they are made up by some vandal. Fclass (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/vat/vietnam/fcambodia1841.htm JonCatalán(Talk) 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Although I can't say I blame you for being suspicious. Based on the lack of citations, that would be my immediate response. I would severely chastise whoever created the article for not even leaving an external link. Regards, Cam (Chat) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) would be the best person to ask about this, he is very familar with vietnam and its history with wars. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

U-boat designations (notification)

I have proposed a change of title for all U-boat pages from "Unterseeboot...", as at present, to "German submarine...", for a variety of reasons (listed here and here), viz:

  • "Unterseeboot..." effectively loses the page,
  • Unterseeboot is a foreign term (the English word is "submarine", or "U-Boat"),
  • Other submarine pages use, for example “Italian submarine...” or "French Submarine...",
  • And other german warships use the same format, eg “German battleship…”.

The discussion is HERE. (Posted also at WT:SHIPS as suggested). Xyl 54 (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes and catagorization

Is there a reason why the userboxes for this project doesn't put users in a category of members of the Military History WP?--Gen. Bedford his Forest 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This came up a few months ago. Here's the discussion from then:

Category:WikiProject Military history participants seems to have reappeared. I seem to recall that there was a consensus not to have a member category, since it could not be maintained in the same way as an active/inactive list, and since people "joining" the project through it would not be visible via the various watchlists, and would be ignored by any automation that examined the canonical list. Is that still the case?

(Even if it's not, I suspect we ought to rename it to Category:WikiProject Military history members for consistency with our normal usage, incidentally.) Kirill (prof) 03:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have these for all the reasons you state. Perhaps a little word to Serviam (talk · contribs) (the sole user in the category) about it should suffice. Woody (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've asked him if he'd be willing to get rid of it. Kirill (prof) 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that answer it? --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. However, I'll just say that others WPs have active lists and have the userbox categorization.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, is there anyway to get around those limitations? Every other project that I am in has them and I was just wondering, I'm not good at the technical side of things. --Banime (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why you think it would a good idea? --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question from FAC of Nevada

With information I just added to the USS Nevada (BB-36) article, I compare Nevada to Oregon, Connecticut and Delaware. However, do I use "BB-3", "BB-18" and "BB-26" with these? The "BB-x" designations did not start until 1920, and I'm in the pre-1915 part of the article (Design and construction). Can any maritime history buffs help? —the_ed17— 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You can use the {{USS}} template and just use the option to have the name of the vessel displayed. That solves everything. -MBK004 03:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I would, but thats just becuase I don't want my aidience to have to guess which ship I want them to look at. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, could I use the designation from that time period? (Is it too confusing?) [ I.e. USS Oregon(B-3) or USS Oregon (Battleship 3) ] —the_ed17— 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You could, but I would stick with the BB designation. I believe these were applied retroactively as well, so using BB for the pre-1920s battleships should be acceptable. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Tom!! —the_ed17— 04:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats what I'm here for :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR of Carrier Air Wing Six...

A GAR has been opened regarding Carrier Air Wing Six, as there is a question of whether the article should have been promoted to GA-class a few days ago. The question is not about quality, rather, it is focused upon whether the article is actually a list. Please go to the page and leave comments! Thanks and cheers, —the_ed17— 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Very) delayed notification of a FAC for USS Nevada (BB-36)

A FAC for USS Nevada (BB-36) is open; all people are invited to participate in reviewing the article. Please feel free to leave comments or questions the FAC page, and if you see something in the article that is wrong, be bold and make it right! Thanks and cheers, —the_ed17— 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ ...
  2. ^ ...
  3. ^ http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/CHEM/acsstyle.html
  4. ^ 36
  5. ^ 37
  6. ^ 43
  7. ^ 94
  8. ^ 47
  9. ^ 6
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_81&oldid=1232551161"