Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The August newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Castlereagh–Canning duel Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) • 2008 Mumbai attacks • United States Special Operations Command • Kony 2012 Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,086) • only work on referencing and citation (43,199) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,306) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,798) • work on structure (31,841) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,170) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,859) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (0) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (1) • task forces added (16) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Stronghold

Currently the above article is seven sentences long, but off the top of my head I can't think of what it could consist of that wouldn't fit in the fortification article. Is stronghold just another word for fortification or is there merit in having separate articles? I'm tempted to turn stronghold into a redirect to fortification, while at least has more information. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A stronghold is a place of strength, so could theoretically just be something naturally defensible, I suppose. However, essentially it is the same thing, so I think your suggestion is a good one.Monstrelet (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - seems the same in encyclopaedic terms. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree also. Strongholds don't necessarily require fortification (they may have political or geographic benefits separate from the pure physical ones), but I don't see how it merits a separate page. Besides, if somebody does, it can be forked or split off again later... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, instead of redirecting, perhaps simply moving Stronghold (disambiguation) to Stronghold, with a clearer link to Fortification at the top of the former page, might be the best direction? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article as it stands focuses solely on the military and historical context, but the concept of stronghold is broader than this, think of political stronghold and others which would not fit well with fortification but definitely be suitable for a broad article on the concept of strongholds. That being said, I have no time and will to expand the article to broaden its context. My 2 cents — CharlieEchoTango — 00:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Although stronghold as a dab page could link to stronghold as a Safe seat. Changing my objection to a weak objection. — CharlieEchoTango — 00:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Charlie. Stronghold should be a dab, with the military term linking to fortification, possibly an article about naturla stronghold, i.e. Little Round Top, and a link to Safe seat. Buggie111 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Stronghold, by default, means a fortress. You can't add adjectives to a word and change what it means, you go by its default meaning. For example, you can't make the article Hair into a dab and direct the user to Wig (fake hair) and Real hair, because hair doesn't mean and is not a wig, it's a naturally-grown fur found on mammals. Same with stronghold. Please redirect it to Fortification. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the encyclopedic value of the concept of political stronghold, currently best described in the article on safe seats? This a term that is widely used (at least up here in Canada), is derived from the concept of fortress and similar in meaning but has a different context. If stronghold in its current form is merged into fortification, then definitely it should be a disambig page directing readers to the other meanings of stronghold. If it is not merged, then the article should be expanded to cover all uses of the word and concept. Semantics is not a static science, and a concept can have valid contextual derivatives. — CharlieEchoTango — 01:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we place a nav template at Fortification if there was a redirect which says "Stronghold redirects here, for political stronghold, please see ..." Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can live with this, provided there is no other use for the word/context of stronghold. Buggie111 mentioned one above of which I am not aware, perhaps it is as valid a derivative context as political stronghold is; if this is the case then I must say I don't think it's appropriate for a hatnote to have more than one disambig. Best, — CharlieEchoTango — 02:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The article itself with the image of a castle. If both are relating to a "castle" then it should go into the "castle" articles. Does that make sense? Adamdaley (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really, there are many types of fortification/stronghold other than a castle. I'm basing this purely on my own understanding of the words (I haven't gone and looked for any refs I'm afraid), but doesn't a fortification imply structures built purposefully for defence, while a stronghold can be any area of ground held by a force for the purpose of defence? Even if that is the case, it might be a better thing for wiktionary rather than here though... Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Adam is right - the current article doesn't talk about the nuances we have discussed, just about fortifications. So, if we want a stub article on the three meanings it would need to be rewritten. I think we'd need to be clearer on what a natural stronghold is though. I would suggest it has a strategic rather than tactical meaning i.e. a safe base, rather than a feature on a battlefield, which might be a strongpoint ( and which we don't have an article on). We could hatlink off from a redirect to Fortification, but we would need to be sure the articles pointed to actually mentioned strongholds in the sense we are after, so that might generate work tooMonstrelet (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If no one's agaisnt it, I'll start work on natural stronghold in my userspace. Buggie111 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

GA backlog

Hello all. Just a note to highlight the rather intractable backlog of unactioned requests for GA Reviews at the moment. If you're interested in helping out please have a look at: [1]. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As an update to this quite a dent has been made now, and the backlog has been reduced from nearly 50 articles to 28, so great effort to those that helped out. I would like to think we can do even better though, so if anyone else is looking around for something to do please consider doing a review. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Book report

BTW, if you haven't noticed, the book reports for Wikipedia books have been extensively tweaked to help editors assess and cleanup articles. See for example Book talk:Arms control treaties#Book report. Features include breakdowns of article assessments, lists of cleanup tags found in the article, lists of non-free media, and a bunch of links to tools likes the external links inspector or the disambiguation fixer. Those are automatically updated by User:NoomBot every few days. Many books are created at WP:FTC, but you don't need to way until then to gain their benefits. Just thought I'd let you know. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A very handy tool! Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

.25 ACP Article

Article: .25 ACP

There's been a couple of lines on the Discussion page about this weapon (or bullet) and it's possibility it may not fit the WikiProject Military History. It is assessed as a "C Class". 11:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the two lines on the Discussion page about this article? Is it related to Military History, has this ever been used to fit into our WikiProject Military History? Adamdaley (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone know if this was used by Military? Adamdaley (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Improving raid article

I've recently had cause to stop by at Raid (military). Though better than once it was, it is still a poor specimen. In particular, I notice that the air landing section is empty. Given the interest here in airborne operations and special forces, I can only think this is due to lack of awareness. Sadly, I've already committed my immediate editing time as even I have some basic material but there are people here who are genuinely expert on this stuff. There really is an excellent opportunity here to improve on this important tactics article. I hope someone will take up the challenge.

New tool to remove duplicate links

Ucucha has created a script at User:Ucucha/duplinks that highlights duplicate links in the text of an article (not counting links in the lead, infoboxes and navboxes, and soon, not counting links anywhere outside the main text). The next step is for us to use the tool and point out any exceptions we want to make, that is, any duplicate links we think it's important to retain, at User talk:Ucucha/duplinks. After we've played around with it a while to get a feeling for the unintended consequences, I'm hoping the tool will be further enhanced to pull up a list of suggested links to delete in an edit-changes screen, so that you can remove them all with one click if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a handy-dandy little tool. Installed! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone prefer that the tool only remove links that are, say, within 2 screens of a duplicate link in the main text? My sense is that this could go either way, that people aren't fussy about whether they prefer no duplicate links at all, or none "nearby". The MOS link Ucucha points to, WP:REPEATLINK, says that a second link is okay if it's a "long way" from the first. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That would make sense...as would modifying the tool so it doesn't flag "citation needed" as a duplicate link! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, GermanJoe requested that it ignore "file captions, templates, tables and references (named and unnamed)". - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural impact of the Falklands War

Hi. When you have time, could you see Talk:Cultural impact of the Falklands War#Malouines ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Lord Angus Fairchild

Can anyone please confirm that Lord Angus Fairchild is not a hoax?

Googling "Angus Fairchild" doesn't turn up much, which is surprising for one of the "great Fighter Aces of his era". Same is the case with "Singdum, Walter and "That shatty sky" (cited as reference). Can't find any mention of the Distinguished Flying Cross at nationalarchives.gov.uk. utcursch | talk 12:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither Google Books nor WorldCat show any sign of either one. If he's such a great ace, howcum I never heard of him? I'm smelling a dead hoax. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything either - seems to be a hoax. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Hoax.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Shooting down a V-2 rocket...". Yeah. No. Just, no. G3 incoming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the shooting down of 1 aircraft during the Vietnam war notable? Does it deserve GA status?

User:Canpark has written an article Action of 7 May 1968 which relates to the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft during the Vietnam War. This article was assessed and passed for GA by User:SCB '92. I have questioned whether this event is notable particularly as the operative part of the article seems to be drawn from 1 page of one book. User:Canpark has also written another article Action of 16 June 1968 which essentially repeats all of Action of 7 May 1968 in order to recount a story of the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft. User:Canpark seems to be writing articles in order to transcribe the book by Topcerzer of Mig kills of the Vietnam war. Are these individual events notable and/or worthy of GA? Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Pages for every U.S. aircraft shot down in Vietnam, now? What about for every one in Korea? Every one in WW2? This is up there with pages for every single Allied merchantman sunk. Unless the action has independent notability, I'd say delete it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that's really 2 stages. Notability determines whether the event is suitable enough to have its own article on Wiki, in the first instance. GA depends on the quality of the article per criteria which generally assumes notability is sufficiently met and that the article is not low-quality. So the main question is to determine notability which, as a historic event, all depends on coverage and how many third-party sources have given the event some independent thought. If you have concerns that the articles are based from only one source, or that verifiability is a concern, then you could always tag the articles, and see if the author can produce further sources, although that may be a little counter-productive based on the simplicity of "shot down one aircraft". Alternatives may be to recommend the articles be merged, to produce a stronger article from the two. Personally, I think that the use of 4 or 5 references for articles as long as each of those seems fine, although I have only glanced over the articles without looking at the sources in detail. If you are concerned about the author transcribing from them, have you determined if there are any copyvio concerns? If not, then it's a matter of weighing up the information, and determining within reasonable doubt that it meets notability requirements. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read both articles you will see that large parts are the same and so have been used to bulk-up a relatively minor event. I would expect the subject of the article to make up most of the page, but here the subject (the Engagement) is just a few short paragraphs that seem to rely on just one source, the Topcerzer book, which I haven't managed to locate yet, but I do have copyvio concerns. Mztourist (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at those articles, and I wouldn't really consider them notable. For me it's not a question of the number of sources, but rather the type of sources. In these articles, the sources cover much broader topics. I'd change my mind if new tactics or methods of operation were introduced in either action, but I didn't see any evidence of that in the articles in question. Sorry, this just looks like possible GA number padding.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re your comment on GA number padding, I have raised this with User:Canpark before and been ignored. It certainly seems to be the case here. Mztourist (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I had criteria on the lines of Intothatdarkness': a DRVAF or USAF ace involved, a notable POW resulting, something. It doesn't appear there is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this criteria alloy to all wars. Does the shooting down of Douglas barder have its own artciel?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, no, nor IMO should it, in context. Neither was he in Vietnam, where the numbers of "friendly" airmen downed was rather smaller, & where his being downed might merit one. Presuming he didn't have his own page, where it would probably end up. I was looking for any reason it might pass. Do these pages meet even a low standard? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why sould being on one side make you more notable then being on the other, why should Vietman be treated differantly to any other war. This smacks of Americacenterism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Canpark focuses his writing on engagements where the Vietnamese defeated the Americans. Mztourist (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

But the point I was repsoding to implied that if the susject of the artciel was from "friendly" forces it should make it more notable then if it were not. I was pointing out that just being "on the right side" should not be a criteria of any kind. Nor should "begin in the Veitnam war" be a criteria".Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::::Certain shoot-downs could merit an article of their own. Bader's shooting down, for example, was controversial and there is a theory it was a friendly fire incident, so it could be worthy of a break out article from a main article to consider in more depth. Likewise Richthofen. In both cases, notable participants and subject of detailed analysis. Some might be notable for rarity (the shooting down of a MIG 15 by Fleet Air Arm Sea Furies in Korea for example), others for controversy (shooting down of civilian airliners by armed forces). But the downing of every aircraft during a long war? No. Monstrelet (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course some shooting downs will be notable, but the conflict they are part of or the nationality of the victim would not make them notable. The circunstances would. The length of the conflict shud make no differance, the only situation where it could be arguesd a shooting down might be notable (relate4d to the nature of the conflcit) are where it was a rarity (suchg as in the first gulf war where only 75 aircraft losses were redorced), but even then its dooubtfull.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since the conditions for Viet POWs was not especially harsh, I suggest being a Viet POW is prima facie non-notable, contrary to the case for Americans in DRV hands. And the relative numbers of aviators on all sides in Vietnam compared to WW1 & WW2 makes them more notable, IMO. The relative peformance in WW2 had to be better, on sheer volume. Marseille or Bong are notable in WW2, where Richie's score was equalled by 100s of flyers on all sides. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see these actions as especially notable. Even within the context of Vietnam. No major aces or high-ranking pilots were involved, no major tactical innovations took place, and they were not part of a larger, major offensive (and claiming they were part of Rolling Thunder doesn't change that point).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability aside the article is not just the shooting down of one aircraft. Its the engagement of five F-4 Phantoms by two MiG-21 Fishbeds. With the result that against odds of 2.5 to 1 the Vietnamese pilots shot down an American aircraft. Notability may be that this was the first arial victory by the Vietnam People’s Air Force in the Military Zone IV of North Vietnam, which is cited. If you believe the article is not notable you should put it up for AFD. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not clear if this was a swirling dogfight with 5 F-4s really pitted against 2 Mig-21s, the F-4B that was shot down was apparently heading out to sea and hit from behind by 2 Atolls, after an engagement between the same Mig-21s and another 2 F-4s. Also its not clear that there is anything particularly notable about it being the first aerial victory in Military Zone IV. I'm sure if authors looked hard enough at any engagement they could find something that they regard as notable, but it seems that most of the rest of the community don't think this article meets notability Mztourist (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have notified User:SCB '92 of this thread, Canpark had already been informed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see this as truly notable. It was one air battle, out of a series of similar or near-identical air battles. What would make an air battle notable? Let's see:
  • Notable participant being shot down/captured: Bader, the Red Baron, and such. Not applicable here.
  • Notable impact on the course of the conflict. Not applicable here.
  • Notable aircraft involved, or the shoot-down being conducted in an unusual fashion - for instance, the A-4 that emptied its Zuni rocket pods at an attacking MiG-17 and, much to the Skyhawk pilot's amazement, blasted said MiG to pieces. Not applicable here.
  • Other circumstances. Being the first victory by the VPAF might be notable - if it was the first aerial victory against the U.S. overall. Was it? The cited fact is ...over Military Zone IV. If it was simply the first victory scored in that particular theater, then no, notability isn't estabished here, either.
  • WP:IAR, of course. Is there an IAR case here? I'm not convinced.
• In addition, I have concerns about the neutrality of the article, as well - or at least its balance, to be more precise. The article's commentary about the engagement is fully from the VPAF's POV, without any accounts of the battle's progress from the F-4 pilots' POV. Also, the fact that the "Background" section of the article is longer than that for the engagement itself raises my eyebrows. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was alerted to this from a similar discussion started at WT:GAN, and drew many of the same conclusions as expressed here. I just wasn't sure if things like this actually have notability. The red flag for me was he same as Bushranger - there is very little discussion on the actual shootdown. Most of it appears to be related to the overall aspect of the conflict. It occurs to me that this article, and any similar, would probably make a decent list, but otherwise is pretty trivial independently. It strikes me as being akin to writing an article each time an insurgent fires an RPG at a military vehicle. Resolute 18:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems no better or worse than other one day battle articles. See Action of 5 May 1794, Action of 7 May 1794, Action of 15 July 1798, Action of 18 August 1798 and Action of 18 August 1798 all are Good Articles and there are several more to select from. This boils down to are the sources reliable and is the action notable.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Those examples all seem to be fairly minor incidents, but the death tolls are much higher and in some cases ships were destroyed. As I see it the issue is that if these 2 apparently non-notable actions continue as stand-alone pages it just sets a precedent for almost any trivial engagement to have its own page - as Reso points out "each time an insurgent fires an RPG at a military vehicle". I think the Engagement section of Action of 7 May 1968 should just be transposed onto the page for Nguyen Van Coc and the rest of the article deleted or anything usable merged into the Operation Rolling Thunder or similar pages, while Action of 16 June 1968 which has no notability whatsoever should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Sorry, but I just don't see anything automatically notable in these actions.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I also concur. This could make Nguyen Van Coc into a nice page, but as for the engagement itself...not notable. Nice writing, but... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So if the death total had been higher that would have been OK for the article to stand?. Any trivial engagement can have its own pages if it has reliable sources. The battle section is cited to books by the Naval Institute Press and Osprey Publishing both respected publishing houses. As I suggested above if your not happy take this to AFD any more discussion here seems pointless. Also Mztourist needs to expand on why there are copyvio concerns. If there is no reasonable ground for suspicion the comment should be struck. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A higher death toll would be more notable which is the first criteria in writing an article. A trivial engagement by definition is not notable. I don't have any problem with Naval Institute Press and Osprey Publishing as sources, but reliable sources do not make a trivial engagement notable. In relation to copvio concerns I have noted that most of the information in the Engagement section of both these pages seems to rely on only 1 or 2 pages of Topcerzer as the only or main source and I believe that is reasonable grounds for concern. If anyone has the book please share the relevant pages. In relation to moving this to AFD, I think its only fair to leave this open for a few days so User:Canpark and any other authors have time to comment. Mztourist (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to distinguish between the question "is the incident notable?" and "is it best communicated in a separate article?" In this case, I'd be tempted towards "yes" for the former, and "no" to the later. But I can't claim to know the literature well for this period. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My spider sense is tingling. My feeling is that the background and section on tactics gives an air of weight to an otherwise brief encounter. But without access to sources its hard to tell if coverage from whole cloth or various snippets have been stitched together to make a larger (harlequin) whole. As to its GA-ness, it was assessed as B before going to GA nomination, which suggests it was already on the way to being well written, just not necessarily a suitable topic. I'd say content is good, but given the similar articles mentioned, but best not left as an individual article. Probably better covered as "air engagements of...(insert name of campaign)"GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

♠I wouldn't rely heavily on comparing the a/c engagements to the naval ones. After a quick glance at just one of the naval encounters linked above, I'm seeing "squadrons" engaged, not single ships. A single-ship action, as I've already said, would be a fail, & should be merged into the page of the aggressor (or the individual participants, as the case may be), or into another page. In this case, perhaps Air battles of Military Zone IV? Which would allow for not only these encounters, but information on the strengths & deployments of NVAF...tho that suggests to me a broader page might be better, with this one linked out from it.

♠I 'm not troubled particularly by reliance on a single source, since that may be all there is ATM. If these got merged, would we be complaining about it being single-sourced? I don't think so. I'd rather it be merged somewhere than lost... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Canpark had previously worked on a few articles that I think document events that aren't really notable. Some of his articles have background sections that are longer than the events in question themselves -- see this. I'm also concerned with NPOV problems (patriotism) here. Sp33dyphil © • © 02:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That article needs addressing Phil - Canpark has originally used mdy for dates, whilst Mktourists edits appear to be use dmy format in some cases. Towards the end, the last couple of sections especially, dates are mismatched, meaning it's falling short of meeting GA requirements. A few copy-edits would fix it, but editors need to respect the original date format, none the less. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sp33dyphil and have made these comments to Canpark directly before. Several of his articles are of negligible notability, but are bulked up with background information to lend them more importance. Canpark seems to write articles and push them for GA status as soon as possible, e.g. Action of 7 May 1968 was only created on 4 August 2011 and put up for GA on 12 August, similarly Action of 16 June 1968 was created on 11 August 2011 and put up for GA 12 August, I would have thought some more "cooking time" was appropriate Mztourist (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting my contributions on the spotlight again. As usual, I will follow majority consensus on issues, so if there are problems I am willing to rectify them accordingly. However, if one individual has issues with my contributions, that's not my problem.Canpark (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio claims - the Toperczer book is on line in snippet view only [2]. Having done some spot checks I can find no evidence of any copy violation. The nearest close paraphrasing I located was

in the book

This aerial victory had been the first success for the VPAF in the airspace above

article text

The action of 7 May 1968 gave the Vietnam People’s Air Force their first aerial victory over the airspace above

of course this is only a limited view of the page and other editors may wish to search deeper but with no evidence I think we should AGF. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that some people see a positive side to this. I obviously contribute to these Vietnam topics in good faith to further expand knowledge, especially in the area of air war where there is limited coverage. I have nothing to gain from writing these articles, yet certain individuals are hell-bent on questioning my intentions. If after seven days everybody here is in favour of deleting my articles, then I will accept the decision. As much as I would like to contribute more articles, I feel it will only hit a brick wall. So I am pretty much finish with Wikipedia.Canpark (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Editors who worry about articles whose main event is documented on a single page of a suitable source need to worry about other things. There are plenty of actions (including notable ones, here's one of mine) where the meat of what happened can be described in that space. Magic♪piano 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ship's Names

Ahoy there mates! I have been around since '06 but am new to the history project. Just signed up about a week ago. I have been writing/contributing to articles relating to Naval Commanders/Commodores in Early American history, mostly from the Barbary Wars and War of 1812 periods. I have rewritten the Stephen Decatur, Thomas Macdonough and John Rodgers pages to near completion and have started on several others as well. Today on my user page I was pinged by an IP user regarding the italicization of ship's names. Here is the message. I prefer to italicize the entire ship's name rather than have the name spelled with two types of lettering, e.g.

( USS Constellation v USS Constellation )

...as the former usage seems more eye appealing, at least to me. Soon I will be nominating the Stephen Decatur page for FA, but before I do I would like to get feed back on this and any other issue these pages might have. I suppose it would be more appropriate to continue the thread here, than on my user page. Input is welcomed.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The first part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines states 'Put the ship's name in italics, but not the prefix or hull number'. So USS Constellation but never USS Constellation. The USS is not part of the ship's name, but is a prefix. Benea (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the referral. Have gone through these pages and made the changes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal review for Napoleonic Wars (redux)

Portal:Napoleonic Wars is still currently up for Featured Portal review at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Napoleonic Wars. WikiProject MilHist members are invited to comment. For those unfamiliar with FP criteria, please see Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

End of World War II in Asia

End of World War II in Asia (EWW2A) was until today a redirect to Pacific War#Final stages. I moved a little known article stub called End of World War II in the Pacific to that location. It consisted of nothing but a list of bullet points.

I have sectioned it off into three parts given it a brief lead and added a couple of sections at the end. What I envisage would make it a much better article is if it were laid out something like the "End of World War II in Europe" (EWW2E), which has grown over the years into quite a useful article.

The two paragraphs I added at the end of EWW2A are the lead sections from the Occupation of Japan and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. I think that a lot more can be done like that to improve the article quite quickly. Anyone want to have a go and adding text from other articles and/or improving what is there already? -- PBS (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A former commando of USA, Kevin Thilgman

Is he notable enough for an article, Kevin Thilgman?

He died during a training mission with special forces FSK of Norway in 2010 (and the accident might not not increase his notability, but Norway's payment to his relatives and insurance companies after his death, might contribute to his notability.

References about the accident are at Forsvarets_Spesialkommando_(FSK)#Safety_violations.--155.55.60.112 (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

I recently published this article in the mainspace. Yet, the work is far from complete. It probably needs a lot of copy-editing love from a native speaker.

Also, there is an apparent problem with references. Most importantly, I don't have access to English language reputable sources discussing the battle in detail and I don't even know if such sources exist. It's a common problem for articles related to history of Poland: although we've been around for a thousand years, from British or American perspective our history is a relatively uncharted land.

Finally, Hawkeye7 assessed it as C-class (the article apparently failed to meet the B1 criterion). I would really appreciate it if someone helped me fix that. //Halibutt 12:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been helping Halibutt with this article. I've made changes to the main article already. Then decided to put it as a subpage so I could edit it (and anyone else is free to add or expand it's contents. I've made further changes to the article, mainly the distances Kilometres to Miles (the distance conversion template). Any ideas for the article create the Discussion page on my User subpage for the article. Instead of ideas being thrown all over the place about this article improvement. Adamdaley (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, the fork is here: User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 3 :) //Halibutt 16:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FACs needing reviews, October 12

This is a list of Milhist Featured Article Candidates more than two weeks old with fewer than 4 supports. Any substantive reviews will be helpful, particularly if you've reviewed the article before. It's easier to attract reviewers at FAC if there's been a recent A-class review, and it's also more efficient for the reviewers if they're not reviewing two completely different articles at A-class and at FAC, so if you want to bring your A-class articles to FAC, please do it sooner rather than later, and feel free to ask for help. Most FACs need "spotchecks" (checking for close paraphrasing and accuracy in the text, for any references you can get or can find online), although some nominators (like Ian) have passed so many spotchecks that it's not really necessary. All FACs need image reviews.

• 26 Sep 2011 – Chaplain–Medic massacre (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ed! (t · c); see discussion
  • Needs image review and spotchecks. I think it will be helpful to get opinions on how much of the material in the Background section is relevant to the massacre. The A-class review was almost a year ago. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• 25 Sep 2011 – Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ian Rose (t · c); see discussion
  • Needs image review. The A-class review closed in March. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both image reviews done. Other reviews would be much appreciated! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, and while you're here ... Nikki's nomination WP:Featured article candidates/If Day/archive1 is missing just the image check ... one of the commenters indicated they'd support after the source and image checks came in, and then we'll have 4 supports. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Now promoted! - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Images reviewed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Especially an image reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

USAF Helmet P-1A, unknown unit decal

P-1A Helmet

Can anyone identify and share the ~1950 unit decal history on this USAF P-1A helmet. thank you. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

VF(AW)-3 "Blue Nemesis" - all weather NORAD fighter squadron flying A4D Skyrays'. See [3] and ccdemo.info/AircraftPix/Skyray.html (Wiki hyperlink does not work!) Farawayman (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, we'll update the records at the Wing Over the Rockies Museum, Lance. ...LanceBarber (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hi guys! I've been poking around at WP:Contributor copyright investigations, and there are several over there that fall within MILHIST's scope. It's easier to find the copyvio when you're at least somewhat acquainted with the material, so I think that this project could be a great help in clearing up some or all of these investigations:

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111004 - User:Ken keisel - aviation articles, including some military aviation
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dawkeye - User:Dawkeye - naval articles
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101 - User:Ktr101 - general military, mostly military aviation
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Communicat - User:Communicat - World War II
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Chewygum - User:Chewygum - Philippine military
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Razzsic - User:Razzsic - Pakistani military & politics
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Craigy144 - User:Craigy144 - mostly British peerage, but some military scattered throughout

Some of these are fairly small investigations, but others (such as Dawkeye, Razzsic, etc) are quite large. It's a little scary that we have so many potential copyright violations within our project's scope, so I'm hoping that by posting here we can have many hands make light work of at least some of the above. WP:CCI is overburdened, with just a few editors doing the majority of the work - hopefully we can change that at least a little bit on MILHIST-related investigations. Dana boomer (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

North American F-82 Twin Mustang

I've made a number of high-resolution scans of F-82 Twin Mustang photographs and have uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. Also have expanded the gallery considerably. Also have expanded the captions of several other photographs and replaced them with high-resolution scans as well. Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley P.1154 now open

The A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley P.1154 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil © • © 07:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mahdist flag RFC

Please comment at Talk:Battle_of_Omdurman#Mahdist_flag, thanks, SpinningSpark 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Panzerschiff Deutschland and heavy cruiser Lützow (again)

Sorry for bringing this topic up again here. I was involved in the GA review of the heavy cruiser Lützow. What I normally do when committing myself to reviewing an article is to visit my own sources and verifying the key statements of the article. In context of Lützow and Deutschland class cruiser I came across the following book which I bought.

• Prager, Hans Georg (2001). Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow: ein Schiffs-Schicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit (in German). Hamburg, Germany: Koehler. ISBN 3-7822-0798-X.

Prager, a former crew member of Deutschland/Lützow, wrote his book after the Russians opened up their archives. The entire fate section of Lützow differs significantly from the older books published prior to opening the archives. According to Prager (pages 317 to 320), and this is documented with pictures detailing the types of explosives used, etc. Lüzow was sunk by Soviet bomb tests on 22 July 1947. Our articles here state she was scraped in the late 1940ties "Raised by the Soviet Navy in 1947, she was broken up for scrap over the next two years".

Even though this alternative/true fate is based on a German book (I know that some editors here have strong concerns when it comes to non-English literature here on Wiki) I feel it needs to be incorporated into the article. I can’t get myself to pass the Deutschland cruiser class GA-review without it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

21 cm Mörser 16 and 21 cm Mörser M. 16/18

Could someone knowledgeable about the subject verify if these are two articles about one and the same gun or if indeed two separate articles are justifiable? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Mörser 16 article is about a German gun while the Mörser M. 16/18 article is about an Austro-Hungarian gun.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Contact fuse

Hi,

Could I ask some knowledge members of Military history to comment in Talk:Contact fuse please. The article is currently being held at the name Contact fuse by editors claiming that the correct British English spelling is fuse per WP:ENGVAR. We know it should be fuze but they aren't listening. Other than obstructing what should have been an uncontroversial move they have not contributed to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)