Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members


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[edit]

An issue is being discussed at talk:2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to voice their opinions.

CfD Category:Former_military_equipment_of_the_Philippines[edit]


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

Philippines during WWII[edit]

Found some articles (fairly recently created) that could use a leg-up. Eg Grammar and organization, but mostly referencing: Philippine Commonwealth Army, List of weapons of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and other related articles. Probably not even tagged as MilHist yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

also United States Army Forces in the Philippines - Northern Luzon, the (rather odd-looking) List of equipment of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, the introduction to List of regular units of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, 6th Infantry Division (Philippine Commonwealth Army).
PS, by comparison Philippine_resistance_against_Japan has an enthusiastic further reader section under "Contemporaneous_News_Accounts". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
USAFIP-NL was a guerrilla unit, and falls under Philippine resistance against Japan, which itself needs a HUGE amount of work to give things due weight, and remove/split some that has been given undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a bit of a problem from the reader side, with the constant use of "recognized guerillas" in this articles. My understanding is that "recognized" came about after the war; denoting those who had actually been in the resistance during the occupation (and could therefore claim payment?) as opposed to those who -after the shooting was over- claimed to have been guerillas but hadn't been. Anyone clarify that? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There is significant contention on what individuals were legitimately part of a resistance force and who have claimed to have been part of a resistance force later for any benefits that may gain them. The is a notable difference in recognition of individuals and of groups between the United States and the Philippines. Also there is the case of the late Ferdinand Marcos and his claim, for example. Therefore, depending on what reliable source one uses, that attempt to create a comprehensive list of guerrilla organizations/units, depending on their publication location, they may not coincide with one another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that the phrase is used like this: "the groups of the recognized guerrilla unit and the American military forces of the United States Armed Forces through to before the Liberation are become the conquests to attack by the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces..." or "Supporting Filipino soldiers under the Commonwealth Army and Constabulary and the recognized guerrillas against the Japanese during the Main Battles of Leyte and Samar". Leaving aside the grammar, and that's not easy, it's the application of 'recognized' before the fact. The guerilla units that were fighting the Japanese are the ones that are recognized after the liberation for having fought the Japanese. Is there a better phrasing than just deleting "recognized" before any instance of guerilla while talking about actions during the war?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd think we could just drop the "recognized", since by simply referring to the groups/individuals as guerrilas/resistance/etc., we are by definition discussing only those groups/individuals that actually took part in the resistance to Japanese occupation. One could not possibly interpret something like, as a generic example, "Filipino guerrillas attacked Japanese patrols" to include the later, false claimants. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That appears to be a fair solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've given it a go. I suspect no complaint from the major contributor. Or any kind of reaction.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I am a bit concerned that the editor doesn't engage - no edit summaries, no editing changes following any of the notices on their talk page. Language problem perhaps? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Not to hound the editor, but another edit of his caught my attention at the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, where the editor highlights Moro position(s) among other things outside of scope (IMHO) of that article.
As for the original articles in question, I don't want to remove it, without building a consensus first. If the consensus has to come from this WikiProject and WikiProject Tambayan, so be it. But if I boldly remove the content by myself, it might appear to be WP:BLANKING, and easily reverted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it quite possible the editor would ignore you, I've removed Crusader tank from the list of weapons of the Philippine Commonwealth Army (on at least one occasion) as I am not aware a Crusader ever ended up out there, let alone outside British/Commonwealth use and yet the editor puts it back. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I put the question directly to the editor, and they have added a note (though not a source) to the Crusader entry on the list page - The British Crusader Tank was equipped by the Philippine Commonwealth Army by delivering supplies from the United Kingdom and almost 10,000 units as extemporized force during Japanese Occupation and Allied Liberation (1942-1945) . Overlooking that there were about 5,000 Crusaders built in total, Randelearcilla (talk · contribs) is capable of reading their talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
PS hadn't read to bottom of the article in it's current state. Has also listed "5,600 [Universal Carriers] as extemporized force during Japanese Occupation and Allied Liberation (1942-1945)". Use of phrase "extemporized force" repeating a note I added also suggests they don't know what it means. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Lack of verification should be sufficient reason to take this down, and done. Lets see what happens.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Help requested from WP:MILHIST members[edit]

As a contribution towards Wikipedia's coverage of the First World War in this centenary year, I've written an article covering Carl Hans Lody, a German naval reserve officer who became the first German spy to be shot in Britain during the war (and the first person executed in the Tower of London for 167 years). I've been able to make use of archive material and contemporary news reports to document the story of Carl Hans Lody in, I think, probably greater detail than anyone has managed before in print. The centenary of his death is coming up on 6 November 2014; I'm hoping to request that it should be the featured article of the day. Given the short timeframe, I've taken the unusual step of bringing this article directly to Featured Article Candidates. I've aimed to write it from the outset as an FA-quality article, drawing my experience as the author of numerous Featured and Good Articles. I'd be very grateful if WP:MILHIST members could have a look at the article and provide any feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Hans Lody/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

From first glance looks very good. Very interesting story. I will have a more detailed look and try to help out as soon as I can. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I've gone through it briefly as well and suggested a few issues. Generally don't the FA reviewers want to see that the Project an has vetted the article first? And is at least a Good Article? Or an A article? It certainly is at least a Good Article, and probably an A class article, despite not having any formal peer review to date. auntieruth (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a category for Foo-ian officers serving in in on-Fooian armies?[edit]

I am looking at Category:Polish generals in other armies, which currently is a subcategory only to Category:Polish generals and I see A) a missing category structure for Foo-ian officers serving in in on-Fooian armies that should be created, and B) a problem as Polish generals is a subcategory to Polish Army officers, but but "Polish generals in other armies" category doesn't necessary mean those individuals were Polish Army officers at some point.

Any suggestions on dealing with those issues? (If you reply here, please echo me). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This category needs to be done away with. Being a general in an army is WP:DEFINING, howver being a general of X nationality/ethniticity is decidedly not. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The entire category tree should be reformed to use the country of service name and not demonyms, which would remove all confusion about whether the category is for nationalities, country of service, or ethnicities. So "Category:Generals serving for Poland" instead of "Category:Polish generals" (note "for" and not "in" or "of", as a German general can invade Poland, and thus be serving in the territory of Poland; and someone of Polish extraction would fit in an "of" category, which should also be excluded.) -- (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Fairly pointless and unnecessary, as the vast majority of generals serve their own country. No reason to completely muck up the categorisation, especially not with weird contrived category names (good English, incidentally, would be Category:Generals serving Poland; "serving for" is not English unless you're a tennis player). For better categorisation, see Category:British generals. All are categorised in sub-categories by their service. The few directly in the category served other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

US military unit ordinals: 2d/3d or 2nd/3rd?[edit]

Discussion at Talk:132d_Fighter_Wing. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Voting in the 2014 coordinator election[edit]

Hello, everyone! The 2014 project coordinator election has now started, with 13 great candidates to join the coordinator team for the coming year. Please cast your votes by 23:59 UTC on September 28. Kirill [talk] 03:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Long swordsman[edit]

Hello there. There is currently a discussion at WP:RFD#Long_swordsman about "Long swordsman", or "Longswords man" and so on. I made parallels with Bombard/Bombadier and Longbow/Bowman. I am not asking you to agree with me or canvassing, but I think you experts here at MILHIST might have a useful contribution to that discussion.

Best wishes.Simon Trew (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC) (NOT the military historian, but cursed with the same name!)

Battle of Franklin[edit]

Just to note - presuming the picture passes at FPC, which is reasonably likely given the comments so far, the Battle of Franklin should be appearing on the main page for its 150th anniversary. It might be good if someone gave the article a good once-over before then? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It currently has the quorum of five supports, and no opposes, so this is very likely to happen. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Need advice on how to use a ship's Log Books and War Diaries as reference material[edit]

Working on improving my first article, USS PC-598. I have copies of all the historical material on PC-598 available from the National Archives, including Log Books, War Diaries and Administrative Remarks. Most of the narrative is derived from these original source documents. I cannot find any examples of other articles about ships using these documents as references. As they are original source material I imagine they are appropriate for footnotes, etc. Can anyone advise me on the proper style to use or direct me to a ship's article that uses them for citations?

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Emerdog (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As primary sources they can be used cautiously for uncontroversial information, no analysis or interpretation of, or commentary about the primary material is allowed - use them for straightforward simple facts. Some guidance can be found at WP:PRIMARY. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I don't generally edit ship articles but rather air force unit articles, among other things. I make use of unit operations books when I have to, if secondary sources don't provide precise details. Per the comment above, as with all primary sources, you have to take care in how you employ them and usually I just refer to them for such things as the dates of moves, and complements of aircraft and personnel at any given time. There's no citation template I'm aware of especially designed for operation/log books, so I generally just use cite journal or cite web (I'm assuming these references are available online so they count as 'published'). Anyway, this is one article citing a unit operations book -- I'm not saying this is the only or even preferred way to format such citations/refs, but it's been accepted at GA and FA level. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both your your comments and suggestions. Being a small naval vessel, there is not much published about PC-598, so the logs are needed to describe location, movement and other activity. It should not be hard to use them only for straightforward simple facts, although the are opinions expressed in the War Diaries by the ship's captains.

I obtained my copies directly from the National Archives. The only web based copies I know of are on, which offers access for a fee. I do not recall seeing Fold3's web site in any Wikipedia citations. Do you think I should use as an on-line reference or just refer readers to the National Archives?

Thanks again for you help.

Emerdog (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If the logbooks are out of copyright, and your terms of getting them doesn't forbid it, why not put them up at yourself? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam, that's a great idea and one I had not considered. Thank you for the suggestion. Emerdog (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Campaign box question[edit]

Template:Campaignbox Somme 1916 has main battles and other engagements headings conforming (mostly) to the nomenclature committee deliberations of 1919. Does anyone know of another heading, for articles which aren't part of that system but which are obvious candidates for the campaignbox? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Vital article nomination of Michiel de Ruyter[edit]

You can vote on the level-4 vital article nomination of Michiel de Ruyter at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Add Michiel de Ruyter. – Editør (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The nomination needs two more votes in support to pass. – Editør (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

MILHIST participation in the 2014–2015 GA Cup[edit]

Not sure this has been widely advertised. The 2014–2015 GA Cup starts on 1 October. Given the number of outstanding GA reviews we have it would be good to have some MILHIST participation in the effort. If you are interested you can sign up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup. Entries close 15 October. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Ac. The close date just happens to coincide with the end of the backlog drive, so if you want to "maintain the rage", have a go! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks AC, added a note to the Sept Bugle due out shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Would appreciate watchers on Audie Murphy[edit]

I would appreciate some eyes on Audie Murphy for a while. Please see DMY discussion above. We just got the page protected because of IP disruptive edits. An autoconfirmed editor changed it back to MDY, adding other miscellaneous edits to the prose, and I reverted. The editor left me a message on my talk page, indicating they were unaware of the DMY issue. I then posted a note in the article, so there would be no question again. I also posted a note on the article talk page about not making these changes to an FA article. That same editor removed that notice , added "citation needed" to two places in the lead and made some other changes, with this edit. The lead is merely a recap of sourced material in the body of the article. I have reverted this, which makes two reverts by me, and I have no idea where this editor is going with this. It's hard to assume Good Faith when an editor deliberately removes a "Leave this alone" notice. I was hoping that among the 146 watchers on that page, someone would help revert unnecessary changes. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. I see you've tried to start a discussion on the talk page; there's not much else to do for the moment, but I'll keep an eye out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, HJ. — Maile (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have watches on all three of the AM pages, but you often beat me to it! These articles would benefit from permanent pending changes status. I know. I know.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for having it on your watchlist, Gaarmyvet, — Maile (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Pending changes wouldn't prevent the edits from being made, and it would have absolutely no effect on autoconfirmed editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:::It's not the return of your mate, is it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Forget that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nah. Not that one, anyway. But this recent round of (I assume) Good Faith edits does highlight a systemic loophole in "anybody can edit". When any article or list makes it as far as Featured anything, a lot of work has been done by numerous editors and numerous reviewers. And I know from my own experience on this particular subject matter, that every punctuation, space, formatting and wording is carefully scrutinized and worked on, challenged, rewritten. While there is no such thing as perfect where humans are concerned, all those skilled people pouring over something says a Featured anything is in better shape than average. And, yet, nothing in the system prevents an editor not previously involved in that process to come along and start a whole string of editorial changes just because they like their words and punctuations better than whatever evolved from all those reviews. — Maile (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! ;) Alas, that's its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I've long been a fan of locking articles that are obviously "written," which is not to say they could not be re-opened if new facts/research came to light. It's one of the ways in which I scream into the wind...--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures taken in a German museum[edit]

I need guidance on the use of pictures I took at a German museum (Luftfahrt-Museum Laatzen-Hannover) earlier this week and uploaded here on Wiki. The copyright of these pictures, taken with the verbal consent of the museum, is being challenged (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 September 19). Surely I don't want to infringe any copyright laws, but Ronhjones (talk · contribs) argues that this is in breech of German law. If he is right, than many pictures, not only mine, will have to be deleted from our articles. Can someone knowledgeable please advise. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added some comments. If the exhibits were permanent exhibits (vice a temporary installation) and in a public part of the museum, then FoP should apply. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
That's also my reading of the relevant guidance in Commons' excellent summary of FoP rules (in particular, "The Federal Court of Justice held in 2002[19] that neither does this require the work to remain at its place for the entire duration of its existence, nor is it purely a question of the author’s dedication. The relevant criterion, then, is the original intention of the work display as perceived by an “objective observer.” "). @Ronhjones: you might want to take this into account. Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Odd edits by Randelearcilla[edit]

Could someone with knowledge of the Philippine theater in WW2 take a look over the contribution history of Randelearcilla? He's creating swathes of completely unsourced articles (see for instance Battle of Piis, Battle of Baguio (1945), Battle of Kiangan‎ and many more). I don't know enough to judge whether this is a good-faith editor who's improving a field which Wikipedia has failed to cover up to now and just doesn't understand Wikipedia referencing, or a serial hoaxer creating a string of fictitious battles. I'm reluctant to approach him myself given my lack of knowledge of the topic. Mogism (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it looks...suspicious, but like you I'm not entirely sure if its good faith or not. Based on the writing style in the articles my instinct is telling me that its a combat veteran or someone with campaign experience that penned the material being added, which could compound the problems with the material since the experience of the individual soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen is usually used here only to supplement the existing overview of the battles and/or campaigns fought. @Marine 69-71:, @OberRanks: - You two are the best historians on this site that I can think of when it comes to US Marine Corps and US Navy history; is there any material you guys have or have seen that would support the idea that these battles took place? If so we may be able to use that to help shore up the material, otherwise I'd given serious consideration to either merging or deleting the pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The editor has been active in adding material about the Philippines guerilla units rather than regular US forces. I think I can safely declare they are not a native English speaker (witness this single sentence " After the Battle on Baguio from the Allied troops.") and may be overstating by using "battle" when a minor action is meant. I can keep a lid on some of their formatting eg Lots of Capitals, and remove the most dubious inclusions eg adding experimental tank designs to lists of weaponry used by the Philippine Army but other than just stripping out sections I don't know how to handle the (garbled) narrative which I AGF. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just removed about 90% of Battle of Piis as a cut-and-paste copyright violation from this websiteMogism (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl: In the interest of covering our bases perhaps I could trouble you to lend a hand here too? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend advising them about copyright and carefully checking their other contributions (the quick way is to pick distinctive sentences and copy and paste them into Google). Communication is always the way—discussing somebody in their absence isn't going to solve anything. At the end of the day competence is required, but communication is the first resort, not the last. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but per my original post, the reason I brought this here is that I don't think I'm the one to do that talking. My knowledge of the Philippine Campaign could be summarised as "the Japanese won but then lost", and I don't really want to get engaged in a technical discussion on a topic of which I know nothing. Mogism (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oh, dear. It's late here, and I need to look at it when I'm fully awake. There's copying within Wikipedia, as well - Battle of Bulacan includes content from Battle of Davao taken without attribution. I see User:Mogism has already given him the information I would have, but I'd like to spot-check to see if there are broader issues that need cleanup now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Partner Projects[edit]

Moved from my talk page:

How about we include WikiProject Firearms into the partner projects list?Maybe we can make a joint edit drive in the future.Catlemur (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought it already was. Where is the list of partner projects, and what is the procedure for adding one? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question, I only knew about WP Ships... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

secret or top-secret section/category[edit]

Isn't there a category with this feater? would be help nowadays -- (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Camp Trotter[edit]

Could someone please take a look ASAP at the recently created Camp Trotter page. It appears to have been written by the father of a US soldier "Sgt. John Byron Trotter, was killed in Ar Ramadi, Anbar, Iraq on November 9, 2004." who died on duty and the camp is named after him. It's coming up on the tenth anniversary of his death.

I've fixed it up a little, but it's basically an un-sourced obituary at the moment. :-/ --220 of Borg 01:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 220!. It looks like it's been copied and pasted from somewhere. It's not really an encyclopaedia article, but I don't have the heart to tell the man his son died a hero but probably isn't notable enough for an article. Let's perhaps invoke IAR and (unless somebody puts it up for deletion) give it a few days and then perhaps userfy it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Possibly unfortunately, I welcomed them to WP and basically said that to them too :-/. [1] I think that 'this may be the 'camp' mentioned, but not sure. There was certainly a soldier by the name John Byron Trotter Sergeant, United States Army. The editor had no WP e-mail contact, but I may have found his sister's, if we need to contact them directly. --220 of Borg 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about the Michigan children's camp. I think the obit referred to "Camp Trotter, a station of Camp Corregidor in Ramadi, Iraq" as mentioned at (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
From the looks of the 2nd Infantry Division article, Corregidor and Trotter were built within a city as outposts, so they may have some sort of notability depending on how large it was. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I have moved High Wood to Attacks on High Wood as mooted and altered a couple of redirects and the Somme campaignbox. I'd be grateful if someone woud check, to see that I haven't buggered it up this time.;O) RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Keith. That's some fantastic work you've been doing on that article. I've only glanced at it, but have you considered putting it up for a GA review? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I toy with the idea but there are lots of articles I want to bring up to B class first.Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Second that - in my opinion quite a few of the articles you have brought up to B look GA worthy to me. If ever you want some assistance with some of the more boring technical aspects that can sometimes come up at GA (image tagging etc) you might be able to get a few of us to assist if you ping us when they come up. Was that the issue with Battle of Verdun? I didn't really track this until the review was closed. Anotherclown (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

1821 bombardment of Doha[edit]

I recently came across the article British intervention in Doha,Ottoman Empire. It appears to refer to the 1821 bombardment of Doha by a British East India Company vessel Vestal in response to piracy. I can dig up a few mentions of this in sources but there doesn't seem to be much detail (see 1 2 3 4 5) other than confirming the event occurred. The article itself is erroneous and unsourced referring to British Army involvement and should probably be at Bombardment of Doha (1821) if anywhere. Personally I am of the opinion that this event doesn't warrant an article of its own and can probably be covered by a passing mention in the history section of the city article but wanted to canvass opinion first - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've heard of this somewhere. Give me a day or two and I'll see if I can work out where. Not that "Harry's heard of it somewhere" makes it notable, but there might be some better coverage in one of the books on my shelf... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. If you find anything let me know, I'd love to expand this article if possible. Just the sort of minor engagement forgotten about elsewhere that piques my interest! - Dumelow (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mine too! I'm travelling tomorrow but I'll have a rummage on Monday. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Little community perspective - articles-notability-merger or worse[edit]

Can someone please offer external perspective/guidance on the possible merger of two articles? I've asked involved editors for reasons "why it should not be merged" and replies do not show that material establishes two separate, stand-alone articles (notability of events). The articles are Khan Yunis massacre, and Rafah massacre. I inquired but was not presented with any examples of reliable, separate significant coverage. Involved editors objected on reasoning that we are dealing with "distinct episodes separated by a week", "on different dates and locations". (a) The location issue is silly considering there's barely 4 miles (less than 7km) between the 'different locations' (South-Gaza). (b) Only one source of repute was found thus far, which lumps both into one paragraph (not much for separate distinction - even if two dates are mentioned). Involved editors brought up a cartoonist as "good source, his book got good reviews <Blimey!> and is based mostly on eyewitnesses accounts"[2] (please, someone explain everyone involved that a cartoonist is not a good source for history). Thanks! MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entry[edit]

I know that what is written on Wikipedia is open source, and creative commons licensed for others use, but I would like others to read the Asian American entry from page 181 to page 185. Outside of the post-World War II content, the content appears to me to be highly similar. Yet, no mention of Wikipedia. Has anyone else come across things like this before?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, yes I've seen something similar. I've found some of my own work published by other organisations/authors without attribution and I think a few of our ships editors may have had similar experiences. I decided not to take the matter further, though, but I believe that there might be avenues that you could pursue (not sure of the exact details, though, sorry). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A few years back, I came across some iPhone apps that reused Wikipedia content without credit. I was a little peeved at the time when on using one about RAF aircraft of WWII, I saw some stuff I had slightly rephrased my lovingly-crafted prose reproduced without credit. I left a cutting review of the product. I know, there are things that can be done with website, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The item that I linked to is published by SAGE Publishing, would I contact them and or Wikimedia regarding a request for attribution by the entry's author, one William Wei?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You should contact them, Wikimedia doesn't get involved[3]. As a legitimate publisher an allegation of possible plagiarism/ outright copyright infringement should get them motivated. If you wrote any of the text that appears to be copied, then you are in a better position to cause a stir. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You should definitely write to them. As Graeme says, if they've got anything about them they should take it seriously. But be polite—try to remember how little you knew about copyright before you became a Wikipedian, and bear in mind that most people don't realise there are actual human beings behind Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks. I will email SAGE Publishing and see what becomes of this. I'll keep ya'll posted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

PVT Chen[edit]

In looking at content to expand Military History of Asian Americans, I came across the article Danny Chen. This appears to be WP:BLP1E biography. The Soldier, a U.S. Army Private who killed himself after harassment from other unit members, is not notable himself outside of his suicide. His suicide as an event I think meets WP:EVENT as it lead to prosecution of the harassing Soldiers, and failed leadership to stop it. That being said, as it is the event that is notable, not the private himself, shouldn't the article be moved to a different namespace reflecting that, like Suicide of Private Chen and the article be restructured? It already largely focuses on the event and not the individual.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of what an event article of a similar case would be Suicide of Harry Lew.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If the suicide is notable but the individual isn't notable beyond that then yes, I would say that it's better to move the article to "suicide of..." (or perhaps "death of..."?) and restrure the article accordingly. Biographical details would still be relevant, but as background. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 20:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Btw, it might be worth looking at how other articles about an individual's death are structures. A few examples come to mind—two homicides (Murder of Joanna Yeates which was TFA the other day, and Death of Ian Tomlinson) and an accident (Death of Charlotte Shaw). I'm sure you could find something American and/or a suicide with a bit of digging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Castles vs forts[edit]

Hi all. I'd appreciate some knowledgeable input on the following category discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_20#Category:Medieval_forts_in_England. Thanks! SFB 16:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC Notification regarding Chevalier d'Eon[edit]

There is currently an RfC on the proper use of pronouns in the article Chevalier d'Eon, which falls within the scope of this Wikiproject. The RfC can be found here. Your comments and discussion on the matter would be appreciated. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alarms on submarines of the United States Navy[edit]

Hi. This article has been tagged for expert attention since 2009. Can someone take a look? Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured pictures[edit]

There's quite a lot of history-related images at featured picture candidates just now; many of them could use more reviews as to their encyclopædic value and quality. September, marking the return to education for a lot of people, is a rather slow month. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Please review and comment here - [4]. Best. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)