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:

Help![edit]

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.

Military dates or civilian dates?[edit]

I had military dates style on Audie Murphy, as had been requested on one of the various reviews. My main concern is I don't want anything on it to take it down from FA. Someone has changed the dates back to American style, because he was American. Please offer an opinion here of what this project prefers. — Maile (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this M. My concern is that WP:STRONGNAT states "articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." I have italicized modern as I don't think the term applies to soldiers as far back as AM - For example shows about the 60s - the era I grew up in - are now period pieces rather than contemporary dramas. Apologies for the digression and please feel free to revert the article back as I did not mean to cause a stir with this projects MOS. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Followup: Perhaps a brief parenthetical could be added to STRONGNAT like "modern (since 19XX) US military" so that others don't experience the same confusion as I have. I don't know how much resistance there would be to this at the MOS but I hope that they would be open to it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
We may be reading too much into that "modern". What, exactly, was the date format used by the US military in WWII? --Pete (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
MarnetteD, Skyring, based on scans of Audie Murphy's service documents, (Pages 8 and etc.) it would appear that the Army was using Day, Month, Year format. And, oh, during the Vietnam War, I worked for the U.S. Army and can attest that everything was DMY on documentation. I can still remember the orientation drill specifically about using DMY on everything. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to find these. To be fair the C.A.R.O. Form No. 11 uses MDY. The Enlistment Record uses DMY on its "Enlisted At" line but them uses MDY on the "When and where were you born" line and goes back to DMY on the "Given at" line. The Physical exam form uses MDY. The Oath and Certificate of Enlistment uses MDY early and DMY toward the bottom. The Individual List of Disposition uses MDY once typed and once written. The ones marked confidential all use DMY. The Battle Casualty report "Date of Casualty" line uses DMY but the rubber stamp at the bottom used MDY. I wont take up any more room listing these other than to say that most of the rest of the forms do use DMY. It is fun that one page has both a rubber stamp with DMY and one with MDY. Based on this I don't think it can be stated that the military of the time had a rigid rule about dates at the time. OTOH there is a preponderance of DMY in the correspondence (say that five times quickly :-> ) so I think you should do the honors of changing the article back M. I wish there was something we could do at the STRONGNAT section but maybe I am the only one who will be confused about this. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 00:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will take care of it, and reference this talk thread in case it comes up again. Military career of Audie Murphy, which was split and expanded from this main article, is also DMY format, so it's good they have the same date format. And that includes the date on everything in the references, so it's good you didn't change all those hundreds of dates. I will also reference this talk thread over there. Just for clarification purposes, from 1943 until he died, Murphy was part of the U.S. Army in one status category or another. His Texas National Guard service was recognized on a Federal level. He did not officially move to Retired Reserve until 1969. Of course, he's buried at Arlington and was given a military funeral with full honors. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Dates on organizational letters issued by the Adjuant General indicate the change occurred after June 13, 1942 but before 7 July 1943. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
7/7/43 - I'll bet the possibility of confusion during joint ops with the British had a lot of bearing on this. Operation Husky began just after this period. and wasn't that a model of Allied coöperation! --Pete (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It is probably like measuring distances on kilometres -- or using blue for friendly troop designation on maps (traditionally the French and Americans were blue the British red and the Germans grey or black)-- a NATO harmonization policy. So a look for a source sometime after the formation of NATO and before the Vietnam War (where distances were measured in kilometres by the US Army). -- PBS (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, if I recall correctly, the British Army changed themselves from red to blue in 1914, as it would have made joint planning with the French un peu difficile. Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The format on a rubber stamp can be distracting. By 1963, the Army was clearly on on DMY standard but adjustable stamps were usually MDY because they were purchased from a civilian source. I once disassembled a rubber date stamp and reordered the elements so they would "match policy." It worked and no one complained.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nominations open for 2014 project coordinator election[edit]

Hello, everyone! The nomination period for the 2014 project coordinator election has now opened. We are looking to elect up to 12 coordinators to serve for the next year; with a number of incumbents stepping down at the end of this term, this is a great opportunity for new folks to join the team. If you're interested, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on September 14. Kirill [talk] 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck to everyone who decides to run for the difficult task of becoming a coordinator. I hope more military veterans, and Americans decide to run. But what matters regardless of whether one has served or not, or what ones nationality is, that we all work towards improving articles under this WikiProjects scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, just a reminder that the nominations period for the co-ord election will close in the next day or so. We are looking to elect up to 12 co-ords, and with only nine nominations there are still spots up for grabs so if anyone is at all interested, please nominate yourself. If you have any questions at all about the process or the job, I am more than happy to try to answer them. Cheers and good luck to everyone who has put up their hand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As a reminder the ballot boxes are open and waiting to be filled. Time to place your positive chits in.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Campaign box and an image on the left[edit]

I have a problem with the positioning of an image to the left of a page and a campaign box. See:

  1. Siege of Maastricht — without the Campaignbox
  2. Siege of Maastricht — with the Campaignbox

The image has been placed just below the "Siege" section heading, to appear on the left. In (1) it appears where expected, but when the Campaignbox is added (2) the image below the start of the Campaignbox. Is this a known bug?

-- PBS (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen that particular scenario, but it's one of a number of potential problems that can occur when floating elements are stacked along both margins. The easiest way to fix it is to nest the campaign box directly in the main infobox:
{{Infobox military conflict
...
|campaignbox={{Campaignbox Franco-Dutch War}}
}}
Kirill [talk] 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks that fix worked. -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that when infoboxes can't be nested for whatever reason, placing them inside {{stack begin}} and {{stack end}} will often fix the problem of misaligned images opposite them. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

New articles on Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation[edit]

Gday. A few new articles have been created by splitting content off Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, being Combat operations in 1963 during the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation and Combat operations in 1965 during the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation. I notice also that Combat operations in 1966 during the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation has also now been redlinked in the parent article so assume this will be created soon. These articles are still very much in their infancy and appear to need a bit of work if anyone is interested. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

AFD on Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt[edit]

An AFD on Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt, who developed the Artillery Miniature Range, is posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt. Project members are invited to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Peasant War Nav Box[edit]

I would like to create a military navigation box which will include these.Should I include them all or create a couple of separate navigation boxes?For example:Peasant Wars in Medieval Europe,Early Modern Peasant Wars e.t.c. Catlemur (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Gday I meant to comment on this a while back but got side tracked. For everyone else this follows from a discussion on my talk page after Catlemur asked for my opinion about this. Pls see here for my cmts - User_talk:Anotherclown#Campaign_Box. I suggested Catlemur bring his question here in the hope someone else might be able to give a more informed answer. Is anyone able to help? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that unless there is a reliable source that groups them together, you run the risk of engaging in original research. If a book or something similar breaks them up into groups, then it would probably be okay to do that, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops, missed this originally. The concept of "peasant wars" as a distinct grouping dates back to the 1960s, I think, when it was a popular frame of reference for Marxist-inspired thinkers looking at relevant agrarian societies. In terms of the current literature, the term "peasant revolts" is the rather more common term, I'd suggest, and that certainly does usually break down into themes on "medieval peasant revolts" and "early modern revolts" (with some overlap in the 16th century...) Catlemur: a Google Books search on a set of terms like "violence", "peasant", "revolt" and "medieval/early modern" would give you a good sense of what normally gets included in this area: there's a fair bit of literature on it, but its not overwhelming in size. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New category[edit]

Category:Afghanistan-Iraq War Memorials 7&6=thirteen () 15:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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).

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)

"Ingria in World War II"[edit]

Ingria in World War II seems a very odd page to me. So far as I know Ingria has never been a country (let alone during World War II), but it appears in the "History of World War II by region and country" template as if it were. I don't believe it was even a formal subdivision of the USSR at the time of the war. The article itself never makes clear what Ingria is and seems to focus more on the war in general than on that region; that's not even getting into the fact that it's totally unreferenced. Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. it's unsourced, full of unbalanced POV, and poorly done. It adds little but confusion. It ought to be deleted. Rjensen (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Found this odd one as well: "Carpathian Ruthenia during World War II", apparently created by the same chap, "£"—a sockpuppet of a banned user, Bloomfield—back in March 2006 (!), about a week after the Ingria article (see here and here). While this isn't in itself reason to delete it does not fill me with confidence. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Soviet missile page titles[edit]

I've noticed that quite a few (or perhaps even all) of the articles on Soviet and Russian missiles are titled using their Soviet manufacturers' designation. The trouble is this conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME; the "common name in English" for these weapons will be, in virtually all cases, the NATO reporting name. For instance, K-13 (missile) is virtually WP:JARGON; AA-2 Atoll on the other hand will be recognisable by virtually everyone with even a casual interest in the subject. Using the 'official names' causes confusion in another sense, as well: 3M11 Falanga refers to the AT-2 Swatter family - the majority of which was designated 9M17, 3M11 only being the original Swatter-A (and AT-3 Sagger is titled 9K11 Malyutka when all of its variants are listed as 9M14...).

In short, unless there's a good reason why these articles are at the virtually unknown designations instead of the weapons' common names in English, I'm planning on moving them shortly.

(Note that aircraft and ships seem to be at 'correct' titles as far as I can tell - only missiles have this problem.) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Bushranger, and would support those moves. NATO codenames are the common names in English in this case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this approach. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
NATO codenames would have been the more recognisable names to many for Russian aircraft, yet they all use the "Manufacturer - Designation" format AFAIK. Sukhoi Su-25 not Su-25 Frogfoot (a redirect). You might want to talk about your desire to rename them at WT:AVIATION and/or WT:AIR, since they likely have an opinion on aircraft mounted missiles, I think it's their style guide which determined the aircraft naming. (Hohum @) 18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Aircraft have a unified-across-the-board standard, which is IMHO the correct one (Manufacturer + Designation + Official Name when applicable). Aircraft-mounted weapons are not covered under the aviation project. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Presumably members of that project, like this one, will have a relevant opinion about it though. Our projects overlap in this instance. (Hohum @) 22:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIL conflict in War on Terror article?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War on Terror#ISIL conflict. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Review needed[edit]

I've done some work on our 1908 Pattern Webbing article, which was previously a one-line stub. I would be grateful if somebody could cast an eye over it for me. If there's another procedure that I should be using for this type of request, please advise. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A definite improvement! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC) (NB: is Equipment usually capitalised in the literature? (e.g. "the leather Slade-Wallace Equipment") It looked a bit odd, but it may be a standard convention.) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. As for capitalisation, the official British Army designations for pieces of equipment seem to be generally treated as proper nouns, but in the case of "Slade-Wallace", this seems to be an unofficial name and so I'll change that next time I'm on the page. Regards, Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move for Operation Polo[edit]

I hope this is the right place. If not, apologies. Publicising request to move: Operation Polo to Indian integration of Hyderabad. See Talk:Operation_Polo#Requested_move_2. Any suggestions for other places to publicize this are also welcome. Kingsindian (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Boer War[edit]

The article title Boer War is a redirct. Yesterday I altered to redirect from Boer Wars (which is currently a very poor article) to redirect to Second Boer War (see hist) and added a hatnote to Second Boer War (see here.

I explain my reasoning on Talk:Boer War#Redirect. The changes have been reverted with an explanation in the same section. Clearly more editor input would help decide whether or not the change is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of Geobox for forts, etc[edit]

It is proposed to deprecate the use of {{Geobox}} for buildings (currently there are 274 such instances; some for forts), in favour of {{Infobox building}} or more specific infoboxes, such as {{Infobox military installation}}. Would anyone like to assist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 15 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)

References needed for Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II[edit]

Gday the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II article is quite poorly referenced at the moment. I'm adding what I can but only have a fairly limited library. Hoping a few editors could have a look and add what they have. You will note there has also been some concerns raised about neutrality on the talk page so pls feel free to cmt. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheolli Jangseong (Great Wall of Korea)[edit]

I've suggested that Cheolli Jangseong (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) be split into two articles at talk:Cheolli Jangseong because the article is about two separate subjects that share the same name, but are not the same thing. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:45, 16 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.) -- 70.51.46.146 (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 Fold3.com, 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 Fold3.com 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 Archive.org 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)