Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MILHIST)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
review
Contest Awards Members
Shortcut:

CfD Category:Former_military_equipment_of_the_Philippines[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_8#Category:Former_military_equipment_of_the_Philippines

All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Style of operation names[edit]

This topic was just archived. I thought this should be left open for about 30 days before acting on the consensus indicated. I have copied it back for continuity. Is there any way to prevent archiving before some reasonable pre-determined time? Further comments invited. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A recent discussion has occurred regarding this. It is apparent that there is no consistent format for referring to 'Operation XYX'. Common formats are:

Operation XYZ
Operation XYZ
Operation XYZ (less common)

There are also occurrences of single and double quote marks being applied to the full phrase and the codename only. All of these permutations occur in Milhist FAs on operations. In some cases, there is not even consistency within the articles. Few articles use italics at all for the page name but many use the second format within the article (Operation XYZ). Some articles (not necessarily FAs) don't use italics in the first occurrence that is bolded but do elsewhere (see Operation Barbarossa). In List of World War II military operations, the operation names are all in itaics (but the names in the list are not preceded by 'operation').

Complicating matters is the use of 'foreign' language words for operations by both English and non-English speaking 'countries' and the question of whether a name is a foreign word, such as Barbarossa. It might be easier to use the same format regardless of potential variations such as foreign language.

The lack of consistency indicates a need for guidance in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history. This could be placed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Operational codenames, as a suggestion. For discussion. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. In my experience, the first of those three options is the most common one, and the one normally used by modern historians. There's also the issue of whether the second half of operations' names should be all caps (eg Operation OVERLORD), with modern usage generally being to avoid this (it seems to be common in professional military works and older histories). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that there are a couple of 'foreign named' operations, the FAs on operations use the first two about equally. No, I didn't actually count them but it is not predominantly one or the other, using this sample. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A further matter to be considered is the formatting/style when the operation name is not cited in this format (Operation XYX) but, for example, as 'the XYZ operation' or 'convoys of XYZ'. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Small caps (after an initial normal cap) is another style common in printed sources. Small caps states:

They are used in running text to prevent capitalized words from appearing too large on the page, and as a method of emphasis or distinctiveness for text alongside or instead of italics, or when boldface is inappropriate.

One perspective is that an operation's name is 'just a code word'. Another is that it is the title of the 'operational plan', as well as referring to the implementation of the plan (if it was implemented). I think it is fair to observe that operation names are universally identified as proper nouns. My own preference is subordinate to the issue of defining a consistent style. Having said that, it is probably unreasonable to expect that a determined format should be imposed retrospectively, notwithstanding that articles should be internally consistent. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording[edit]

Two wordings are proposed on the presumption that one of the following will be the preferred style that will be adopted.

Operation Xyz
Operation Xyz

As a suggestion, the proposed wording could be placed as a sub-heading after Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Operational codenames.

Style of operation names (option one)[edit]

References to operations are be in accordance with the following examples, noting the use of capitals in the examples.

The Axis plan, Operation Xyz, was a proposal for the invasion of ...
The Xyz operation called for a combined overland and amphibious ....
Troop movements in preparation for Xyz commenced in ...

Operation Xyz is a compound proper noun and capitalised accordingly. No emphasis such as quote marks or italics are added even in the case of foreign words such as the following. A distinction is made when the correct foreign name or a translation is being offered.

Operation Rimau
Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa")
Operation Wunderland (German: Unternehmen Wunderland)

Boldface is used to highlight the first occurrence of the title word in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence or when the operation name is a redirect to a page about the associated battle or an alternative name for the operation as follows.

The Normandy landings (codenamed Operation Neptune) were the landing operations on 6 June 1944 ...
Operation Torch (initially called Operation Gymnast) was the ...

While pages should apply a consistent style within themselves this amendment to the Manual of Style/Military history does not mandate compliance by pages created before [insert date of adoption].

Style of operation names (option two)[edit]

References to operations are be in accordance with the following examples, noting the use of capitals in the examples.

The Axis plan, Operation Xyz, was a proposal for the invasion of ...
The Xyz operation called for a combined overland and amphibious ....
Troop movements in preparation for Xyz commenced in ...

'Operation Xyz' is a compound proper noun and capitalised accordingly. No variations in emphasis such as quote marks are added even in the case of foreign words such as the following. A distinction is made when the correct foreign name or a translation is being offered.

Operation Rimau
Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa")
Operation Wunderland (German: Unternehmen Wunderland)

Italics are omitted from a page title as in the following example.

Operation Overlord

Boldface is used to highlight the first occurrence of the title word in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence or when the operation name is a redirect to a page about the associated battle or an alternative name for the operation as follows. In this case, the italics is omitted.

The Normandy landings (codenamed Operation Neptune) were the landing operations on 6 June 1944 ...
Operation Torch (initially called Operation Gymnast) was the ...

While pages should apply a consistent style within themselves this amendment to the Manual of Style/Military history does not mandate compliance by pages created before [insert date of adoption].

[Editorial note: not using italics in the page title or in the first (bolded) occurrence is suggested to avoid some complexities that might otherwise arise. This second option could be readily adapted to any variation other than the first option.]

Invitation to comment[edit]

Hi all, in the spirit of getting a consensus I invite comment on my suggestions.

  1. What style do you think should be adopted?
  2. How should this be worded / what ammendments would you make to the proposed wording?

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just found a reference that may carry some weight.

Military operations. The names of military operations are capitalized and italicized (Operation Just Cause). After first reference, the name can be used alone (without the word operation). (National Defense University Press Publication Submission Guidelines and Style Sheet http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/style-guidelines.pdf)

Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how much that helps on en WP when different English-speaking countries use quite different formats. Australian, Indian, Canadian and UK forces use plain text all caps for operation names, per this, this, this and this, ie Operation CATALYST. I think plain text lower case (ie Operation Catalyst) is a good compromise between the major English speaking armed forces, taking into account the WP MOS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
South African ops are usually also in caps. OPS PROTEA, OPS SMOKESHELL etc. I don't think it's practical to have a standard between different countries. Possibly though a solution might be to create a template for ops names similar to the one for ships for example SAS President Kruger so that formatting can be re-done in one foul swoop if/when required? BoonDock (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for not including South Africa. All Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries probably use a similar pattern, Zawed might know the Kiwi approach. I am an Aussie and ex-military, but my view is that neither the all caps or italics approaches are really in the letter or spirit of the WP MOS as it stands, so we should adopt an approach that stays within the WP MOS guidance re: italics and caps. This is why I am advocating the plain text title-case version. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
No apologies needed :-). One of the reasons I used the SAS Template as an example is the particular convention that ship's names are in italics, but not the SAS/HMS/etc part which makes for complicated wiki-code especially if WikiLinking it. I thought that something like {{OPS|PROTEA}} could work well because then case and formatting could be decided in the template script and if the consensus changed, then the formatting could be changed, irrespective of what that change is. It might be a good idea to add a country option to the template so that there is one template but each country could maintain their list of ops etc. Something similar to the Post-nominals template. BoonDock (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The preceding discussion noted the uses outside Wiki, including all caps and small caps which are used in the US histories. There is also a reference to small caps being used to add emphasis in a similar way to italics. What appears apparent to me is that the 'codeword' does usually have some sort of 'emphasis' (caps, small caps, inverted commas, italics etc) attached to it. My observation would be that an adopted style should be in keeping with having some sort of emphasis and this is not in keeping with option one. Secondly, an option based on caps or small caps is not generally in keeping with Wiki style. My third observation is that the conventional use of italics for operations in campaign boxes supports the wider use of italics. I would not suggest different national styles. The aim is to establish one consistent style. While it is good to look ahead to implementation, I think we need to come up with something to implement first. It was not my intent that this should cause a mad scurry of change. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Try this.

Operation Protea Only the simplest functionality, but maybe something to work on? BoonDock (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should avoid templating operation names - it adds very little benefit while making our articles more complicated to edit and maintain. (I've never been convinced the ship templates are worth the effort, either). I don't see us changing our mind on how to handle these six months down the line, so preparing for future change isn't really an issue. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option One. I'll look at the wording over the next few days and see if I have any suggestions. Up-front, I don't agree with a "not mandatory before" date, as with other WP guidelines, when they are implemented, all articles should be brought into line with them as the opportunity arises. Doesn't mean they are going to be put up for re-assessment because they have a different text formatting for operation names, just that they can be brought into line with the guidelines without starting an edit war. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 seems more natural to me (in keeping with a general trend of avoiding special formatting emphasis unless needed). However, there seems to be a well-established practice to italicise operations in campaign navboxes (eg {{Campaignbox Normandy}}, to distinguish them from battle names, and I think this is reasonable - perhaps worth mentioning it as an exception? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) @Andrew Gray
  • Option 1. But, I'd note that the MOS discourages bolding links, so rather than either Operation Neptune, the

Normandy landings or The Normandy landings, Operation Overlord, I'd prefer Operation Neptune, the invasion of Normandy or The Normandy landings, Operation Overlord. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Option 1 is what I would prefer, but I would point out that U.S. Military style guides circa Vietnam War used all caps for operations in all instances. An example would be OPERATION MARKET TIME mentioned on several pages of this U.S. Navy monthly summary of operations for June 1968. It is also notable that individual last names of sailors mentioned in the same report are all caps, as well as ship names. Personally, I believe this to be a bit much to the readers eye and would much prefer Operation Market Time or USCGC Point Marone (WPB-82331) over OPERATION MARKET TIME or USCGC POINT MARONE (WPB-82331). Wikipedia style guides currently specify the style for ships names and I believe that Option 1 comes the closest to conforming to that same style for operation names. Andrew Gray's suggestion about campaign navboxes should be given serious consideration as an exception to the option as it eliminates some confusion for the reader. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Just an observation that the example you give is typed and with a standard typewriter, there are very few options to give emphasis to text - all caps is one and it does not change the rate of typing like underline. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Good call, however, I don't believe that emphasis was needed in the first place. Thanks for the comment. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see the need for emphasis. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, I think Option 1 is probably best (e.g. Operation Coburg) as it is consistent with what is at WP:MILTERMS: "operations and so forth are capitalized (Spanish Civil War... Operation Sea Lion)..." Thanks for your work on this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My preference is option 1, on the grounds that it's what's normally used by modern mainstream historians. I agree that a template would be undesirable - the MOS is only a guideline, and we shouldn't imply that editors are locked in to this option if they don't like it (or, more importantly, all their sources use italics or all caps and they want to reflect this). Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I incline (geddit?) towards Operation Italic but I'm happy to go with the majority view. I wouldn't like all capitals though.Keith-264 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No to All-caps - that might be a necessity when writing out military orders but doesn't fit with the MoS. I don't think italics are necessary either. So that puts me with Option 1.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (e.g. Operation Tor Ghar) as it seems to be the most common approach used on wiki and is MOS compliant. IMO its not really relevant what format various militaries use (which has changed over time too I might note), we should be following our styleguide and applying it consistently. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 would be my preference. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Look's to me like we have a consensus for Operation Coburg. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, I intend adding option one (as follows) as a sub-heading after Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Operational codenames. I have amended it to include the exception of italicising operation names in campaign boxes. I have omitted the original reference to bolding only for the first occurance of the page's name in the lead since it is addressed by formatting style and is redundant (it really only applied to option 2). Would you mind confirming that this reflects the consensus please (particularly re campaign box)? Then I will make edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Style of operation names (option one)[edit]

References to operations are to be in accordance with the following examples, noting the use of capitals in the examples.

The Axis plan, Operation Xyz, was a proposal for the invasion of ...
The Xyz operation called for a combined overland and amphibious ....
Troop movements in preparation for Xyz commenced in ...

Operation Xyz is a compound proper noun and capitalised accordingly. No emphasis, such as quote marks, boldface (see special case, below) or italics are added even in the case of foreign words such as the following. A distinction is made when the correct foreign name or a translation is being offered.

Operation Rimau
Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa")
Operation Wunderland (German: Unternehmen Wunderland)

Links to articles in a campaign box are to be italicised but are not preceded by the word 'Operation' – ie "Cartwheel" only. Refer to the example in the Solomon Island campaign box for an actual example.

Boldface is used to highlight the first occurrence of the title word in the lead section in accordance with MOS format of the first sentence (lead). It is also used (almost exclusively in the lead) when the operation name is a redirect to a page about the associated battle or an alternative (synonymous or nearly synonymous) name for the operation as in the examples that follow [see also MOS:BOLD, particularly the section on Other uses (of boldface)]:

For the article, Normandy landings, the lead opens: Normandy landings (codenamed Operation Neptune) were the landing operations on 6 June 1944 ...
For the article, Operation Torch, the lead opens: Operation Torch (initially called Operation Gymnast) was the ...

Amendment to final draft[edit]

Following discussion with @Lineagegeek (see User talk:Cinderella157#Operation names), I have made explicit that boldface is also an unacceptable form of emphasis. To accomodate this, I have essentially reverted to the original draft amendment with some minor tweaks for clarity. To be very clear, this draft in no way alters the accepted use of boldface in the lead, as it is detailed in the MOS. It is included to clarify this specific context. Without this clarification, the inclusion of boldface ("No emphasis, such as quote marks, boldface ...") might otherwise create a conflict of style with the MOS. An inclusion of the example, Operation Torch, will require some minor changes, including a move, since the article title presently italicises Torch. I do not perceive that any of these changes to the final draft are inconsistent with the consensus already obtained but I will leave this open for at least 24 hours before proceeding. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

International Brigades[edit]

  • The article doesn't inform about NKVD activities in Spain.
  • Notable associated people contains Nordahl Grieg, who probably never has visited Spain. I would prefer to be informed who was a soldier and who produced propaganda in his armchair.Xx234 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Although Grieg did spend time in Spain, during the civil war, he did so as a war correspondent. So he was no armchair propagandist. Sympathetic to the brigades, but not as a member. If you feel there's room for improvement, go do it. Manxruler (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mystery minesweeper[edit]

What was the name of the minesweeper that was built by Bath Iron Works in 1930 which subsequently became a sealing vessel named Beater that was wrecked in Hurricane Daisy in 1962? Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing obvious at http://www.hazegray.org/shipbuilding/biw2.htm MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The two in Albatross-class minesweeper (1940) were built 1930/31 at Bath as trawlers and taken into service in WWII. This may be your best bet to try and find the ship - dig through the auxiliary lists for similar cases. It doesn't look like any minesweepers were built as minesweepers that year. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Grackle and Goldfinch are also possibles. Couldn't see any other obvious cases. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Grackle seems the likelest candidate, but nothing to positively pin her down. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Got it! It was in fact Goldfinch; Grackle was lost in 1954. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
USS Goldfinch (AM-77) then? Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've expanded the article a bit. Details for 1946-60 are lacking though. 1930-40 could also do with some filling. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please help evaluate a draft at AFC[edit]

Wanted: Naval/NATO specialists to help evaluate Draft:Centre of Excellence for Operations in Confined and Shallow Waters for acceptability into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone, someone, please... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The COEs I have assessed as effectively non-notable programme offices or suchlike, and are only listed briefly at Allied Command Transformation. I will collect up the key data and add a para to ACT, and then would recommend that this page is added but only as a redirect. Addend: Looking more closely, it's actually a doublehat for the German Navy's Flotilla 1 (de:Einsatzflottille 1) at Kiel, so will add the para to German Navy with a link at ACT. Anyone who's really willing to help (User: W. B. Wilson?) could do a little translation of the de article for Flotilla 1 and then the whole kit and caboodle would have a proper place. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lloyd's List 1741 - 1826[edit]

I've recently discovere that copies of LLoyd '​s List for 1741 - 1826 are available online. There's a wealth of material available that will be of use in detailing the history of British warships in service during that period. Link available at WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

German Army (1935-46)?[edit]

German Army (1935–45) has recently been renamed German Army (1935–46). As most historians, I would regard 8 May 1945 to mark the end of the German Armed Forces. The editor who made the move obviously expresses a different opinion [1]. As there have been a lot of changes to other articles already, I was wondering whether this move is supported by general consensus? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is on the basis of a small contingent of feldgendarmerie is similar who were kept on by the Allies to keep order etc. Seems pretty thin to me. The sources must be pretty clear as to when it was disbanded? Essentially, it was not under its own control from the surrender, so how it had any real existence after that date is beyond me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that all elements of the Nazi state, and especially its military, ceased to exist in 1945, with the surviving military units ceasing to exist as their personnel entered captivity. The source (available on Google books) states that the Army was "officially dissolved" by a regulation on 1 August 1946, so this seems to be confusing bureaucratic housekeeping for something meaningful: the German Army certainly wasn't a functioning organisation for long after early May 1945. I'd suggest that this be moved back to its original title. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Er, the Army was not a "Nazi state", but the official military of Germany, and it didn't "cease to exist" in 1945, because it had millions of conscripted soldiers under obligation to serve, in fact it was a huge organization for months after 8 May. It was dissolved in August 1946 by the Allied control council, after being demobilized. Can you offer any evidence that the army had been demobilized already by 8 May 1945? Are you accusing the Allies of holding millions of prisoners, who were initially taken as prisoners of war, after they were no longer soldiers, a very grave violation of the laws of war? A key point here is that when you are a prisoner of war, you are still actively serving military personnel. If you are no longer military personnel, you are entitled to be released immediately. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the source meek Wiki standards of reliability etc? If so and 1 August 1946 is the legal terminus date, then so be it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Large has written widely and recently on a variety of German WWII subjects, and the book is published by a mid-range university press. So I'd say, yes, definitely WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The test seems to be whether this is a commonly held view. The wording in the book ("officially dissolved" is rather different to just "dissolved" as it indicates that the action was a formality) certainly doesn't provide conclusive support for a 1946 disbandment date. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, does the date have significance beyond legalism, perhaps to do with a debate about continuity or change or does something flow from it, like the rearmament of W. Germany, which is subject to commonly held views and Large has a minority view so far? If so, perhaps the 1945 headline date would better on the commonly held view criterion but with a caveat somewhere on the representing of minority views proportionately criterion. Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a review here [2] (E. N. Peterson) which might help. Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at article I of Kontrollratsgesetz Nr. 34, Auflösung der Wehrmacht, vom 20. August 1946 (Allied Control Council Law no. 34, Dissolution of the Wehrmacht, from 20 August 1946) and de:Kontrollratsgesetz. On 20 September 1945 the Control Council proclaimed that all military units, organizations, etc. are to be disolved. I think the reasoning is sound that the Wehrmacht, and thus the German Army, did exist (at least legally) until 1946. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that the law dissolving the Wehrmacht became effective on 26 August 1946. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a fact then but is that enough according to Wikicriteria? Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled in 1954 that the Wehrmacht ceased to exist on 8 May 1945 (full text in German) after the Federal Court of Justice of Germany had ruled so earlier. ACC Law no.34 merely states that the Wehrmacht is considered to be dissolved. That law itself was revoked in 1949 by the Allied High Commission, would that mean, that the German Army came into being again?
But the question is rather, whether there are any scholars who support the claim that the German Army existed as an organization well into 1946 and how to deal with the fact, that most historical accounts on German armed forces stop with the unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht, including the Army, was only dissolved on 20 August 1946 by the Allied control council, after it had been demobilized from the summer of 1945 onwards and through 1946. (Large, David Clay (1996). Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era, p. 25). It would be impossible to demobilize the army and the rest of the Wehrmacht in just one day or less, and that was certainly not the case either. The Wehrmacht had millions of serving soldiers in the months after 8 May, who were then prisoners of war, under military command (with the wehrmacht military justice passing out sentences to them if they did not obey the officers), wearing uniform, and not demobilized yet. There was a lot of Wehrmacht activity going on after 8 May 1945, with millions of serving soldiers stationed in multiple countries. If the army had been dissolved on 8 May 1945, then the millions of conscripted soldiers would no longer be under any obligation to serve, not be under military command and would have to be released immediately from the powers holding them as prisoners of war under international law. The notion that the Wehrmacht suddenly ceased to exist in just one day is laughable and contrary to what happened, and to the decision of the allied control council. It is also a grave accusation of a serious violation of the laws of war against the Allies, who would have committed a war crime if they had held all these people prisoners after they were no longer soldiers. It is also a serious misunderstanding of what surrender means to think this means the army ceases to exist by this fact itself (and immediately). The Wehrmacht ceased to exist in this case after the soldiers had been repatriated and demobilized, as required, and after the allied control council formally decided that the army was dissolved in 1946. We are talking about a huge amount of activity in the year or so after the war ended, with the Wehrmacht as a very real and very large organization in the months after the war. Calling all this activity and all these millions of POWs just a "bureaucratic detail" is simply wrong. Also, it would be very unfair to the Allies who abided by international law in this matter to portray it as if the Wehrmacht had been dissolved more than a year before the Allies actually dissolved it after demobilizing it correctly in accordance with the laws of war. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If consensus dictates that August 1946 is the date of dissolution, the proper date is 26 August, not 20 August. The cited document states: " in Kraft getreten am 26. August 1946 " or, in force effective 26 August 1946. Peacemaker pointed this out earlier, I'm just clarifying for those not clicking on the link he provided. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The German court ruling, 1 BvR 371/52 needs to be put in context. The court processed the case of a former Major of the Wehrmacht, who processed against de:131er. 131er was a colloquial term referring to servants of the state (including professional soldiers), who due to the war lost their job. In a nutshell, the court ruled over a job relationship and pensions. The court also ruled that "Proclamation No. 2, the directive no. 18 and the Law no. 34 of the Control Council shall, insofar as they relate to the dissolution of the Wehrmacht, has only declaratory nature." Back to the naming problem, an alternative way to distinguish the German Army of the Third Reich era from the other German Armies could be achieved by naming the article "German Army (Wehrmacht)". This is in line with how we disambiguate the various divisions of the Wehrmacht. It gives the editors the opportunity to address the issue over the exact date when the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Heer ceased to exist, in a content discussion. Also note, that the de:Wiki article de: Wehrmacht states that the Wehrmacht officially ceased to exist in August 1946. Also noteworthy, the last German forces surrendered on 4 September 1945, see Operation Haudegen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
On a side note, I find it interesting that the article named German Army links to the article of the German Army of the current Bundeswehr. In terms of historic significance, the army of the Bundeswehr is probably the least known German Army of them all. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
... except in Afghanistan.... Keith-264 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Had a quick look at Wikipedia:Article titles. The arguments here are somewhat pedantic, notwithstanding that the information is relevant to the content of the article. I would suggest that the principle of "common recognizability" applies here IAW the MOS. I suggest that 1935–45 is more commonly recognizable. I note that the title used does not limit the scope of the article to just those dates. IAW MisterBee1966, "German Army (Wehrmacht)" may well be a better title but not German Army (1935–46). Cinderella157 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, MB's suggestion of German Army (Wehrmacht) is a very neat one. I think it should be moved to that, and would support an RM. It eliminates the pedantry about 1946, in the title at least. So far as the dates are concerned, I believe we should defer to the OUP official history rather than primary docs like laws. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine. There is no benefit from the slightly inaccurate 1935–45 or the completely foreign Wehrmacht to the vast majority of readers. Let's just stick with pedantically accurate dates—the readers who will be confused will probably thank us later. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

An interesting statistic - (quoting the number of page views for yesterday), there were 1,825 for Wehrmacht, 649 for German Army (1935–46) and 922 for German Army. I do not think that one can, on the basis of this, reasonably assert that Wehrmacht is "completely foreign ... to the vast majority of readers." Even before the move (11 Jan), the maximum page views per day (in the last 30) was 507 (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/German_Army_%281935%E2%80%9345%29) for "German Army (1935–46)". Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Corrected double tap - not as dramatic but still makes point. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
But Wehrmacht has more than twice as many internal links. Srnec (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And it is visited nearly three times as often as "German Army (1935–4?)". I think my point stands. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Wehrmacht is a well-known term. We use it is disambiguate all German Army divisions of WWII. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention, it would seem, in common parlance the army and Wehrmacht are one and the same.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a reason not to move the article. "German Army (Wehrmacht)" is potentially confusing in a way that the current title is not. Srnec (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that German Army (Wehrmacht) is an acceptable alternative. German Army (1935–45) is not only wrong in using the wrong year, but also has serious implications in that it implies that the Allies did not abide by international law in the year or so after the war in regard to their handling of millions of prisoners of war, who as noted, needed to be repatriated (released) and demobilized before any army they belonged to could be disbanded. As I pointed out, we are also talking about a huge organization that continued to function for quite some time after 8 May 1945. German POWs were required to wear uniform, were subject to military Wehrmacht justice and were under military command as mostly conscripted soldiers until 1946. A private court case started by some major regarding his rights or benefits can not have any bearing here when it's completely contrary to what actually happened, to how a surrender takes place under the laws of war, and to the official position of the victorious powers. It rather seems the court lacked an understanding of public international law and the laws of war in particular, and a familiarity with with the history of the period 1945–1946 in Germany. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My point about interpreting a law (as a primary source documents) stands. Court judgements are a different matter, courts weigh up evidence submitted and make legal rulings on the interpretation and process of laws. But we are talking about historical issues, not legal ones. I suggest the comprehensive multi-volume German history published by Oxford Uni Press be checked to determine when they say the Army was wound up. As I say, I would support an RM for German Army (Wehrmacht). That would be a good start. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I like the German Army (Wehrmacht) proposal, it's succinct and the niceties can be explained in the text. If anyone will cough up for DRZW (about £180 each volume) I'll swallow my pride and take them, even if the description of Normandy is all wrong and derivative of low-brow Anglo-American writing. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with that! I believe they stop 8 May 1945. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I get the impression that we are about to achieve consensus and the "German Army (Wehrmacht)" is the preferred name of the article. How do we proceed? Rename and archive the discussion on the talk page of the article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That should do just fine. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
No. Open an RM the normal way. Srnec (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"...also has serious implications in that it implies that the Allies did not abide by international law in the year or so after the war in regard to their handling of millions of prisoners of war, who as noted, needed to be repatriated (released) and demobilized before any army they belonged to could be disbanded..."

So what about those prisoners the Soviets held onto until the 50s?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question, I suggest we discuss that on the article's talk page. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Since we have consensus on a title that does away with dates, I agree. It just seems to be a left over nagging question: if the army officially came to an end in 46 due to - in part - POWs in Allied hands. The logical implication is that the Wehrmacht didn't officially disband until the 50s due to Soviet-held POWs and that's just ludicrous ;)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Following that logic would lead to a claim that the Imperial Japanese Army was a going concern until the last Japanese holdout surrendered in 1974. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, there is some strange logic going on here, IMO. Let's just get the article moved, hey? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Was the date different in the DDR? Keith-264 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin generally showed very little respect for the laws of war, and for any other rules of civilization for that sake. But that is not the point here, those prisoners held by the Soviet Union for years after the war were no different from random people from the Baltic states or Poland deported to Soviet concentration camps as political prisoners. The general rule, for those Wehrmacht soldiers held by the civilized powers (US, UK, France), were that they were repatriated as required before their army was demobilized/disbanded. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
A standard west European military dictatorship then; treating the USSR as "uncivilised" might come as a surprise to the Indians, Africans, Chinese and south Americans under the western yoke. My question was about the area of Germany not under western military occupation. Did it make any difference that there were two jurisdictions? Keith-264 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Rading this discussion, the Wehrmacht ceased to exist as a fighting force in 1945, and as a legal entity in 1946. The move was, therefore, correct. Mjroots (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up, a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion over this topic was spawned @ Talk:German Army (1935–46)#Requested move 24 January 2015 MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WWI French POW currency[edit]

I know this is a bit last minute, I'm at the Smithsonian and there is a box of WWI French POW currency organized by location. If anyone has any requests for images, I'm here for a few more hours (but will be back in about 6-8 weeks)...--Godot13 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Help needed with ISIL article[edit]

We some people to keep an eye on both the ISIL article and the articles related to it.I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and their murderous campaigns across Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Judging from recent sources about their organization and the level of their control over certain areas, I think it's pretty clear that they are no longer just a simple insurgent group. They are for all intents and purposes an unrecognized state, and they have been this way since at least the 2014 offensives. This is reflected by the country infobox in the article.

Unfortunately, a user known as Legacypac has been constantly trying to change this. I have already gotten into several lengthy discussions with this user, and it is clear that his arguements don't hold up, and that his views are largely based on political bias. His arguements is basically this: because the UN doesn't recognize the existence of ISIL as a state, and since international law only recognizes states that have diplomatic recognition, ISIL can't be considered an unrecognized state. He is actually trying to use international law, which doesn't recognize unrecognized states, as a criterion for inclusion as an unrecognized state on Wikipedia. It's pretty laughable when you think about it. I'm sure all the military history buffs out there know that what exists on paper and what exists in reality are two very different things. Just because a group's control over the area isn't recognized by politicians doesn't mean that they don't have effective de facto control over said area. I have tried to point this out, but Legacypac and some of his fellow users refuse to listen. He keeps trying to remove the infobox from the article. Fortunately, the restrictions placed on that article have partially succeeded in keeping him and his friends from messing up the article, but some of their edits still get through.

I recently had to revert an attempt by one of these users to label ISIL a geopolitical organization. At first, I didn't mind having to revert these edits, but this is gradually trying my patience. I cannot watch the article twenty-four hours a day, and I can't always be there when he try's argue his point on the talk page. Since no one has tried to help me revert his edits, or bothered to join in on his little discussions on the talk page, he assumes that he has free reign to dictate what the "consensus" is, when I know for a fact that there are multiple users who disagree with his arguments. Since they aren't bothering to help, I have turned to you. That article discusses the current situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and ISIL's status depends largely on the level of control they have been able to exert over their conquered territory. Judging from recent sources, they appear to have de facto control over the much of the area. Since this control is not diplomatically recognized, and they have declared an Islamic State, that would make them an unrecognized state. With that in mind, if it's not too much trouble, could some of you please keep an eye out for his edits and contribute your two cents to the articles discussion page. I've been pretty busy lately, so I barely have enough time to contribute as is, so I would appreciate the assistance. If you know of an individual or group that would be better qualified to do this, please pass the word down. Sorry for the length of this post. I thought it necessary to give a thorough explanation of the situation. If you could find the time to help me out, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Anasaitis (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest using infobox settlement instead. It has been very effectively used for similar territories, such as occupied or annexed territories during WWII. See Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories for an example of its use in a FA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Stubs for this project?[edit]

Where can I find a list of stubs for this project? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

See the Assessment page that's linked in the top of this page. On that Assessment page there's a link for Stub category linked. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. What I am looking for is which stub types are available for this project. For example I see that 105th Regiment of Foot (Madras Light Infantry) is included as a stub in this project's article assessment list, but it is not included in Wikipedia's Category:Stubs. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The Stub category on the Assessment page has Military History articles that are rated as Stubs. Category:Stubs is populated by the presence of stub templates in those articles. You can add a stub template to that article if you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme[edit]

First, moderated discussion concerning the article about this battle is in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Other editors are invited to add themselves to the discussion and to participate in the moderated discussion. You may also comment at the article talk page.

Second, a Request for Comments has been opened concerning the inclusion of the phrase "especially in English-language writing" in a statement that the battle has been controversial as to its scope and necessiry.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Double quotes in page names[edit]

I'm attempting to create a redirect page (16"/50 caliber Mark 3 gun) to redirect to 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 gun, as the two were almost the same and built concurrently. When I search on the page name it does not give me the option to create the page. It appears the double quote character is no longer allowed in page titles. Or maybe I need to install MediaWiki and modify my LocalSettings.php. Numerous US Navy gun pages use this character. Any help would be appreciated. RobDuch (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I did wonder whether this was a user rights restriction, but even I cannot create the page, and I have admin privileges. Is is something that a 'crat could deal with? Mjroots (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Why isn't it "16-inch/50 caliber Mark 3 gun"? Couldn't you use the DISPLAYTITLE template? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but would it solve the problem of what happens when you rnter the phrase into the search box (try it and see)? Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
There wasn't an option, but a little URL manipulation and ... [3] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much! At least now I know it's not an easy workaround. RobDuch (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Is their anyone with a good knowledge of the British Indian Army?[edit]

I have just posted a cmt at Talk:Indian_Army_during_World_War_I#Possible_discrepancy_regarding_commander about a possible discrepancy IRT its commander in 1914. This issue may affect the accuracy of a couple of other articles including Indian Army during World War I, Beauchamp Duff, Percy Lake and Commander-in-Chief, India. Unfortunately this is beyond my knowledge and sources, otherwise I would fix it myself. Is there an editor with the required knowledge and sources which is able to have a look at this issue and resolve it? At the moment we have a bunch of articles that seem to contradict each other. I have no idea which is right, just that one (or more of them) must be wrong. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Indian Army during World War I but as far as I can see all is OK Lake was never Commander-in-Chief, India during this period he was Chief of the General Staff in India. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes this is resolved - thanks again. Sorry for wasting your time (I blame editing whilst watching the cricket and perhaps the fermented vegetable drink I was consuming at the time). Self administering upper cut. Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

James C. Marshall[edit]

I have written an article on James C. Marshall but it has little on his career before or after the Manhattan District, of which he was the first District Engineer. Who has more information on him? Hugo999 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I do. I have upgraded the article with additional material about what he did before and afterwards, plus birth dates, death date and place, and burial location. I have sent the article on to DYK, with you as co-creator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting comment on an Iraq 2 related article[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Battle of Abu Ghraib#Future for this article. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Schlieffen Plan question[edit]

I've had another go at filling in "Citations needed" tags but can't find anything for Palmer and Cohn. Does anyone know who they are or where the cited passages come from please? Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably Hans Kohn. I'm thinking about which Palmer it would be. auntieruth (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the best bet may be to look in Keegan and see what he says about Palmer's theory. I've lent my copy of Keegan out and cannot do it for you. auntieruth (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
He doesn't mention (Alan?) Palmer by name. Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Texan schooner Invincible[edit]

Texan schooner Invincible, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Who won the Battle of Chawinda?[edit]

Could we have some eyes on WP:AN#Reviewing RfC closure : Battle of Chawinda please?—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)