||This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012.
Look at my 43rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment page. Please fix the problem. You'll know it when you see it. Sorry, it's my first real article.
2014 Olsberg mid-air collision
An issue is being discussed at talk:2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to voice their opinions.
Regiment of Riflemen (United States)
The Regiment of Riflemen was an early nineteenth century formation that was raised at the behest of Thomas Jefferson and was disbanded sometime in the early 1820s. More research is required. It served on the Canadian/U.S. border during the War of 1812. It rarely, if ever, fought as a regiment and instead had its companies farmed out to other commanders. There were also a Regiment of (Light) Artillery and a Regiment of Cavalry; those are questions for another day. The Regiment of Riflemen was not a numbered infantry regiment and there may have eventually been four of them, at least on the books. No other unit seems to have inherited its lineage and honors.
As far as I can tell, there is no page with a name resembling "Regiment of Riflemen (United States)" Is anyone aware of us ever having had such a page on Wikipedia?
--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've created Draft:1st Regiment of Riflemen (United States). I'm looking for resources other than primary. There are a number of pages in WP that reference (not link to) the riflemen.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Could anyone comment here? Thanks! Harry J. Malony United States Army Reserve Center. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Help with uniform identification
This image from the Imperial War Museum shows five men in WWI, of whom three are named. I've got a feeling that the IWM caption (which is more or less our caption) is ambiguous. Are the three men really named from the extreme right or are they named from the right of the shell that is shown? My reason for doubt is that William Beach Thomas was a war correspondent and British war correspondents wore armbands, as the middle chap in the three at the right of the shell appears to do. BT was also particularly tall for his era, but both "middle" men - counted from the extreme right and from right of the shell - are clearly taller than the others shown!
The way to clear it up is to work out the uniforms/insignia. Both BT and the other British newspaper chap would have been captains, and the uniform of the Belgian chap should be distinctive from that worn by the Brits. Failing this, I'll have to have a word with the IWM (I know a trustee, which might speed that up, but I'm wanting to take this article to FAC and it could take ages even as an inside job). - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm no uniform expert but only the middle of the three to the left of the shell appear to have British military uniform. Also, the middle figure of the three counting from the right of the picture (the man just to the right of the shell) is wearing an armband. You wouldn't see an armband on the first figure on the right if it was worn in the same position to the other two British figures. Hope that helps. Monstrelet (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to say the one on (our) far right is Robinson - compare this photo. Next one has an armband, just visible, and is probably WBT. The man at the back is probably our Belgian - note the interesting collar on his uniform, which is definitely not British.
- The next British man (second left) is not named but is probably a "real" British officer as an escort/liaison - he's wearing medal ribbons. The final one is another Belgian judging by the uniform. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, compare the figure here. Looks like the same man as the second from right with the same rumpled cap. Monstrelet (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks all, for input so far. Yes. Monstrelet, that was what I was thinking during the GAN. Also, the chap holding the map or whatever, looks very different and has a two-tone band - the correspondents wore, I think, a green armband (no mention of two-tone). As long as I can get some sort of consensus here, I'm happy to face the wrath of FAC ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- After peering a bit more, I'm confident both #1 and #3 (from our left) are Belgian - compare this tunic. I can't seem to find a clear indication for how the rank badges worked at the time but Belgian military ranks suggests that three pips is (currently) used for a captain, and #3 definitely has three dots (though in a triangle not a line).
- I can't identify the British officer's rank insignia, but the medal ribbons are probably the Military Cross (striped) and something else (would have said the DSO, but that would come before the MC not after it). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I am happier now: the comment at the GAN threw me a bit, even though we agreed to let my caption stand. Thanks to everyone for their input. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Jewish Medal of Honour awardees
Two people have been removed form this list, without explanation  and . Any Milhistorian or User:Jayjg who might have an opinion on whether these removals are justified is hereby pinged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
- I've reverted both (and the associated edits to the individuals' bios) - there are plenty of sources that confirm that they were both, A: Jewish, and B: Medal of Honor winners. I'd wager somebody is trying to enforce a stricter definition of who is and is not Jewish... Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Optional country disambiguation of Canadian Expeditionary Force battalions
G'day everyone, a large number of articles have recently been created for the battalions of the CEF raised during WWI. Almost all currently include ", CEF" at the end to disambiguate them from any other "Foost Battalion". There is no information I can see that there were other Canadian battalions with the same numbers (although I will bow to the superior knowledge of others, of course). My view is that they should be disambiguated by country per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME in the same way as the Australian AIF (Australian Imperial Force) battalions of WWI, ie "Foost Battalion (Canada)" rather than "Foost Battalion, CEF", for consistency. I had to think hard (and look at a couple of articles) before I realised "CEF" was equivalent to the Australian "AIF". I don't think people will naturally type in "Foost Battalion, CEF", they are more likely to type in "Foost Battalion Canada" or similar. What say you? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- As with the AIF, they would almost certainly type in "201st Battalion CEF". Like the Australian Army, the Canadian used Kitchener's New Army model, with battalions being raised with numbers and no formal affiliation with existing units. This came after the war. The difference between the AIF and CEF was that instead of sending reinforcement drafts, the Canadians sent whole battalions. Hence the very high numbers. Most were broken up for reinforcements in Britain. Since casualties among the junior officers and the rank and file was higher than among the field officers, the result was an accumulation of field officers in the UK. The numbers are unique, but a series of reserve battalions were formed in the UK, which do not have articles (yet). The CEF battalions have different articles from the battalion that they were affiliated with. So 72nd Battalion (Seaforth Highlanders of Canada), CEF (the only Canadian regiment in World War I to deploy with its traditional regimental number as its CEF battalion number) has a separate article from The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well by example, I just found 5th Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles, CEF and I agree that - in absence of a later 5th Bn of the Mounted Rifles - the CEF is superfluous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would have thought that any that are clearly "Canadian" from their "name" (like the one you identified), could do without the "CEF". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree - it seems unnecessary. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- If, as Hawkeye states, the ordinals are unique, then there is no reason not to drop the CEF and replace it (where necessary) with (Canada). 72nd Battalion (Seaforth Highlanders of Canada), CEF doesn't need (Canada) because it has (Seaforth Highlanders of Canada) instead, so it should just be 72nd Battalion (Seaforth Highlanders of Canada). There are others with provincial names like Ontario or Saskatchewan etc in the title, and they could probably drop the CEF (or (Canada)), as almost everyone will identify them as being Canadian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been asked to help expand this article, but I'm in the middle of a move and have absolutely no time to do so. Would any of the good topic experts here be able to lend a hand? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Having tweaked it a bit - I've found an existing article on the subject: Navy lighterage pontoons. And put merge suggestions up. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Help with Panzer 58 article
Does anyone have any information on the basis for the 90mm gun used by the first prototype of this tank, I theorize it is based on the Pak 57 AT gun but I cannot be sure that it isn't based on the F3 french gun or that it isnt proprietary without more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietrus69 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Bloody good question, can only suggest trying to locate a copy of Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift, Volume 126, 1960, or Panzer und Panzerabwehr, 1982. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not that they are necessarily reliable sources, but there are several websites that state it was a Swiss-designed 90mm gun, and www.militaerfahrzeuge.ch says it was manufactured by Eidgenoessische Konstruktionswerkstaette in Thun, using the designation "1948". Consistent with a prototype using an in-house gun, it obviously didn't meet specs, as they quickly went to the Centurion 20-pounder and then a 105mm for the short run of 10 tanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, I guess I will just have to wait until new information surfaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietrus69 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Undisambiguated USAF units
G'day all, I was just pulled up for pre-emptively disambiguating Eleventh Air Force to Eleventh Air Force (United States), and told that in the case of USAF units, pre-emptive disambiguation is uniformly ignored. I was unaware of this rule, and think that if it is accepted as an exemption, then it should be reflected in WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- The text in the MilMoS says "In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces.....the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created..." Have there been any other cases where nations have numbered "Air Forces"? (The Soviets used Air Army)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. In WWII, the Italian Regia Aeronautica used "Squadra Aerea" which is usually translated by RS as "Air Force". Per "5th Squadra Aerea", for example. Also, it is about a reasonable expectation of use, not necessarily whether it has happened yet. For example, the Chinese currently have regional "air forces" named after regions rather than using ordinals, but would only take a stroke of the pen for them to decide to use ordinals instead. If the USAF was massively larger than any other air force, then the argument might be valid, as it might be unreasonable to think that anyone else would ever use the term, but given the size of the Chinese air force I think it is more than reasonable to expect that First Air Force and other numbers will be used by more armed forces, whether they currently are or not. Given the Italians used ordinals for air forces in WWII, I don't think there are any grounds for an exemption for USAF. I also note that there are a lot of USAF units (not just air forces) that seem to be exempt from this aspect of MILMOS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Eleventh Air Force
moved from Peacemaker67's talk page
Since Eleventh Air Force redirects to Eleventh Air Force (United States) why the need for disambiguation? Getting ready to start an article ? Cheers. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, we pre-emptively disambiguate military units by country per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- A convention that is universally ignored for USAF units. There have been previous discussions on that on the MILHIST talk page. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was unaware of that. My view is I can't see any reason whatsoever why USAF units should be exempt from the policy, but if that is the consensus, perhaps we should add that exemption to MILMOS? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lineagegeek - can you pls provide a link to the relevant discussion? I'm not aware of this either and I don't see any obvious reason why we would treat them any differently. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- IIRC, it's in an archived MILHIST Talk page, and my limited computer skills won't let me locate it without devoting all my Wiki time to the effort. My recollection of the discussion was that it was decided to let this exist as a legend. Even if omitting the (United States) from the page is US-centric, establishing a special rule for US units would be even more US-centric. I think inertia was a factor as well. I would estimate that between 5000 and 10,000 pages would have to be moved for the USAF alone. In addition to the page you moved, I'm only aware of a couple of USAF unit articles (air divisions) that include (United States). A quick peek at "field artillery battalion" indicates that the US army is a mixed bag of articles with and without the designator. US Navy articles generally avoid the issue by titles like VMF-nnn or USS Foo. If the discussion is as hidden in archives as I suspect, perhaps it's time to reopen the subject. My sense is that there is little need for the disambiguation because most non-English speaking country's aviation units tend to have names like Lufttransportgeschwader n or Escadrille de Chasse n even on the English Wikipedia. Commonwealth units tend to be in the form No. n (Fighter) Squadron, rather than nth Fighter Squadron. I can think of an exception for Canadian units for specific cases, since I believe they now use the form of n Fighter Squadron (although I think their squadrons are all numbered in the 400s because of their past as RAF units), which could be confused with nth Fighter Squadron. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm copying this to the MILHIST talk thread so we can have the discussion in front of the whole community. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- MILMOS#UNITNAME says the unit should be pre-emptively disambiguated when other use is likely - not always, or as a hard-and-fast rule. There is very little need to disambiguate most USAF units because they use a unique kind of technical jargon rarely seen elsewhere. Nowhere else in the world will you find a 55XXth Tactical Fighter Training Squadron - the Brits would simply have X Squadron RAF, the Canadians have X Squadron RCAF, the French don't use this kind of complex name, Israel = X Squadron (Israel) and the Russians/Chinese etc work on the Regiment, not the Wing. Anyone who wishes me to go on about the way we disambiguate military aerial units, I can, but as far as I can see at the moment, there is not need to change MILUNIT and stipulate mandatory usage of (United States). 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFF being raised here, and frankly, I'm not much interested in it. This discussion began regarding the Eleventh Air Force, not individual USAF squadrons. Naturally, en WP involves a lot of Anglo/US-centric stuff, which is really not justifiable or consistent. In my view, all the USAF "Foost Air Force" articles should be disambiguated with (United States), because we had at least five if not more Italian "Air Forces" in WWII. That is as far as I want to get right now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- With the limitation to Eleventh Air Force in mind:
- As to the possibility that some large nation might rename a geographical air unit to a numbered air force: 1-7, 9 (the first one), 11 (the first one), 16, 21 and 22 US Air Forces have all started off with other designations, with all except for Ninth being geographical, and 6, 7, 11 (the first one) and 23 (the first one) have all gone from numbers to another name so it might happen.
- As to the liklihood preemptive disambiguation is needed for NAFs. It's possible but it hasn't happened.
- As for exact duplication, except for a brief period in 1942, the US convention is that the numbers of its air forces are spelled out. Therefore, it is always Eleventh Air Force. That seems to make it less likely that a duplicate would be more likely to be 11th Air Force, People's Liberation Army. If that were to happen, it would be simple to change 11th Air Force from a redirect to a disambiguation page, or use a hatnote like 11th Air Force redirects here. For the 11th Air Force, Peoples Liberation Army, see . . .. Thanks for clarifying that you are only talking about the NAFs. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right. Peacekeeper67 has a point. PK67, please provide some sort of source regarding the Italian X Air Forces, then we better start disambiguating numbered air forces. It was my view that up to now, there were no other numbered air forces (the Luftflottes being the closest, sometimes translated as Air Forces, but better as Air Fleets or even better still left untranslated), but if there are, we need to disambiguate, and English-language/important-air force parochialism should not stand in the way.... Buckshot06 (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. A high quality source for the use of "Air Force" as a translation of Squadra Aerea used by the Italians is Walter Boyne's Air Warfare: An International Encyclopedia - Volume 1 p. 519. With Luftflotten, it at least is generally understood as meaning "air fleet", just by looking at it, due to our familiarity with Luftwaffe and the similarities of the English and German words for "fleet", so I can see why many would not want to translate it into English. However, Squadra Aerea doesn't have that "advantage", to look at it, you might think it was "air squadron", which is actually squadriglia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation hiring an experienced humanities editor
Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Battle of Messines (1914) I put a location map into the infobox but bungled the red dot for Messines. Does anyone know how 'tis done? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed, took me a while to notice, but you had the values for latitude and longitude swapped. (Hohum @) 22:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops, egg on face. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
30 SW and questionable editing
I have been monitoring the work of 30 SW (talk · contribs) for months now, and have been trying to fact-check his new articles. Oftentimes, he creates articles that are so overly-technical in their detail that they read like a technical manual. At the same time, both Tdrss and I have noticed that there are many articles with outright fabrications (Clear Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field being created under another name because they found one source of questionable reliability) or are questionably notable (Cheyenne Mountain Shooting Complex, for one). I am wondering if anyone else has had an issue here with them and to see if people want to proceed with some sort of mentoring program, as they are useful to the project, but they are starting to become a burden to all that we do here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but I decided there were more productive things to do on Wikipedia than engage in an edit war. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- I also have severe concerns regarding this editor. Open to suggestions as to the way forward. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: I have thought of bringing the user to AN/I, but I wanted to discuss the issue here before we went there. I have left them messages on their talk page before to no effect. Blocks probably won't occur unless they show complete incompetence, although we're also bordering on the line of that at this very moment, so I could see it happening in the near future. What would you advise, as I don't want to see them thrown off the project, but if they can't reform, that might be the best option. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have been advised in similar cases to consider WP:RfC/USER. Suggest you consider that page, then e-mail me. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Henry Wheeler (signalman)
Can anyone find any service records for Henry Wheeler (signalman) (British navy, served in WWII), please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: are you sure that WP:BIO is met here? A single appearance on a radio show doesn't seem sufficient. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah - he fails the various alphabet-soups pretty hard, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's not a single appearance on a radio show; that's an entire radio show about him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
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 non-free 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 at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kprtqrf06.
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) 13:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Howard Eugene Beagle - notability
Howard Eugene Beagle is clearly somebody who died with "extraordinary heroism" and was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. The article is almost all a copy of a report of his actions that lead up to his death. Not an expert on American military bios but it doesnt look enough for a stand-alone article? MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- A Google Books search does not bode well. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER, the DSC is the second highest award for gallantry, but as a sergeant I don't think he is ever likely to meet the guidelines. I'd PROD it etc.Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Chinese Spring Offensive
Gday another editor has made a decent start on an article for the Chinese Spring Offensive (an action in April and May 1951 during the Korean War). I've gone through it and tried to assist where I could but it could do with a few more editors having a look. In particular it needs a copy edit and some more references. Would be good if someone knowledgeable on this period could read over it to fact check it too. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, look on the bright side, if this article is properly developed, fact checked, opposing POVs examined and remain neutral, this will the be the first time in Korean War historiography that someone wrote an comprehensive history of Chinese Spring Offensive. No pressure of course. Jim101 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
Under WP:SOLDIER, is a colonel who brevetted to brigadier automatically considered to be notable?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Beginning with a question: What military? In the nineteenth century US Army brevets were usually a way of honoring individuals, because until the War to Preserve the Union introduced decorations there was no other way to recognize distinguished service. If the brevet was in the nature of an award I would think it would not make the individual a flag officer automatically. That being said, remember the word "usually" If there are reliable sources about the individual be bold, if not, I would not think the notability requirement would exist. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- U.S. Army. The officer in question was Thomas A. Smith, who was the colonel of the Regiment of Riflemen. (We have a page for a Thomas A. Smith but he's a twentieth century person.) During the War of 1812, Smith was brevetted to BG and commanded larger forces. After the war ended, he reverted to his former rank and resumed command of the Riflemen for a time.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fort Smith, Arkansas got its name from "our" Smith.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good start, but WP:SOLDIER is a Milhist guideline, WP:GNG is the main one. It requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. If you have that, you're fine regardless of what rank he was. Commanding a regiment and above, and having a fort (and city) named after him bodes well, but the key is the coverage. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. When I'm sure my current project isn't dead on arrival, I'll start working on Smith. What's a good page name since his name is already in use? I think I saw his middle name somewhere, but I'll have to find it again.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Probably Thomas A. Smith (soldier) would be best, unless your fellow is far more notable than the current one (which might well be the case), then we might need to move the current one to Thomas A. Smith (scientist) and have your fellow at Thomas A. Smith. You'll probably need a tag at the top of each article to point where the other is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- - (e/c) Smith is listed as "Thomas Adams Smith" in Fort Smith, Arkansas, but that is uncited. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just found "Adams" in the Papers of Andrew Jackson. Thanks.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Photos of medals - anywhere they can be useful?
I took some photos of my grandfather's World War II medals - he just got the standard complement of "participation" medals (3 campaign medals, victory medal, honorable service lapel and honorable discharge button) and posted them on the commons. For the ones that have an article and where appropriate, I'm incorporating the photos into the article (American Campaign Medal, for example), but I thought I'd mention it in case you guys would find it useful elsewhere. I've collected them in a gallery in my userspace here. The one medal where I don't see an obvious place for it is this one, the US Navy Honorable discharge button. I don't see that it has its own article. Any suggestions on where this might be aappropriate? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to create a gallery on Commons for military discharge papers/memorabilia/medals/ribbons/etc, and put it there, and then link to it from military discharge
- The only place it could currently be used here is Military_discharge#Honorable -- 22.214.171.124 (talk)
Can someone please translate this into English. I found it impossible to fathom!--Petebutt (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It looks okay to me, except for the fact that it is a textbook-case of the most bare bones summary imaginable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Last call for comments on the article talk page with regard to the proposed split of the article Presidential Unit Citation (United States) into two separate articles; one containing the general information about the ribbon, and the other containing the recipient units of the citations. The consensus so far has been to split the article; however, I would like to get further input before actually attempting such a split. Please leave your comments on the talk page of the article along with any ideas and suggestions. I will leave this open for 30 days before attempting any action or inaction. The proposed split has been open since December 2013. Thank you. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
American Civil War – Death Statistics – According to the Dyer Compendium
I have completed a small page (as noted above) of the death statistics in the Dyer Compendium (Volume 1) from the 1959 edition. I'm going to be moving the sandbox-type-page to a userpage of mine and what should it be named as? Remember I do have an "American Civil War Regiments" subpage already. Adamdaley (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)