Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The February newsletter is now available. Current discussions A proposal to promote the notability criteria for military biographies from an essay to a guideline is being developed. A discussion on the use of medal pictograms in articles has begun. Featured article candidates  Thomas Blamey • Roza Shanina • Battle of Radzymin (1920) • Iraq War in Anbar Province • Jesse L. Brown • Roy Dowling • Werner Hartenstein • Spanish conquest of Guatemala • HMS Queen Mary • James Garrard Featured article review  Frederick Russell Burnham • Medal of Honor Featured list candidates  List of Ohio class submarines A-Class review  Adolf Galland • John F. Bolt • List of field marshals of the British Army • De Havilland Comet • SMS König Albert • STRAT-X • Kenneth Nichols • Operation Alsos • 1740 Batavia massacre • 6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps) • Frederick E. Morgan • Charles Scott (governor) • Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher • Priscus (general) Good article nominees  Battle of Goodenough Island • James McCormack • Cornelius H. Charlton • Battle of Burton Bridge (1643) • SS Empire Endurance • Volage class corvette • HMS Active (1869) • Château de Chinon • Edward Ford (physician) • Alvin Luedecke • Saint-Inglevert Airfield • Dora Trial • Kolberg class cruiser • Peng Dehuai • John Alan Coey • USS Lexington (CV-2) • Hubert Brooks • Qutayba ibn Muslim • Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia • Bloody Knife • German cruiser Emden • Henry II of England • SMS Nürnberg (1916) (yet to be reviewed) • Bhagat Singh (yet to be reviewed) • Battle of Magdhaba (yet to be reviewed) • Cornelio Saavedra Peer reviews  William McKinley • John Forrest (doctor) • Harry Lee (cricketer) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (36,693) • only work on referencing and citation (10,004) • work on coverage and accuracy (24,813) • only work on coverage and accuracy (2,020) • work on structure (8,940) • only work on structure (115) • work on grammar (1,782) • only work on grammar (6) • work on supporting materials (8,331) • only work on supporting materials (412) • photographs (898) • assessment (216) • assessment as lists (910) • project tags fixed (39) • assessment checklists completed (25,445) • attention to task force coverage (273)

GA lists

At 497 articles, MILHIST's "Warships" subsection on Wikipedia:Good articles/History is the largest in the entire list, with more links in that subsection alone than the Philosophy and religion and Mathematics pages combined. I'm not sure how to go about subdividing it further; there is already a 97-article "Submarines" subsection I separated a while back but I'm not sure how to go about further dividing them by class. Should we divide articles by nationality? Could we arrange ships by dates of commission/design? Should we just divide the whole thing alphabetically? Looking for feedback. —Ed!^(talk) 19:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I started a discussion here about whether or not the 1,800 War and Military GAs should get a page of their own on the list, separate from the "History" page, to help divide the GAs more effectively. —Ed!^(talk) 19:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What about dividing it between age of sail and self-powered ships? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't work - the vast majority of the articles fall into the latter category. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Since subs are split off already, this should reduce the problem. Dividing then would only involve powered ships... so, capital ships (BB, BC, CV, CVL), armoured/protected/other cruiser (CA, CL, CVE), small surface combantants (DL, DD, DE, FF, etc), other (seaplane tender, hospital ship, etc) 70.24.251.71 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think dividing the Warship articles by Nationality may be good for now. I counted the articles with respect to their Nationality:

Country	No. of Warship Articles
Germany	143
UK	136
US	66
Russia	57
France	36
Japan	19
Brazil	10
Austria–Hungary	17
Greece	5
Italy	4
Sweden	2
Australia	1

Countries having less than (lets say) twenty articles may be grouped in a single subsection. --SMS ^Talk 21:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. I can put the subs into those sections, too. —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be 17 Austro-Hungarian ship GAs (see here), most of which probably got lumped into the German tally (for which you're welcome, by the way). Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid any "Other"-type category. I think "Europe", "Americas", "Asia and [Australia]" (whichever preferred term for the last continent) might be suitable. As attractive as pulling out particular countries is, I think it reveals our bias too much. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, then there's the problem of breaking it into manageable chunks again - only 76 will be split off from the Americas, and less than 2 dozen for Australasia, leaving another 400 or so for Europe. Sort of defeats the purpose of splitting up the category.

By the way, there should be at least five Greek ship articles - Salamis, Kilkis, Limnos, Hydra, and Hydra class ironclad. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Parsecboy. --SMS ^Talk 16:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I note some of the articles are about classes and some about individual vessels. Is this an alternative? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I got to work on the list after you posted. I ended up dividing the ships by nationality after all, and with the Warfare GAs on their own list I don't think it will be a problem; 596 articles split into 13 sections. A few are one article only, but we have the space on the new page. —Ed!^(talk) 20:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That does work, indeed. I was most concerned to avoid an "Other" category. As long as we continue to make new sections for additional nations, that will be avoided. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Works for me as well, though there were several Austro-Hungarian ships mixed in with the Germans, along with a stray Yugoslavian ship article. One question though: I notice that Rudyard Kipling (ship) is listed in the British section, but the problem is, she wasn't a warship. Is there a better place to put her? Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that eventually, when we have another 600 or so warship GAs, we'll end up subdividing each nationality by ship type, and it might be better placed in an Auxiliary ship list. Down the road thinking, though. —Ed!^(talk) 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Preparing de Havilland Comet for A-level Review

Hello WP:MilHist. Over the last few months, I've been spending sometime redeveloping one of the most crucial civil aircraft in history, the first-ever passenger jet aircraft, the de Havilland Comet. The bulk of this work was actually done back in 2010, the result of which led to the article being listed as a Good Article. It is my intention in the near-future, that the article has reached a level of stablity and refinement since then that it is suitable for consideration at the next level of quality review. With an article as large as this one, I feel it appropriate to notify the community in advance, both in order to garner opinion of suitability and criticism towards improvement - thus this message. If anybody has the time to read over this article, I would appreicate their effort and their thoughts on the matter. Thank you in advance. Kyteto (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For others' benefit, I was the GA reviewer and Kyteto, Bzuk and I spent a fair bit of time getting things to what I think was a high standard. I know the article has also had a Peer Review since (about a year ago I think -- time flies). Anyway, had a quick skim just now and it looks like the essential structure and level of referencing is as I remember, with some further detail added. ACR certainly seems a logical next step now, my only suggestion is one I recommended during the GA review as something to do before FAC, namely add a Legacy section summarising the design's impact on jet travel and also of course on air crash investigations (hmm, good name for a TV show, that)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kyteto for your hard work on the Comet article, along with the efforts of Bzuk and Ian Rose. I perused the article earlier this year and was very impressed by its quality. My comment at the time recommended taking the article to A-class review, as a prelude to FA evaluation, but there were no responses at the time. I also suggested and ultimately added the new infobox image that the article currently uses. In my opinion, having gone through a number of ACRs and FARs of airliner articles, the Comet article stands a good chance of reaching the top level of Wiki article status. Given time, I may be able to contribute further as well. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A legacy section has been kit-bashed together, I found yet another book on aircraft accident investigation in order to write up some of its content. Now that the Avionics and Systems (My own long-term desired section) and the Legacy sections have been installed, I'm open to any other schemes/fundamental alterations/ideas that people may have. I wouldn't say that Legacy is 100% done for all time, but its a reasonable peice/very good start IMO. Kyteto (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

On the basis of the positive responses and implimentations made in readiness, I have proceeded with the A-class nomination. I thank you for your participation, and hope that you will support me in my continuing projects. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be extremely concerned about the potential for copyright violation in this image this image Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that timely warning, it is removed from the article due to this doubt - It seems a valid worry to me as well. It is amazing what theings you stop noticing after editing the article hundreds of times on and on. Kyteto (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd generally suggest checking your images generally at A and FA, and not simply relying on statements from uploaders but contemplating a little on them. One of the 1970s ones has an obvious video style dot screen, but, given the photographer's history of photographing planes it seems reasonable that that image was theirs. Similarly, with the Darwin ones, that photographer seems to have a life long association with Darwin. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the form letter, I wanted to add that this one looks like it has the potential to be fairly quick. :) If anybody wants to help out, the contributor's primary areas of interest seem to be US military history, although he does range a bit, as for example into Biblical battles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Related to this, is there any real need for us to have an article on the Action of 13 December 1941 - this already appears to be covered in the First Battle of Sirte article.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Action of 13 December 1941 was a copyvio, and I've converted that to a redirect. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MILPEOPLE

I've just made an edit to our notability guideline for people, changing the sentence

"Commanded a notable body of troops in combat"

to read

"Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat"

The reason I did this is because the associated footnote reads For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to a capital ship, a division or larger formation, or their historical equivalents. Obviously this makes little sense when the quotation as given in the footnote isn't actually in the criteria.

However, I thought I ought to check with the project that my amendment is in line with our intention in creating the guideline. EyeSerene^talk 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, it used to say "substantial", so somebody must have changed it at some point. I can see why, but, with the footnote, I prefer "substantial", as some battalions and even smaller units are notable, but most majors/lieutenant colonels aren't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your memory serves you well. It was changed in this edit in April 2010 by User:Kendrick7. To give an idea of what we are talking about here, consider Boris Pash, who is presumed notable under this guideline because he commanded the Alsos Mission, which is definitely notable. (I was planning on fixing up this article in the near future.) There is also the case of Gordon Grimsley King, who commanded the 2/6th Independent Company at the Battle of Kaiapit. In both cases, I could fall back on "Played an important role in a significant military event", but we never defined what a significant military event was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't define it, but we know it when we see it? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Would anybody object if I proposed the incorporation of WP:MILPEOPLE into WP:Notability (people) thereby putting our project on the same footing as WP:POLITICS and WP:PORN? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Equalling the porn project is as good-a-reason as any—after all, we do have the bigger, erm... project! ;) But seriously, incorporating it into the central guideline seems like a good idea. Just beware that some of the people who put a lot of effort into the failed bid to make MILMOS a guideline might feel a bit jaded about such processes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh :) Thanks chaps, I thought it originally said "substantial" as well. Personally I support MILPEOPLE being incorporated into WP:BIO, but didn't we try it a while back and got blocked by objections of process-creep etc? If I had more time I'd try to find the diffs. Regardless, that doesn't mean we can't have another crack at it. EyeSerene^talk 20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, please, please. I tried before, but the RfC said no v_v . I would support another attempt.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would support you on the matter of principle that wikipedia should be clearer on it's criteria, to reduce the amount of time spent policing and deleting articles (or to make that process more straightforward, again saving valuable editing resource). However, IIRC, the opposition on the matter of comparison with porn stars was " that was then - it wouldn't be allowed now" so that argument won't fly.Monstrelet (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if we draft a proposal here first then? I think there's a good case for formalising MILPEOPLE on the lines Monstrelet mentions and because it covers a comparable number of people to those covered by the other guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria. We currently have roughly 42,000 military bio articles (with no guideline), compared to 40,000 actors & filmmakers; 43,000 academics; 68,000 musicians; 71,000 entertainers etc. EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Since the last attempt was closed by the above editor, how would a proposed draft be worded?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a good case for formalising MILPEOPLE on the lines Monstrelet mentions and because it covers a comparable number of people to those covered by the other guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria. We currently have roughly 42,000 military bio articles (with no guideline), compared to 40,000 actors & filmmakers; 43,000 academics; 68,000 musicians; 71,000 entertainers etc. EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Since the last attempt was closed by the above editor, how would a proposed draft be worded?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose adding the following to the Additional criteria section:

Military biography

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the discussion which led to this essay.

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

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

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

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

• This formalises military people along the same lines as the additional criteria for politicians, academics and entertainers. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria. We currently have roughly 42,000 military biography articles (with no guideline), compared to 40,000 actors & filmmakers; 43,000 academics; 68,000 musicians; 71,000 entertainers.
• The purpose of formalising the guideline is threefold:
  1. It provides editors with a clear set of guidelines as to what is notable, for the purposes of creating and deleting articles.
  2. Given the large numbers of articles in this category, it saves us from endlessly going over the same ground, when consensus already exists.
  3. It makes it easier for editors to find the appropriate guideline.
• This guideline does not override WP:GNG. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that: those points reflect the long-standing outcomes of AfD discussions involving military people. I've taken the liberty of italicising will almost always though, as there are going to be some people who met those criteria but are not covered in reliable secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I support this, but I think it might help to first consider how we'll address the likely objections. Based on last time these were:

1. It's unnecessary/instruction creep/more paperwork/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/etc because everything one needs to know about notability is already covered by the GNG.
2. Some of the criteria are vague (specifically mentioned were 5 and 7)
3. It encourages an assumption of "presumptive notability" without sufficiently mentioning a need for verifiability against reliable sources

I'm not suggesting we can do much about some of these (the first objection especially), or even that they're all entirely valid, but points 2 and 3 might be worth further consideration.

On another note, I've changed "troops" to "personnel" in number 6 (because we mention ships). What would the air force equivalent be? A Wing? That might be worth adding too.

EyeSerene^talk 09:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wing should be okay for the USAF; the Commonwealth air force equivalent would a group.

BTW. and I daresay this conversation has been had before, while I think granting automatic notability to 2-stars, e.g. major generals, rear admirals and air vice marshals, is fair enough I'm not so sure about 1-stars, e.g. brigadiers, commodores and air commodores. Obviously my specialty is the RAAF and in my researches I come across a great many air commodores and my feeling is that those who 'top out' at that rank deserve mention only if they have some other claim to notability, e.g. commanding a large formation in wartime, or having been awarded the Victoria Cross, or been an ace. In practice this criterion would affect post-WWII 1-stars more than anything. What do others think? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong name all along?

It seems the article Amphibious Assault Vehicle was sitting on the wrong article title the whole time. The article has now been moved to Assault Amphibious Vehicle after this discussion. Marcus Qwertyus 20:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that really correct? I always thought it was "amphibious assault vehicle" (for which a quick-and-dirty Google search gives 451,000 results, whereas "assault amphibious vehicle" gives 99,000 results). The discussion seems rather brief for one with such wide-ranging implications, what with all the links that'll have to be changed. EyeSerene^talk 20:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Google is about as accurate as a random number generator. Better to use Google Books and flip through all of the search results to get to the end. In any case, amphibious assault vehicle (lowercase) is a generic class of vehicles. I'm going to create that article sooner or later. Marcus Qwertyus 21:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I thought "amphibious assault vehicle" is a more generic name for these type vehicles. Or maybe the USMC's vehcile's name before the designation change to AAV-7A1. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, apologies for my 'doh' moment. I failed to realise the discussion referred to a specific vehicle and not the entire class of vehicles. Please treat my earlier comment with the contempt it deserves :P EyeSerene^talk 09:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Kulp

Hi, we are trying to verify the service record and awarded medals of Nancy Kulp (US). Are there any online military databases publicly accessible to check these? Thanks Span (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but those are all pretty much "I was there" medals and awarded to most service people who served there. The Good Conduct Medal is a little harder to earn, but basically means that you didn't screw up too badly. BTW, it was only awarded to enlisted men and women AFAIK, but the Navy might have had different rules back then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you contact the Navy library location at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington DC they could tell you if they have any info on her. They have biographies of a lot of famous Navy personnel or might be able to get the info you want. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks Span (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Military biography up for AfD

Can other editors please review the AfD for Frank Penale. It has been relisted after only four editors have commented on whether the subject is notable are not. Disclosure; I am the originator of the AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for those who added additional opinions that lead to the closure of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

hi guys i made an article

i made an article about a list that shows the most militarized countries by data from BICC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

i wanted to ask you if you all can help me by making the rest of the list or to tell me if there is some kind of easy way to make the rest of the list with a program or something. I also wanted to know how can i add my article to your project so it can be improved by other active member i know the talk page isnt a good way to write all this.--Shokioto22 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the project. I went ahead and tagged & assessed the article List of countries by Global Militarization Index. It looks like it's off to a pretty good start. I'm not sure what task force to assign it, if any. I'm sure more editors will weigh in soon. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

♠Do you mean to add every single country? 8o IMO, even the top 30, as now, is plenty informative. :)

♠AFAIK, there's no bot to do this; it's all grunt work...

♠I'd also suggest you add some context: what the GMI is, what it does & doesn't count, &, if you can find it, how much the values have changed in the last year, two years, five years. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Also, I'm unclear on the role of the evaluating authority, the Bonn International Center for Conversion. Is that a national organization, NGO, private company? Does it have a known political agenda or who funds it? Are there other organizations that use the GMI? Boneyard90 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

BICC is a thinktank, scrounging for funding like any other. No particular political agenda that I know of, apart from maybe 'conversion,' which is really an early-90s concept and a bit out of date now. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When I read it was in the business of "converting" the bases, I thought maybe it was a high-end scavenging and scrap metal business. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Article contest

To whom this concerns, the contest for February has not been closed yet, nor have the points been totaled yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.231.130 (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, the previous month's contest table should indeed be closed and the current month's table initialised by now. However totalling points for the previous month relies on checking and signing off on entrants' scores, and we're always open to assistance with that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Cross categories

I note that a good percentage of Canadian WWI Victoria Cross recipients were immigrants from Ireland and Britain. Whilst the Irish-Canadians have category for Category:Irish World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross, none of the British ones seem to have the equivalent British category for example: Robert Spall. My question is should we have the two categories for both their countries or have them based on their nationality as at the time of WWI? Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd think their nationality at the time they were awarded the VC, rather than the country of their birth, would be more suitable. Presumably, given their choice to emigrate, they'd have identified themselves as Canadian (unless we feel there's a need for Category:Irish-Canadian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross etc). EyeSerene^talk 15:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that such a category would stand, but good luck. I say this cause a recent deletion of a category that attempted to subdivide recipients from state of origin was recently deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the 'origin' subcat is required TBH, I just want a consistent approach to applying the current cats. My current thinking is to remove the category for their pre-migration country. There are some anomolies such as temporary migrants like William Henry Metcalf who seems to have fibbed about his US nationality to sign-up so I'd leave the American cat on that one Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Canada seems to be tricky. As the article on Canada in World War I says, a large number of those in the CEF were born in the British Isles and belonged to a British-Empire/Canadian mindset. A random sample of the WWI Canadian VCs I just looked at were British-born. Also we haveRobert Edward Cruickshank who emigrated from Canada to the UK while a toddler and is lsited under Category:Canadian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross. Perhaps it would be more constructive to categorize by armed force. Then it becomes Category:Canadian Army World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross which is easier to be clear about. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. It might help to avoid divisiveness about who was what and when, and as Graeme says it's straightforward. EyeSerene^talk 11:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Cat would be Category:Canadian Expeditionary Force recipients of the Victoria Cross as opposed to Army for WWI but it is doable. I think we'd need to retain the Category:Canadian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross for Canadians such as Billy Bishop who served with the RFC? Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly if you want to be specific about the CEF, though you could also have Category:Canadian Army recipients of the Victoria Cross (assuming "Army" as a catchall for the land element in place of specific title during the past) as a higher cat. Bishop would also fall under Category:Royal Flying Corps recipients of the Victoria Cross. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion: Template:Infobox castrum

For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox castrum, currently used in a series of articles on Roman castra. For example Porolissum.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion: Template:Infobox dava

For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox dava, currently used in 91 articles about Dacian cities/fortresses.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Flawed template (2.0)

Hi, is anybody else aware of a fault with Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Good article nominee? The template only accommodates first-time GAN, so if an an editor nominates an article for GA for the second time, the link at Template:WPMILHIST Announcements would lead to the first GAN review page, not the intended second one (see Talk:Bhagat Singh and Talk:Battle of Magdhaba). Could somebody fix this? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the reason no-one's replied is that no-one's sure how :) Maybe Kirill would be the best person to ask about this? EyeSerene^talk 10:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Method for Displaying Military Ribbons/Medals as Worn?

What is the best way to display a person's military ribbons (or medals, for that matter) exactly as worn on there uniform? Are there any templates, or are there other means? As a side note, I would like to get an image of the Operational Distinguishing Device for the Coast Guard's Meritorious Unit Commendation ribbon. Where can I do that? Allen (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus that people's medal ribbons should be displayed at all, let alone as worn on the uniform (see recent discussion here) so I'd refrain from bothering with this until or unless such consensus is reached (disclaimer: I'm one of those against their display). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've been in the United States Navy since 2002, I am all for their display. Allen (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Good on you. Interestingly, I do see a greater predisposition for showing the medals from among our US contributors than from Commonwealth editors such as myself. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, we think you're too ostentatious, and you think we're too stiff and reserved... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think with this subject coming up again and the previous thread now archived, it might be a good time to start that RfC. I'll try and get that going asap. EyeSerene^talk 12:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea - defintiely RFC material. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We were just awaiting your pleasure on that, Eye... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See below :) EyeSerene^talk 13:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: The use of medal ribbon pictograms in articles

The presence of medal ribbon pictograms in articles has been frequently discussed here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because of the re-occurrence of this topic, and the inconclusive nature of the discussions, the coordinators are requesting your assistance in developing a guideline that can be added to our project's manual of style.

Examples of different types of medal pictograms can be found here, here and here. Previous discussions have taken place in varying degrees of detail here, here, here, here, here and most recently here.

As the first stage of this process there are two questions we would like to put to editors:

1. Should medal ribbon pictograms be used in articles?
2. If so, where and under what circumstances?

At this early stage these questions are intended to prompt discussion rather than support/oppose type comments. However, please feel free to respond in whatever way and with as much detail as you wish. The responses will be used to formulate a guideline to be put before the project for consensus at a later date.

On behalf of the coordinators, EyeSerene^talk 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I've been involved in this debate for a long time, and remain firmly in support of including said decorations and images in articles. I come from a US perspective, but I'm sure 90 percent of this debate lies with US articles. Here are my chief reasons.

1. I see this chiefly as a culture divide between American and other military attitudes about imagery of decorations in general. Almost any modern US military biography on a person contains a thorough list of decorations and medals. A quick look at WWII/Korean War casualty lists on abmc.gov and you'll see the time and effort put into accurately researching and maintaining them. Compare US Army unit symbols with those from other nations; US Army units have shoulder sleeve insignia, coats of arms, distinctive unit insignia and combat service identification badges...versus the Commonwealth unit formation patch. The US military has very strong cultural ties with symbolism and images. If we are to accurately cover US military culture, our articles should reflect that weight.
2. Moreover, US military members seem to place great emphasis on these symbols. The effort which has gone into existing "salad bars" -- even on otherwise low-quality articles -- have developed extensive systems meticulous of tables and charts. If we ban these from pages, we will never stop arguing with passing US military anons and IPs about how relevant these are, and they likely make up the majority readership on many of military biography articles. We'll have a nightmare of it, guaranteed.
3. Even an image-free list isn't a very informative in this case; the names of many medals and ribbons just don't lend themselves to that. Can you tell the difference between the Korean Service Medal, the United Nations Korea Medal, the Korean War Service Medal, the Korean Presidential Unit Citation, the Korea Medal or the Korea Defense Service Medal by their names or even a brief description? Five years into writing about the Korean War, I still can't. The images of these ribbons are far more visible in real life, and hence far more useful to the layman who sees them a lot, but rarely hears their complete, extended title.
4. Particularly when a major part of WP:SOLDIER is based on the decorations a person has won, it's clear the decorations add a great deal of encyclopedic value. In this profession they're just as important to career soldiers as the Grammys or Golden Globes for entertainers, and we have many a page dedicated to the awards won by performers, establishing a lot of weight on awards in general on Wikipedia. I would say it is fair weight to include awards, even if they are limited to a single section on the Milbio page.

I've seen a lot of complaints that "Wikipedia is not a picture book" when addressing this issue. To that end, I've tried to limit the images to the most space efficient means possible, this way for individuals and this way for units. I would oppose mandating an image list of awards in any article, particularly for soldiers of nations where less weight is placed on the images of decorations. I would also oppose extensive use of the images in the infobox, biography prose, or anywhere else save a compact section dedicated to them. This will minimalize the disruption, and ensure the images remain of secondary importance in the overall scheme of the articles. —Ed!^(talk) 14:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Ed!'s excellent summary of the issues. I think there's a little room for compromise on the size of the images, but we can't shrink them so much that you can't make out the details, since the details are necessary to disambiguate the images. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The sections do seem unduly prominent, to my eye - it's the fact that they're isolated from running text, with a seperate header, and have a lot of whitespace on either side. Would it be possible to form them into a standard-ish infobox, which is maybe 300px wide and can be floated to one side of the article text as though it were an image? This might help counteract the "appearance of undue weight" issue, which is at the root of a lot of the discomfort some editors have. If it needs to be wide, perhaps we could experiment with a default-collapse wrapper - a lot of articles which have wide genealogical templates near the foot do this. Shimgray | talk | 22:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

For my part I wouldn't be opposed to experimenting with something like that. —Ed!^(talk) 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Most spaceflight articles have a rather clunky template showing the crew on them. This is what it normally looks like, with whitespace; this is a floated version embedded in text which I worked up as an attempt to make it less prominent. Does something like this look workable? Shimgray | talk | 22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach, dear friends...! I tend to agree with Ed on one point (nothing else, much as I admire his work!) and that is that there is a cultural divide here -- I lightheartedly referred to it myself in the discussion immediately above, preceding this RFC. Of course the divide isn't black and white -- some Commonwealth (or at least Aussie) editors like ribbon pictures, and not all American editors seem to want them. Broadly speaking, however, there's something there. Although I'd prefer one rule for all, because there are differences in the award distribution practices (as well as between WP editors' attitudes) I could probably live with US-themed articles displaying the awards and Commonwealth ones not. I also tend to have more respect for someone like Ed who puts in the hard work to create or improve an article in every way -- content, references, style, etc -- and wants to include the award/ribbon sections. I don't have time for the 'drive-by' ribbon-adders, whose only contribution to an article is pretty pictures. Incidentally, I'm quite aware that Ed probably had me in mind when he referred to those who say that "Wikipedia is not a picture book", and I don't back away from it (in fact my own terminology was more along the lines of "not a childrens' picture book"). Regardless of the point of using such images, they do overpower an article -- really, the ones I usually see look almost life-size, which is way over the top, and the articles that include two sets of the ribbons, one in a table giving their name and details, and another in the supposed manner the subject wore them (as has been pointed out elsewhere, prone to OR if nothing else) look even more garish. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I see two issues here, not necessarily my exact opinion but elements of what I think and what I think others have expressed.

1. What seems to some to be a disproportionate amount of the article spent on stating the medals and awards. All important awards should already have been covered in the main text. So a separate section seems to be redundant. (I'll contrast this with battle honours for British units. Though the history of the article may cover the battles and wars a unit has been in these are not necessarily the same as th ename sof the battle honours.) The addition of the images for the medals and awards also adds to the space.
2. The creation of medal bars in the style as worn is possibly synth bordering on OR. Assuing they are recreated from what is known has been awarded and how it is usualy displayed.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, the amount of attention on the awards is almost moot. It's unhelpful and unproductive to tell someone to read through the entire prose for the awards, when it can be done simply with a list. And, as you said, sometimes, awards and honors aren't the same as the campaigns a person may have been a part of. As for the "as worn" rule -- there are strict orders of precedence in the US military demanding where each ribbon be displayed in relation to others, and for other countries it shouldn't be a problem; if campaign ribbons are worn in order they are won, the prose already establishes the order of campaign participation for the individual. —Ed!^(talk) 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If the awards are significant, though, won't they be mentioned in the infobox as well, rather than just the prose? We're repeating the same information three times (in some cases, four, if it's very important and thus in the lede.) Shimgray | talk | 22:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The infobox has never really lent itself to that, either. It's more of a "major highlights and basic info" piece. In general, just like how we don't include every engagement the person has seen, or every single unit a career officer has been through, It's been practice as far as I know to only list a few major awards. The infobox quickly becomes bulky and distracting otherwise. —Ed!^(talk) 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Before this strays too far, it's possibly worth pointing out that the RFC is about the medal pictograms, not whether or not all awards should be listed. NtheP (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The point I'm trying to make is that the lists of awards are necessary, but an image-free list is unhelpful because the names of awards are very obscure. Hope I've been getting that across well. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If the medals are obscure then isn't the likelihood is that for the average reader, the picture means nothing either. Pictures normally serve to illustrate concepts, and captions to explain a picture. I'm not understanding what adding the medal ribbon intends to achieve. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As I said in my above example, there are half a dozen medals with similar names, and while people see the ribbons all the time on military uniforms IRL, they don't really read the titles of them very often, at least in the American military. We don't have titles for people who have won certain awards. —Ed!^(talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but that's where discussions start. I have no problem with pictorial representation of medals received by a subject of the article as long as it isn't intrusive to the body of the article text. Sometimes it's noteworthy to include in the body when a subject received medal X (usually high end 1st or 2nd rate medals of valor) and for what actions, but for lesser medals it usually is not. As it stands, most image displays of the medals received by a subject and citations attached to higher level medals of valor are usually left near the end of the article thus reducing the weight of the content. I am fine with how that is at this time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion and as a former member of the US military I agree with Ed and Dank. These medals and ribbons are an important part of military culture and should be be allowed on the articles. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I write British military biographies, predominantly Chiefs of the General Staff (the professional head of the British Army), and these medal ribbon sections do my head in. These officers all have knighthoods and other huge honours and things like DSOs (also a great honour an highly coveted and not to be undervalued), but at least the first row or two of their ribbons will be honours they have received by virtue of the positions they hold (I think there's some statute or other that dictates that the top few officers in each service are always knighted), and these are mentioned in the prose. Indeed, most of them entitle the officer to post-nominal letters or honorific titles (like "sir") which are included at the very beginning of the article. The rest are usually so common that they're barely worth mentioning. I've never seen honours that are routinely awarded to thousands of people mentioned in print biographies of British officers (or anywhere else except the occasional hobby website), and those that are worth mentioning will be in the prose, in the infobox, and those with post-nominals will be mentioned immediately after the name. I appreciate that American military culture is very different to British or Commonwealth military culture, and that postnoms in particular are largely alien to some nations (especially those that have never had a monarchy), and so I would have no problem with separate systems by country but I oppose the use of these sections on British biographies.

  Aside from the relative insignificance (from an encyclopaedic point of view) of many of the medals and the duplication of the infobox/lead/prose, I have never seen one of these sections in a print biography of a British officer or even a list of anything but the most significant medals, and since Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, I don't see the wisdom in departing from every reliable source I've ever read to research an article. Furthermore, these sections (at least on British biographies—from the handful of American military biographies on my watchlist, there seem to be more sources for American officers' medals) are more often than not based on synthesis, original research, or just plain guesswork (example), though some are at least based on photographs (like this one). In addition, they attract constant drive-by edits, mostly from IPs who do little else, to add an unsourced medal, remove one they don't think the officer has, tweak the image or the name of the medal or something else (and it's difficult to justify reverting the addition of OR to OR), which makes it near impossible to keep it under control (and impossible to get an article through FAC with that sort of section in it). Finally, I think they're an eyesore, and even the ones with proper sourcing add little to no encyclopaedic value.

  Tl;dr? version: I oppose these sections for British officers because they're almost always original research or based on crappy sources, they're redundant, they don't appear in print biographies, they attract drive-by IP edits to add (even more) original research, and they're an eyesore. I have no opinion on the use of these sections for officers of other nationalities. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Fully agree with Harry's points above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, but it looks as if I stirred up a hornets' nest with my question. All I originally wanted to know was how to place my ribbons on my page effectively. I've been in the United States Navy for almost 10 years. It hasn't always been easy, but I am proud of my accomplishments (portrayed by my ribbons/medals). The ribbons/medals/devices should stay, but they should be more intuitive and attractively displayed (not to mention exactly as on a person's uniform). I would appreciate any and all help that the community can provide. On a side note, how is the 4th award of the Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbon displayed? Is it 4 bronze stars or 1 silver star? Also, what kind of star(s)? Service or award? Thank you, everyone, for your help. And, God bless America! Allen (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, we were waiting to have this discussion for awhile. A lot of military types do include their own ribbons on their pages, and a lot of them vary in how they do it. It's really up to you, but we do have templates for ribbon display in our bio articles. I would look to a recent bio such as Jonathan W. Greenert, for help placing them. Consequently, we also put them in tables, such as here. —Ed!^(talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As Ed says, don't worry. We've been having this discussion as long as I can remember (and just finished the last big discussion a month ago...) Shimgray | talk | 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with HJ Mitchell's post above. The inclusion of medal ribbons are not helpful for almost all readers and are not in line with how biographies of military personnel are normally written. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do agree with Ed and HJ that this seems to be a local-difference thing (is it UK vs. everywhere else, though, or US vs. everywhere else?), so hopefully any resulting guideline will reflect that.
• Regarding OR, I was thinking about the matter this afternoon, and came to much the same conclusion. In many cases, there's no comprehensive sourcing available for many people as to what they are entitled to wear - see, for example, the #Nancy Kulp section above. So, especially regarding minor awards, campaign medals and the like, we often have to fall back on original research, such as deciphering and "transcribing" photographs, logically deducing what would have been awarded knowing their circumstances, etc. Because the medal bar images require completeness - omitting something implies it was not awarded, rather than simply not mentioned - editors are likely to feel compelled to include loosely-sourced or assumed information rather than leave a gap. In most cases this is probably harmless, but it does seem like something that might come back and bite us! Shimgray | talk | 22:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Could be very bitey, if not material to start editwars over. Being imperfectly sourced, an editor could remove one or more elements of a medal bar display as "unreferenced". GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we've already had some degree of precedence for that. Tens of millions of US servicemembers lost records of their decorations in the National Personnel Records Center fire, so in cases where it's been confirmed the person's record was lost, we have generally tended to include only the awards we have a verifiable source to include, such as Michael J. Daly or Dolphin D. Overton. In general, this means only major awards are displayed with some explanation that we only add those which have a direct reference for them. So, some decoration lists rely on a compilation of sources and it's just fine if they're incomplete if we have an explanation that the references to complete it don't exist. —Ed!^(talk) 02:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in two minds about this issue. Basically, I agree with Ed.

1. In some cases, the photographs show medal ribbons and the reader will likely be curious about them.
2. Many biographies do give complete lists of them.
3. The recipient may not necessarily be most proud of (or most notable for) the highest decoration awarded
4. In the case of someone who has earned a lot of medals, it seems wrong to omit decorations that would be included in the infobox if they had less.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll get less push-back from Wikipedians if for instance in Jesse L. Brown the display is reduced to roughly 50% or 60% of its current size and put in an infobox inside another section, probably the last section of normal text. I'd vote for a sentence listing the names of the awards rather than a list or table to allow the infobox to be smaller ... if readers can't easily match the list to the awards, they could just hover over any award to get its name. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is not an "US vs. everyone else" issue, it's a decoration vs. non-decoration issue. The articles on the awards have images of the awards. The images are just visually distracting clutter on bio articles. Even aside from other concerns raised. Just from a MOS:ICONS perspective this "cute pictures for their own sake" stuff has to go. Show me any newspaper article about someone that shows a bunch of image of medals next to the prose mentioning they were the recipient of various commendations. It's not typical usage in writing about military people. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As a newspaper journalist, this brings up a good point to me. When I try to write featured articles, I aim to make them as self-contained as possible. It's a common enough criticism of Wikipedia by casual users that it's already too easy to get distracted clicking on links, without deliberately making them click on a bunch of links to figure out which award they're looking for. People really don't care enough to become avid Wikipedians, they just want to get the information they're looking for in the easiest way possible. I consider this a rare case where images really are more efficient at getting the information past more efficiently than descriptions. As for the newspaper quip, I would contend that an attitude of "images should be beneath us unless they're really important" is very old-fashioned, and the exact opposite direction the industry is taking. People prefer illustration where possible, as evidenced by declining use of newspapers as opposed to broadcast and multimedia journalism. To say we should avoid images "for their own sake" is denying one of the great advantages an online encyclopedia has over a print resource with limited space. —Ed!^(talk) 22:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

People prefer illustration when the illustration aids comprehension. The meaning of award ribbons is hardly obvious to the average person (hell, even I only recognise the VC, plus those my father gained in his war service) so they need their names next to them, which will of course be linked, which takes you to an entire article on the award that not only displays the ribbon but the medal itself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)y

Reply to SMcCandlish - I see the point you are trying to makre, but I don't agree with it and here's why. We are not a book or a magazine, we are something else completely so its comparing apples and oranges. Magazines don't have links, categories, infoboxes or a number of other things that are common on Wikipedia articles. I can say though that some magazines do show the whole ribbon display on occassion such as when discussing a Medal of Honor recipient. This is most often done in military magazines such as Leatherneck, the Navy/Army/Marine Corps times or the like but it does happen. We also need to realize that many of these newspapers and magazines would probably "like" to show them but cant do to limitations in space or color. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The argument that we have different rules to print medaia because they have less space, we're online, and so on, doesn't really hold water. I've read many full-length biographies on Commonwealth military figures in order to write articles on them and even with that space to play with I'm yet to see one that illustrated the subject's medals -- most don't even mention the campaign/service medals, only the high honours and decorations for gallantry. As to online resources, the Australian Dictionary of Biography and the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History both have online editions (not simply scans, but dedicated online versions with internal links) and nether has been in any hurry to illustrate entries with medal ribbons either -- I'm afraid they'd start to lose credibility if they did. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

A backlog discovered

Browsing around, I discovered Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists which contains talk pages that are missing B-class checklists. Since there are over 25,000 articles in this category, it seems a bit much for a single person to do, so maybe some MILHIST participants can help go through all these. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate to sound defeatist, but many of us have tried and none have succeeded. Anotherclown (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:B makes this much more expedient. And WP:AWB is your friend. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think another BCAD drive is in order to eliminate the backlog, like the one we did in 2008. —Ed!^(talk) 14:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea and it should be relatively easy to set up. I'm happy to create the pages and start things moving if there's a general feeling that we need a drive to reduce this particular backlog. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would love to participate personally. The current backlog is twice what we had in 2008, so the need is dire I think. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish that some of this could be done with AWB, though this suggestion was dismissed several times in the past. Of course there are several things that would need to be manually verified but that could get the process started anyway. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute at Western Pipe and Steel

A dispute has arisen at Talk:Western Pipe and Steel Company regarding the most appropriate way to refer to the administration of FDR. More opinions would be appreciated. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOICONS

I ran across this: "Brown crashed into a bowl-shaped valley at approximately 40°36′N 127°06′E.": I don't think it's the best use of everyone's time to have an argument about icons and pictographs in running text every time they come up. There's a parameter on that template that allows the icon and coordinates to appear at the top of the article rather than in the text; that generally works for everyone, and so does putting the coordinates and icon in a note at the end or in an infobox. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

[Inserted: when I typed that, an icon appeared before the coordinates, but Dschwen has now changed the default on the {{coord}} template so that most of you won't see that icon now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)]

It depends on the context, which article does that quote come from? For a building I'd expect co-ordinates to be prominently displayed either in the infobox or in the top-right hand corner (or both), but it would be odd in say a biographical article. Co-ordinates mid-prose dont make for compelling reading, but can be useful as that template links to maps. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest the paragraph be rewritten to say "Brown crashed into a bowl-shaped valley, some 6km south-south-east of the Kaema Plateau" and include the coord in a footnote. It's in Jesse L. Brown and Thomas J. Hudner, Jr.. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nev, would it work for you (in general) to put the icon and coords in a related caption near the relevant sentence? I can't swear that that's okay with everyone, but I think that's one of the available compromises. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagishimon's suggestion seems to be the way to go for this article, and would probably work in similar situations. "6km south-south-east of the Kaema Plateau" is a more accessible description than the co-ordinates, and moving them to a note would retain the links to the maps. I don't think it would really belong in the infobox, and it wouldn't make much sense to have them floating in the top-right corner for a biography. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably better to say "Brown crashed into a bowl-shaped valley of the Kaema Plateau" ... my 6m SSE was 6KM SSE of wikipedia's arbitrary pushpin. But yes, and a footnote with the actual coords. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note prior and ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Does Template:Coord violate MOSICON when used in prose?, where a solution has been proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For some reason U-boat articles are prone to lots of inline coords - breaking up the reading experience. It'd be a useful if the icon could be turned off. Anyone fancy having a go at the template to add that function? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Coord and WP:MOS/ICON. Please give your input there on whether the icon should be replaced by an unobstrusive tooltip for coordinates appearing in prose text. --Dschwen 20:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dschwen. Oops! I promise I wasn't forum-shopping when I posted here; I didn't know anyone was discussing {{coord}} again. I ran across the icon in an article at FAC today, Jesse L. Brown. From my perspective, this is really an argument about copyediting and expectations at FAC rather than about programming and guidelines, and I believe there's a consistent consensus at FAC against using them in running text. I don't see a contradiction here that people might object at FAC and not in other forums; there's a long list of issues related to "looking like an encyclopedia" that seem to matter more at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've switched it form in-text icon to a pop-up that appears when you hover the link. --Dschwen 22:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling our graphics troopers

Can anyone help replicate the organisation diagram at http://www.cdi.org/mrp/oft.cfm ? Be a good addition to Office of Force Transformation. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Would this do? EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene, that was very quick. Would you mind rechecking your spelling of 'Technology Implementation' in the graphic? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Uff... :( You wouldn't believe how carefully I read it over and that still slipped through. Correction coming up. EyeSerene^talk 09:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Military history A-class reviews that need attention

G'day all, I know that we decided a while ago not to announce ACRs on the talk page, but there are a few reviews that need some further input so I am posting here to try to bring attention to them. Apologies if this steps on anyone's toes. If anyone is interested, the following reviews need attention:

• Priscus (general) needs another reviewer
• Charles Scott (governor) needs another reviewer;
• 6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps) needs another reviewer;
• 1740 Batavia massacre needs one two more reviewers. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No toe-stepping-on that I can see, Rupert -- we decided to forego the regular announcements of new ACRs, don't think anyone was against highlighting older noms that are languishing for want of attention... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Operational Distinguishing Device

How do we correctly add the Operational Distinguishing Device as a device for the "Ribbon device" templates? Allen (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR free access beta

JSTOR have started a free access beta test [1]. Only a couple of history titles so far available but may be useful to some project editors. Monstrelet (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Map suggestions wanted

I recently undertook to make an SVG version of one of the main images of the Battle of the Bulge. It is currently at FPC, where it looks like it may well pass. If it does, then in about a week's time I should have an opportunity to do a similar job on another, so I could do with some suggestions. The more important the article, the more authoritative a base map, and complex/useful the map is to the reader's understanding are preferable. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a generous offer! I'm planning to nominate Air raids on Japan for FA status sometime soon, and File:Allied naval operations off Japan during July and August 1945.jpg could do with some significant improvements. While it's a professional map on an important topic, it looks like something drawn by a schoolchild, as the locations of ships and arrows are confusing and the elevation details of Japan are unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Krásna Hôrka

The Krásna Hôrka castle in Slovakia was destroyed by fire overnight. I've nominated the article for ITN. Assistance is sought from members of this WP in expanding the article and improving the referencing. Knowledge of the Slovak language would be an advantage. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)