Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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).

City timelines[edit]

I'm a bit baffled by these (see Category:City_timelines). At first, they appear to be "history" and many of these cities will have had military involvement (eg: Timeline of Baghdad). Yet there seems to be no requirement to consider them as within the scope of MILHIST. Unlike most lists, there are no real rules about what can or cannot be on them. So - for example - in the one I have had some involvement with (Timeline of Granada), Cafe Futbol being in business in 1910 (according to lonelyplanet) has to be in there as well as the openings of movie theatres. Little wonder there isn't room for the Spanish civil war. What's going on with these timelines?? --Bye for now (PTT) 15:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this subject should be opened up to any other area with a history remit, but I brought it up here first as at least it's an area in which I have some experience. MilHist has guidelines as to what can be included (military people, units etc) so maybe Category:City_timelines should have some guidelines as well? Here's a starter idea: no event should be included unless it has at least a B class article about it. Can this sort of thing be done - or do we just have to accept that a kind of alt.history can exist on on Wikipedia? --Bye for now (PTT) 22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
G'day Bfn. I haven't commented here as I have zero experience with this issue, but it seems like a wider WikiProject History thing to me. Sorry to not be of more help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably best if I stay clear of any articles that have a city connection, then. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. according to the Granada article itself, nothing happened after 1492. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Surely you don't expect the Spanish Inquisition to be covered - nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Seriously though, the Grananda article has lots of room for improvement. But why bother if a parallel one exists? --Bye for now (PTT) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a merge proposal at the Administrators' noticeboard here that may provide some enlightenment on the principle of timelines. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Military biography task force assessment statistics[edit]

When does the BOT, update the above assessments table? There has been a lot of changes done to the statistics of that table. Was wondering if and when the statistics will be updated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday Adam. Apparently the bot is broken, but the stats can be updated manually here [1]. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic IP changing the meaning of cited text without discussion - Tactical assault group and 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia)[edit]

I've requested discussion on a few occasions but this guys isn't prepared to do so it seems. Probably need some assistance here. Have requested semi-protection for 2 Cdo but it seems no admins are around at the moment. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not an admin of course but I've watchlisted the pages so there's at least an extra pair of eyes for the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thankfully, I do have admin privileges, so I've gone ahead and protected the article for you for 2 weeks. Hopefully, some good will come of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you gents, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The IP has now logged in and the edits are continuing at Commando Selection Training Course and Tactical assault group. The editor, whilst obviously meaning well, is adding references which do not support the information being added. I've attempted to explain the issue but don't seem to be getting through. I had hoped not to resort to templated warnings but that's probably what will have to happen next. Nonetheless I would welcome others reviewing my edits and where we are at so far. By all means if I'm overstepping the mark let me know and I'll pull my head in. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No. 255 Squadron RAF[edit]

Does an aviation specialist/copy editor want to have a look at this article? It's been recently expanded considerably by someone who is closely associated with the squadron association and it shows. There looks to be too much trivia and speculative content bordering on OR as well as predominant reliance on primary sources. Nthep (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The article needs massive surgery. Most of the content is more appropriate for a squad on association website, not for Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I scanned the article as well and fully agree with Nigel. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems seriously over the top, but I can imagine that modifying it would generate a ton objections from those who made it what it is today. Are The National Archives an RS? If not, then a lot could be easily chopped. --Bye for now (PTT) 22:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The National Archives contents tend to be collections of primary sources - memos, reports, unit diaries etc.
There's a heavy dose of formatting issues (capitalization, font colour) to be dealt with as a start. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Following some tweaks by others I have had a go at a major cull and taken it down to 30K, probably needs some other eyes to make sure it still makes sense or needs further tweaks, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
G'day, I had a go at some copy editing, but I stopped after I saw the comments on the talk page. Feel free to revert my changes if you don't agree with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan Uhlan talk 06:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Christmas truce[edit]

A few years ago I started rewriting Christmas truce, which is (theoretically) a good article, but really quite lacking - over the years it's become a miscellaneous grab-bag of anecdotes and trivia. Is anyone interested in helping me give it an overhaul before the centenary? I don't think aiming or a six-week FA is a good idea, but if someone is braver I'll help ;-)

The main problem at the moment is that it really lacks historical context - very little sense that localised truces were a thing throughout the war, not just at Christmas - and is very muddled on whether there was A Truce, or several. This isn't helped by many good-faith attempts to add eyewitness accounts, which individually aren't always very significant and interrupt the narrative. The lead gives an idea of the structure it probably needs. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: If I were you, I'd start with a summary of the original newspaper accounts. There were two main newspapers, I believe, so cover those and you set it up well. If anything is inaccurate, mention that, but don't spend too long debunking anything.
Once you have your source material in place, it's far easier to expand and explain from there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm moving onto the main section now and it looks like the newspaper sources are used relatively sparingly by the historians, with a lot more use made of diaries & letters (several of which, of course, turned up in the papers). I worry focusing too heavily on the early-January papers would skew the results and, of course, omit German/French perspectives. (The Belgians don't usually get a look-in, for one reason and another).
That said, the reporting of the truce is an interesting angle in and of itself. Do you have details of the two main reports you're thinking of? Be interesting to build something off that...
Thanks for the picture, by the way - really sets it off! And glad to see it's scheduled for FP... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a warning though, there are plenty of WP:OR and WP:TONE issues in the article. A lot of the books also do not have page numbers cited. What Adam Cuerden is suggesting, I fear, would probably make the situation worse - we're reporting the secondary literature (of which, I'm sure, there is plenty). There's nothing wrong with quoting of course, but it should be done sparingly and trawling through newspapers is textbook OR. Good luck though! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Well, the original, biased reporting is what made it famous. There's two thread here: What happened is one of them, but the cultural impact - the sociological aspect - is also important. I think that explaining what was reported initially, marking anything that's wrong, and then going through and detailing the nuanced views of modern historians is a good way to get both sides. Also, this kind of structure helps protect the article from well-meaning people who don't understand that the initial reports are biased.
I don't think it'll be ready for this Christmas, but a friend of mine's grandfather is a primary source on the truce (amongst other things); his letters are in the Imperial War Museum. She owns the copyright, and was also interested in the idea of getting some letters on Wikipedia. No promises, but... watch this space. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden:, I don't doubt the interest of these but primary sources do not have a place on Wikipedia - at lease not in the main text. It's all covered by WP:OR which I really urge you to read. By all means write a paper on them or publish them in an edited volume - but Wikipedia only serves as a literature study of reliable, published sources. If what you say is correct, which I have no doubt, it can be found in the secondary literature and should be cited directly from that! —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Actually, they're published. I've been on here since 2006. I know what I'm doing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting video[edit]

Wonder if any of our aircraft and airforce editors would know a place to put File:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics wind tests (1946).webm. It's footage of a 1946 test regarding the effects of high windspeeds on the human body. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 Hello, I am visiting from WikiProject Medicine today to ask about something else, but when I saw this, I added it to Human subject research. This is an interesting and politically-neutral video in an article where most other media would be controversial and problematic. It has a home there for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Renaming "Battle" to "Siege" procedure[edit]

At Battle of Fort Pulaski three participating editors concur with changing the name from "Battle of Fort Pulaski" to "Siege of Fort Pulaski" as the scope of the article has changed from an over-night bombardment to the month-long series of naval and infantry engagements to encircle the fort and reduce it. What is the proper procedure for changing the article name? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There should be a little tab at the top of the page saying "Page". Hover over it and a drop-down menu should appear on which the option "Move page" will be listed. Click it. Then simply enter the new title and your reasoning, press "Move page", and it should do the rest automatically. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommend section name and order?[edit]

Does this WikiProject make a recommendation for the names and orders of sections in articles? I am looking for something like what WikiProject Medicine has. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday. Yes we do - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

Can others look at this article: Military history of Pakistani Americans. Is it sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We appear to have a host of these American "Minority military history" articles which mainly appears to be a collection of what would normally be non-notable individuals. I cant see that any of them are any more notable than all the other members of the american armed forces. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Me, neither. Are there sources that discuss them as such groups? - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. In the Pakistani article, the highest award mentioned is the bronze star. I don't think that's notable. Lying in wait, imho, are all those articles about guys who were members of the Band of Brothers but who didn't actually do anything remarkable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
On that point just found that William S. Evans - one of those who was killed on the flight to the drop on 6 June -wasn't tagged by the project. How should one dispute the notability? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
AfD it, Graeme. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Evans - they seem to have made the process a bit easier. still had a bit of trouble putting my concerns into a coherent argument. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe should be merged into the Pakistani Americans article. Doesn't look like military history to me - or any kind of history really. --Bye for now (PTT) 22:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It is just a list of non-notables, as MilborneOne says. I don't think there is really anything worth merging. Things might be different if there were a unit comprising entirely Pakistani Amercians, for example. - Sitush (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't the editors at the target page be given the option of using this, if they decide to, rather than just deleting it?--Bye for now (PTT) 22:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I bring this up as there has been significant coverage about certain minority groups military service including African-Americans, Japanese Americans, and even Filipino Americans (such as this Alexander M. Bielakowski Ph.D. (11 January 2013). Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the U.S. Military: An Encyclopedia [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 157–163. ISBN 978-1-59884-428-3. ), however I have not found anything significant regarding Pakistani Americans. While there are some notability Pakistani Americans that meet WP:SOLDIER such as RDMR Ali S. Khan, that does not mean that the subject has received significant coverage itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD created see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of Pakistani Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for other editors to fix an incomplete paragraph fol copy vio removal - Battle of Greece[edit]

Gday - I have expressed some concern about the way an editor has removed an apparent copy vio from Battle of Greece. Ultimately I have no issue with removing copy vios if they are proved to be so (although providing some evidence doesn't seem unreasonable); however, the edit in question removed a key sentence which renders the rest of the paragraph unable to be understood. I highlighted the issue to the editor in question but they aren't interested in a discussion it seems as all my approaches on their talk page just get reverted. Apparently I'm meant to fix the problem they created. As I don't have the source though I cannot do this so the paragraph is now just nonsense. I'm hoping another editor might have a source to fix the paragraph by including the required information. If not it may be best to delete the rest of the paragraph because it just doesn't make sense anymore. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I think Dianna has fixed the issue with this edit: [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes its sorted now, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Windows mojo question[edit]

I'm using a new laptop which has Windows 7 and wonder if an aficionado knows how to use it to change maps and diagrams? The old laptop had a programme (Windows Media Player?) which allowed you to brighten and alter the contrast and to crop maps etc. When I tried to do the same, I got something called Windows Photo Viewer which doesn't do the same thing. Am I looking in the wrong place? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest downloading and installing GIMP if you want to work on the images yourself, or ask for help at either the Map workshop or Illustration workshop of the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. (Hohum @) 12:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get the Gimp.Keith-264 (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, it's no use, I need a way to use the old system.Keith-264 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
For maps, nothing beats Inkscape - and its open source! Farawayman (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at Windows Live Essentials (might have changed name along way) it has the MS photo-editing capabilities you are describing. Although there are more capable programmes, I appreciate that they take longer to get the hang of. (I uninstalled GIMP out of frustration at the interface.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Once you're in Photo Viewer, do you have an option to "Open for editing" or something like that? That might lead you to paint. (My just-retired machine would open a jpg with paint but a jpeg with viewer; go figure.)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
"Open" which drops down to a menu box with nothing in it. When I found WMP in Programme Files it reported that the latest version was working, so I fear that picture viewer is WMP minus the cropping etc. I'll have to use the old laptop with XP if I can get it going. Thanks all.Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Windows Live Essentials is a free download so I'll try that.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It works! Thanks everyone.Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship requested at Draft:Infantry weapons in the American Revolutionary War[edit]

Any help in figuring out if this is a worthy topic, and advising the novice submitter as to format/sourcing, etc would be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chantilly Conference[edit]

Dear military history experts: I found this draft, which seems to be about a notable topic, but it seems too obvious to not already have an article. Also, there appear to have been more than one of these conferences. Should this be moved into article space? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Issue about categories at the Help Desk[edit]

Please see WP:Help desk#Category:Military Doctrines, it looks like the military branch of the category tree needs some attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Westland Scout#What_replaced_Scouts[edit]

Little progress seems to be occurring at this discussion. Some extra input might help move it along. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 14:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For aircraft related topics, try WT:WikiProject Aircraft first. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
done, --Bye for now (PTT) 14:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

VC image[edit]

Do we have any images similar to File:Victoria Cross Medal without Bar.png but with the Navy blue ribbon as opposed to the crimson? There are some VC winners pages e.g. Humphrey Osbaldston Brooke Firman where the blue ribboned image would be more appropriate i.e. pre-1920 deaths of RN/RM personnel. Nthep (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this is the only photo on Commons of the VC with the blue ribbon. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reserve Army (United Kingdom)[edit]

Reserve Army (United Kingdom) Does anyone know why the campaignboxes won't show? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith, Template:Infobox military unit doesn't support an internal campaignbox field. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
D'oh!Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kargil War[edit]

Need some attention on Kargil war, especially since the addition of this dubious puffery[3], [4], that I highly doubt, unnecessary commentaries are being added to the infobox.[5] [6] However, we have far more reliable source to describe the result as an Indian victory,[7] I preferred a neutral result parameter, remained until the last week.[8] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article candidate related to Military history project[edit]

I've nominated an article relevant to this project for WP:TFAR consideration, discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/George B. McClellan. — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

U.S. National Park Service URL's have been moving--needs attention![edit]

I don't know if there is a systematic way for Wikipedia to address this, but a large number of NPS links are fouled up. In recent years the NPS server has moved from DC to Denver. The old "cr.nps" URL's are supposed to have migrated to "nps" addresses. Apparently "dual URL's" have been a problem for years and now the old "cr.nps" links seem to have been shutdown wholesale. Unfortunately, some of the directory paths have also been altered recently and a number of "e-Library" publications referenced in articles have completely disappeared. I've made updates from "cr.nps" to "nps" for the new URL's of some of these, then had those stop working days or hours later. The NPS search engine isn't accessible/functioning on the pages at present. I've been inquiring about all of this, but so far no fix has been provided and as yet the NPS doesn't have an accounting of what has been inadvertently lost.

I don't know how many wiki articles are impacted, but I do know that many of the old simple ACW battle summaries contain these "cr.nps" URL's. Most of those can be fixed just by deleting the "cr." and I've been hitting them as I find them. A Bot might be able to do this systematically--but it probably should be limited in ones it actually changes. There is a huge catch with regard to other referenced NPS pages, since each change needs to be checked to see if the path is correct. If an individual update doesn't work, the "cr.nps" URL address should probably be left as legacy, in case this ever gets sorted and updates can be made en masse. Red Harvest (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A related item: Some years ago the Air Force Historical Research Agency changed its URL. This impacts most pages on USAF units. Again, as I update these I either update the URL or find an archived page, if available. If there's a bot that can do this job en masse, I would be happy to provide the bot owner with inputs for change. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Archibald Murray Article[edit]

Re: Archibald Murray

Currently stands at a "B-class" assessment for being a Biography in the Military History WikiProject due to Djmaschek (talk · contribs). The only part that is unreferenced is the "In Popular Culture" section. Should this section have at least one citation? As the WikiProject Biography and United Kingdom they are not assessed as "B-class", a possibility they could be "B-class"? Adamdaley (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The uncited Popular Culture section was added after (21 Oct 2012) I reviewed the article on 3 Feb 2012. The same user also appears to have added a lot of good cited material to the article. Djmaschek (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Bring the other WikiProjects upto "B-class"? Adamdaley (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence[edit]

A discussion is currently taking place on the talk page of the Croatian War of Independence article to gain consensus to move the page to Croatian War. All interested editors are invited to comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The relation of the Allies with Hungary at the Paris Peace conference[edit]

In the article Treaty of Trianon I found the text below:

The treaty was dictated by the Allies rather than negotiated and the Hungarians had no option but to accept its terms.[11] The Hungarian delegation signed the treaty under protest

Aren't the above facts self-implied? As far as I know, after any military conflict the winners dictate the terms of the peace treaties to the losers (and don't negotiate with the defeated sided when taking the decisions).

So, is it necessary to include the phrase above? Undecand (talk)

  • I would say so, yes. You are assuming that in 1918, there were winners and losers, or people who thought of themselves that way. When WWI ended, it was in an armistice, which is by definition an agreement of the parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of the war, and accepting an armistice certainly does not mean accepting wins or losses. In any treaty related to the end of WWI, there must be an understanding of this. The sides fought to a standstill on the Western Front. In the east and the Balkans, and in Italy, the case was less murky. The Germans certainly expected some kinds of negotiations, and when the representatives showed up to discuss it, they were presented with the agreement, and told to take it or leave it, and if they left it, expect to be invaded. This was one of the reasons that the Nazis were able to claim "knife in the back" ....auntieruth (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military history for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 20:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox flag icons[edit]

Is it OK for country flag icons to be used in the infoboxes of military units? Both WP:INFOBOXFLAG and WP:MILMOS#FLAGS say that such usage is generally not recommended. Although some articles do not use icons, I've noticed that many others, particularly American military units, do use icons. I'm not proposing either a mass removal or a mass addition of icons per se; I am just wondering is somebody is able to clarify the meaning of "generally" as it applies to these particular articles. Thanks in advance. -Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Ps: Just to add on to the above, I've noticed some articles using {{flag|United States}} and others using {{flag|United States of America}}. Is it OK to have two different styles? The later links to United States of America which is a redirect to United States. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

overuse is a serious issue. Some editors want to use flagicons in the allegiance, unit AND commander fields, among others. This would clearly be overkill. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I quite like the idea of extinguishing them from infoboxes. Keith-264 (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Peacemaker67 and Keith-264 for the replies. Not looking to "exterminate", "exterminate", "exterminate" anything. Just was curious. They seem to be being slowly phased out in other articles, but I wonder if they are being added/kept in military-related articles for patriotic reasons. Anyway, opinions on the "United States" vs. "United States of America" for the country name of US military units. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I would think that "United States" would be enough. Who is going to think it is intended to be the "United States of Tara"? Eh? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps in a multi-national unit, there might be use as a short hand for identifying a commander's origin. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I started dropping flag icons from my Australian military bios and unit histories a year or two ago and the world didn't end... I think you'll find that simply "United States" and "US" is the preferred/common term on WP, rather than "United States of America" or "USA". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Where it is, in fact, a multi-national unit or formation, not a national formation contained a few non-national units. The current "British Empire" "dealio" used widely in WWI articles is a farce, and doesn't reflect the legislative or real basis of the command and control of dominion and colonial formations of the so-called "British Empire". All I can see with this stuff is a predominance of British Empire POV, contemporary or current. Fortunately, I don't really give a rat's proverbial, but those who care will carry on with their arrant nonsense nonetheless. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm wondering if WP:COMMONNAME should take precedence over WP:NOTBROKEN with respect to "United States of America". On the other hand, there may be some who argue "COMMONNANE" only applies to article titles. Maybe WP:NOTUSA could be extended to not "United States of America" since using "U.S. of A." is not recommended. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What's a dealio?Keith-264 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm inclined to believe that they are not needed in the infobox and that they serve no useful encyclopedic purpose. I would be in favor of exterminating them in the infoboxes and then updating MOS:FLAG to reflect this change.--JOJ Hutton 20:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Mars (mythology)[edit]

Re: Mars (mythology)

I propose the above article in its current state is classed as "GA-class" to be reviewed. There are several places that have no inline citations. Adamdaley (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, the process for having a GA reviewed is outlined here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. There are two options, either an individual re-assessment or a community re-assessment. If you are comfortable interpreting the GA criteria, you can use an individual one and re-assess it yourself. If you would prefer others to have input, then my advice is to go with the community re-assessment. Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
In my honest opinion, I don't think it deserves a "GA-class". I've seen several articles from GA-class and below articles missing citations. I know my article Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher, I did went through a hell of a lot and it was very time consuming. Just don't want undeserving articles taking up valuable space. Adamdaley (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't pass it as MH B-class now. I suggest WP:GAR. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WWI event in Dublin[edit]

Perhaps of interest to some - Wikimedia Ireland have organised a editathon on Ireland and the Irish in WWI. 6 December, National Museum of Ireland, Collins Barracks, Dublin. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)