Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The June 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 Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Bradley Winslow Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Gubir shootdown • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Charlemagne • Tim Hughes (soldier) • John S. McCain Sr. • HMS Trent (1796) • Eleanor of Castile Good article reassessments Galatian War • Franklin's lost expedition • Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine • Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Civil War token Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,557) • only work on referencing and citation (43,148) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,689) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,675) • work on structure (31,794) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,176) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,774) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (6) • assessment as lists (118) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (2) • assessment checklists completed (7) • task forces added (287) • attention to task force coverage (657)

News and announcements The November newsletter is now available! Nominations and voting for the "Military Historian of the Year" are open. An incubator for new initiatives within the project has been launched. A discussion about adopting C-Class has begun; comments from all editors are welcome! If you are in need of a quick response, please feel free to ask your question on our IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist). Counterparts to this discussion page also exist in several other languages, including Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Polski, and Русский.

C-Class adoption revisited

In March 2009 the Military history WikiProject decided in a referendum not to make use of C-Class within our project quality scale.

Further to recent discussion at the Strategy think tank, we believe the time is right to revisit our position. It has been suggested that one way our project could adopt C-Class, if we decide we want it, is by automatically assigning it (via our template) to articles that meet some, but not all, of our B-Class criteria. We would therefore like to put the following discussion points to our members:

1. Should Milhist adopt C-Class, perhaps by assigning it to articles that meet a subset of our B-Class criteria?
2. If so, which of the B-Class criteria should we use?

Discussion

This proposal is at the early consensus-gathering stage and intended to prompt discussion rather than garner "support" or "oppose" !votes. If you do !vote, it would be helpful in judging consensus if you could also leave a detailed rationale. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For something less than B but greater than Start: Meets B1 - cited, B3 - structured. Failure to be complete seems okay, but should be well along the way to covering the most encylopaedically interesting point. Infoboxes and writing seem okay to ignore. I'm not sure that MILHIST needs a C class... it encourages people to take Starts directly to B. Other opinions? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to implement C class - it's hard to see what the difference between a C class and a start class article would be in most cases. I agree that it could also encourage some editors to aim lower than B class, which in my view is the minimum for an article to be genuinely useful. I can't say that I feel strongly about the topic though. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done a lot of assessment for another project and I found my main criteria for differentiating between B, C & Start was if an article meets B2, B3 & B4 only, then more than likely I'd rate an article C. Not meeting B5 wasn't really an issue. Any less than meeting B2-B4 and it would be Start. I'm fairly neutral about whether this project should use C class but I lean slightly towards using C class. Putting a lot of work into an article to see it classed as Start can be discouraging for (new) editors and using C class is at least a recognition that things are mvoing in the right direction. NtheP (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Everybody above has made thoughtful, reasoned comments and I can't really disagree with any of them. Personally I don't think we need to graft another class onto our present grading system but, like Nick, it's not something I feel incredibly strongly about right now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've been able to deduce, the WP:AVIATION automatic system slaps a 'C' on articles when they're assessed as meeting three of the five B-class criterion. I personally would say B2, 3, and 4 makes sense for C, myself. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's ludicrously easy to make C-class by meeting criteria 3, 4, and 5 which have very little to do with the quality of the article. 1 and 2 are the hard ones to meet and I could see a valid use for C-class if it was 4 out of 5, strictly defined as either 1 or 2, plus the other three, as that would be a significantly better article than one that only met the three easiest requirements. 5 is pretty easy to meet, IMO, with either a picture or an infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sturmvogel. I think C-class is appropriate for articles that have been worked upon more than a simple Start class and are satisfactory in part, but not in whole. In practice, they are either mostly complete but lack citations and/or have grave style problems, or are well-written and referenced, but do not cover the subject as fully as possible. Constantine ✍ 17:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

At least use B5, is subtlely useful to understanding the subject, especially when discussing weapons and vehicles, i.e. battleships and aircraft. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support the introduction. While I might lean towards giving it to articles that have any three of the B class criteria met, I would be OK if it were more along the lines of requiring one or two specific ones and two or one of the other four or three. – Joe N 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My view is that we do need an intermediary stage between start and B. Our start class can vary enormously from literally just started piece to a wideranging and well written article which is only partially cited. I'd like to see a waypoint on the article development of 3 or 4 B criteria are met. I don't think it will be a dis-incentive to go for B - lets be realistic, our B criteria are tough and many don't aim for them (especially B1). I don't see it affecting people in the contests - they'll still press on for B's and A's. Setting an intermediate stage might actually be an incentive to aim higher and might help us target B-class improvement drives. For C, I think B2,B3 and B4 are the basics of a good article. I can take or leave B5, but acknowledge it is an easy one to fix so I'd be happy if it was in. That said, I think Sturmvogel's either B1 or B2 idea also has merit.Monstrelet (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that an intermediate classification might encourage others by giving recognition of effort, and if it can be done programatically from the B checklist then it should be fairly easily achievable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the issue, howver, I do think that the adoption of C class might have some benefits. There is indeed sometimes a large variation in what consistutes a start class article given that as a project we are usually quite strict on handing out B class assessments. The awarding of C class might have benefits such as encouraging new editors who might be disappointed with a "start class" tag, as well as identifying articles that need limited work to bring them up to B class. I would support the banner auto assigning C class to articles that fall down on certain B class criteria (probably B1 and B5 for me, as I think a C class article would need to have coverage, structured and have reasonable grammar). I'm open to other ideas about this, though, and ultimately if the project decides not to implement, I don't think it is a big deal. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(od)I guess this is where I start to respectfully question some of my colleagues' reasoning, mainly about the "encouragement" aspect of C-Class. Yes there is a significant gap between Start and B-Class in MilHist, and that B-class bar is set quite high. Do we have any real evidence however that offering C-Class will encourage more editors who feel slighted by a Start-Class assessment of an article they've worked on? I ask out of genuine curiosity, not rhetorically... ;-) Instead of encouraging a user to aim for B-Class, C might just become the new, lower, benchmark for editors, when they might have been prepared to push themselves further to B-Class in our current "C-less" system. Just a thought... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ian, its a fair question and to be honest, I couldn't provide you with any specific examples, but having spent the majority of last year trying to reduce the number of articles with an incomplete B class checklist, I have had a number of "conversations" by users who've felt slighted by a Start class rating that I've put on their article when assessing. Some of these editors took it quite personally to the extent that upon completion of the "conversation" I have had cause to question whether or not assessment was what I wanted to do on Wiki. I also think that there are editors out there who have found the B class rating too stringent and thus no longer bother asking for an assessment, and simply slap a "C" rating in the Milhist banner themselves (thus showing as an incomplete Start class assessment), but again this is just a personal observation and I couldn't really point to any diffs that show this off the top of my head. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've had that conversation once or twice in the past six months as well. MILHIST has the highest B-class criteria out there, remember it used to be more stringent than the rest of the wiki until they adopted a modified version of our checklist. If we adopt C, it should follow the same idea and be very stringent and in-line with our B-class stance. I think an acceptable C in this regime would be criteria 3, 4, 5 and either 1 or 2. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in line with you here, with the rules for 2, 3, 4 and 5, since coverage and accuracy is probably and arguably (sorry if I'm POV :P) more important than refs. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought. If we convert to C, somebody is going to have to run through the working groups, special operations and start-class lists. This is going to be prodigious work, and if somebody is not going to make a bot, I propose another Tag & Assess. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to be convinced that we have a genuine need for C-Class in the project (or in Wikipedia as a whole for that matter), though if consensus is that we should adopt it then that's fine. I find AustralianRupert's comment re disappointed editors quite compelling, though I suspect the disappointment is as much a function of the class name as anything else. In the original V1.0 C-Class adoption discussion I argued that instead of introducing an additional class we might simply rename "Start" to "C". Although this idea didn't carry the day then, something similar might be a compromise possibility for milhist - we could choose to adopt C-Class and simultaneously retire Start-Class for our own use. This wouldn't address all the issues with article downgrading, but it should remove any perceived stigma over the name "Start" and, if we set our C-Class criteria sufficiently carefully, might help more meaningfully differentiate the bottom end of the quality scale (maybe just B3 and B5?).

Alternatively, if we decide to add C-Class to our existing scale via the B-Class criteria, I think we should be aiming for those that reflect most closely Wikipedia's fundamental site content policies (ie WP:NPOV and WP:V). I guess these would be B1 and B2 at a minimum, though I'd be happy with a weak B1 (ie relaxing the inline citations and accepting a general reference instead). EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't a "weak B1" mean we would have to do this manually, rather than automatically? Monstrelet (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would. For me this is the main potential problem with filtering via the B-Class criteria. It's a huge jump between completely unreferenced (current Start-Class) and inline cites for all major points (B-Class). I'm thinking about the sort of article that maybe has a couple of general references at the end but nothing inline. EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't that be handled by changing the definition of stub i.e. to get a start, there need to be some references, general or inline? There is an "unreferenced" bot which is used for BLPs which could be co-opted to automatically review the multitude starts.Monstrelet (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think changing the definition of "stub" would just cause more confusion; it's a fairly established term in Wikipedia parlance, and editors will expect it to have (roughly) the same meaning wherever they encounter it.

As far as the "all or nothing" problem EyeSerene points out, it could be resolved by using something like the new public policy assessment method, which allows for finer resolution of how well the B-Class criteria are met; but that would require restructuring our assessment infrastructure to work with those numerical ratings across the board. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to change the definition of stub, or even of start and I'm not a fan of the assessment method being tried out by WP:USPP. There may be some reaction to the name "start" as Ian pointed out as I've run into other editors who've objected, mostly, it seemed to me, because of the name, even after I'd pointed out that they didn't meet the B-class requirements. I have no real objection to introducing C-class provided it's implemented roughly as I outlined above, but I'd oppose Wiki's current any three requirement as that's effectively meaningless, IMO. If we decided to introduce it a bot should be able to track them based on completed B-class checklists, so no manual work should be required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "inflating" the definition of a stub would be pretty ineffective - it would take the main problem trying to be addressed here (a fairly heterogenous mass of articles with the same quality rating) and just shift it onto a different set of articles. Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sturm, if we use 3, C will be ridiculously easy to attain. B3, B4 and B5 make for a stub with grammatical and spelling correctness, an image and infobox and one or two sections. If we introduce C with the requirements I listed above, I have no problems with introducing C-class (maybe even into the contest scoring ). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My experience with C-class in other projects has been that it's loosely used to designate a deficient, but potentially B-class article. I concur with the concept of a fairly high bar for C. with 3, 4 and 5 plus 1 or 2. The high bar for a B-class article has served the project well, and a high bar for C would be a spur to push an initial rating of C up to B. I see no reason to alter start or stub, although I personally feel that a start really ought to have some form of reference, even if it's a token effort. Acroterion _(talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2, not 1, per my comments above. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the less convinced I am that it's useful to introduce C-Class based on our B-Class checklist. For me the sticking point is B1. As has been mentioned we rightly have quite a high B-Class bar; our B1 is substantially the same as the Good article referencing criterion.

To illustrate and looking only at verifiability, if we exclude B1 as a potential C-Class criterion our quality scale will be:

• Start (completely unreferenced) → C-Class (completely unreferenced) → B-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations)

If however we include B1 we get:

• Start (completely unreferenced) → C-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations) → B-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations)

Neither of the above seem to meaningfully differentiate levels of article quality no matter which of the other B-Class criteria we include. B2 is important and I understand why it's been suggested as a criterion for C-Class, but B2 without B1 is content without verifiability; maybe acceptable (barely) in some Stubs or Starts, but at variance with Wikipedia policy (especially WP:BLP) because we can't tell if the article is WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, or just unsourced. As has been pointed out, B3, 4 and 5 are more about cosmetic presentation than actual quality content and shouldn't form the sole basis for C-Class. I think the only policy-compliant option we have is B1 plus some combination of the others, and whatever combination we choose would be so close to B-Class anyway as to be not worth creating an additional class for. EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What if the hypothetical C1 was less strict? Instead of requiring "all major points cited inline" to mark off B1, a C-class article could either have a reference list but no inline citations (low end), or some facts with inline refs, but not all (high end)... some effort has been made to meet WP:V, but its not 'good' enough to warrant a B. For the record, I don't care either way if C-class is adopted -- saberwyn 10:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that would solve the issue, but it would also defeat the point of an automated assessment based on the template B-Class checklist. I think I posted somewhere above that if we use C-Class I'd be happy with a hypothetical C1 that only looked for, say, verifiable references and not inline cites (unless required by WP:BLP). I realise it's outside the original proposal, but maybe we ought to widen to discussion to include manual assessment as an option? However, I'm aware doing so might also increase opposition to adopting C-Class due to the added overhead.

My preferred option, as I posted above, would be to retire Start-Class for milhist use and replace it (at a slightly higher level) with a C-Class which would include some sort of minimal referencing requirement. I think this might balance out the levels rather more evenly while avoiding introducing an additional class. EyeSerene^talk 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While I find the idea interesting and I agree there is a key quality step between no and some verifiable sources, I think whatever solution has to be automated. We have over 55,000 starts. If we were to scrap start, we have a huge re-assessment task.Monstrelet (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If a automated solution is not found, try a reassesment drive, or put the coords to work ( not really). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the first thing about automation/botting, so I have no idea how easy or insane this will be to apply, but I have a couple of ideas. Would the automated assessbot thingy look at the talkpage only to determine "Start/C/B", or will it look at the article as well. If the latter, could it be programmed to look at the article and say "There are more than two lines of text in a "References/Sources" section, but a distinct lack of <ref> bla bla bla </ref> formatting, </references> or {{reflist}} tagging, so I'll make this a C", or "Multiple entries in "References" and a {{reflist}}, so I need to cast Summon Human to see if it meets B". It might also be able to pick up on article cleanup templates like {{unreferenced}} or {{citation needed}}; articles carrying these kind of templates probably don't meet B1. Secondly, would there be any merit to splitting assessment criteria B1 into two parts: part B will be the one we know and love, but B1-a would be something along the lines of "Multiple reliable sources are provided". Anything that meets A but not B (i.e. several sources listed, but not cited inline) would be a C, anything that meets B but not A (all cited inline, but only a single source relied on) is probably shy of B class anyway. -- saberwyn 20:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The story so far

I think the discussion is in danger of running out of steam without us reaching a conclusion, which would be a shame because we've actually moved forward. In the hope of moving us on, I'll attempt a summary. If it doesn't fit your summary, please engage with it so we can agree where we are at and where we are going. While some remain to be convinced that a new class is necessary, there is a general view that the wide range of levels in start class is a problem. Some would tackle this by using an automatic C class assessment based on 3 or 4 B class criteria. Others have suggested we might scrap start and replace it with C class with the bar at a higher level but less than B class. There is a potential problem with this if we can't automate the process, because of the large number of starts. A particular issue concerns the B1 citation criterion. All are agreed that its current high standard is a good thing but it is a problem that we have no way of distinguishing between unreferenced articles and each paragraph in-line cited articles in quality terms. This lack of an intermediate state seems to be a sticking point in setting C class criteria, whether as an additional class or replacing Start. Further comments/proposals are invited Monstrelet (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to scrap Start, especially since it's used project wide. But I rather think that people are getting a bit too ambitious in trying to breakout various levels of referencing. Most of the articles that I've reviewed have either had some inline cites or none if they don't meet B-1, but almost all have had some list of references if they have any pretension to being a quality article. If we can get a bot to check for the presence of refs then we can use that as one of the criteria, but if we can't then I see no need to worry about it as I have no intention of manually assessing so many articles to see how they rate. Let's not get wrapped around the axle here over B1; any of the proposals above are stricter than the C-class criteria used by any other project as the vast majority of C-class articles Wiki-wide are based on 3, 4, and 5 only. At C-class I'm not worried about verifiability per se; it's recognition of an article that needs a bit of work to get to B-class. It's kinda aggravating to fully reference and expand an article that I can't complete for lack of sources and have it remain a start, just like the ones with only two sections and 15 lines of text. So I'd prefer that we adopt C-class with the criteria of 1 or 2, and 3, 4, and 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sturm, and strongly oppose any notion of scrapping Start. Personally, my idea of a C-class article is one that meets 3, 4, and 5 - the odd unreferenced half-paragraph isn't a big deal for C-class, nor is not having all the details (or, for that matter, a picture, but an infobox or something should be required. Basically, yeah, 3+4+5=y=C is an equasion that works for me. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

3, 4, 5 is one of those 2 paragraph, 15 line articles that looks pretty, but has little substantive information. A start, in other words, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair point, I guess. 1/2+3+4+5 works then. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tentatively support that as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I could also support that (1/2 + 3, 4, 5). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also support 1/2 + 3 + 4 + 5. NtheP (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also be happy with this, especially if Sturmvogel's idea of being able to except completely unreferenced articles by a separate process could be done ( I don't see why not - there is a bot for UBLP, so it should be technically similar)Monstrelet (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This looks sensible to me. (For those watching at home, (1/2)+3+4+5 is an article which is structured, clearly written and has supporting materials (infobox, images), and which is comprehensive but badly referenced, or referenced but does not fully cover the topic. In other words - B but not sourced, or B but missing some aspect of the topic.) Shimgray | talk | 15:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Bushranger's proposal, that's what I'm looking for. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have a firm proposal. Co-ordinators, what happens next?Monstrelet (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll put together a test implementation of the new auto-assessment code sometime in the next few days; assuming everything works as expected, we'll be able to roll this out across the entire project shortly after that. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I stick with my original contention that C-Class is not necessary and may not produce expected benefits, and I also note that the latest proposal of 4 B-Class criteria having to be satisfied for C makes it relatively little different to B and quite a significant jump from Start, which defeats one of the earliest objectives of having it. However, if it does have fairly strong general support, let me bring up another practical question at this point, namely re. C-class and the Monthly Article Writing Contest. As we award points for all current classes of Start and above, I presume we'd expect to include C-Class in the contest as well if it's implemented. If so, how many points? Since Start is 1 point and B is an additional 5 points on top of start, should we make C-Class 4 points as the prevailing mood now seems to be that a MilHist C must satisfy at least 4 B-Class crieria? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. None/stub → C = + 5; Start → C = + 4; C → B = + 1; C → GA = + 6; C → A = + 16; C → FA = + 21. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it does make sense and that's my point -- I was concerned before that C-Class would become the new B, i.e. a new, lower, benchmark that many would aim at rather than the B-Class which is a worthy target, but I think that's even more likely to be the case with the 4-criteria C that's now proposed. If the contest is any motivator for people, they'll be even less reason for many to go for B-Class when it's only one point more than a C, and if the criteria themselves are people's motivator, the same applies. Of course we in MilHist will know that our C-Class is 'better' than everyone else's, but the average reader who glances at a WP article and sees that it's rated "C" is likely to consider it not nearly as close to something rated "B" as will in fact be the case; so I again have to question the point... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a concern I have as well, and why I originally suggested "3 of 5" as WikiProject Aviation uses. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of this issue, but I'd rate a C-class at 3 points, not 4 for the contest. My thought is that criteria 1 and 2 are the hardest ones to meet and a C-class article has one or the other and thus lies halfway between start and B. Criteria 3-5 don't really signify, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what about this then: None/stub → C = + 3; Start → C = + 2; C → B = + 3; C → GA = + 8; C → A = + 18 and C → FA = + 23? I understand that essentially going from Stub to C would be the same as C to B, but doing it that way would treat C class basically as half of B class and encourage improvement from C to B. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's looking closer to what I understood as one of the main points of C-Class, i.e. something more in the middle of Start and B. If we have to have the new class, I could live with this: something that rewards more effort than Start-Class but doesn't let people get too complacent by being worth almost much as B... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really seen anything to make me change my opinion that, without some kind of referencing half-way house, adding C-Class to our scale would be much more than an exercise in instruction creep. It does seem as though we may be making the mistake of looking at C-Class from the point of view of what would be the least trouble for us to implement rather than what would produce the most actual benefit. Whichever set of B-Class criteria is adopted for C, we'll still have a huge gap between "unreferenced" and "fully B1-compliant"... only across a narrower step on the quality scale (ie between Start and C or C and B). EyeSerene^talk 14:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with EyeSerene; IMO all thats been accomplished here is to show the project that once again we have no uniform system in mind for implementation of C-class. I still look upon our decision not to use the class as an important moment for us since it allowed us to skip the middle step in between louse and useful that is now common to nearly every other project. Honestly, I think this is a situation in which we are attempting to fix something that really isn't broke, and to be honest its always been my experience that if it ain't broke it don't fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, progress - such a fickle thing:) I have to totally disagree. The system is broken. The breadth of article quality covered by Start is too great to be of use either to users as a guide to quality or to encourage a widespread aiming at incremental improvement of the article stock. You can tackle that with the current categories by changing their definitions or you can put in an intermediate category. Most seem to feel that putting in C class is better in terms of consistency with other parts of Wikipedia. But whichever you opt for IMO you can't just leave current start where it is. The reason for ease of implementation is the scale of the problem. I don't know how many editors the project has who are willing to get involved in reassessment but manual reassessment of 55,000 articles isn't easy. We can't afford a solution we can't implement, even if that means we have compromise on ideals.Monstrelet (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Front (World War II)

Hi, I have a few questions regarding this category tree:

1. "World war II" is a subcategory of "Military history of <Country>" (via "Wars involving <Country>"). This results in, say, Poston War Relocation Center being part of "Military history of Romania" Is this a bug or a feature?
2. "Military history of Bulgaria during World War II", "Military history of Poland during World War II", "Yugoslavia during World War II", "Eastern European World War II resistance movements " are included into "Eastern Front (World War II)" and again into "World War II Eastern European Theatre". Can anyone explain the need for two of these cats (EF(WWII) and WWIIEET)?
3. What purpose serves the "Soviet–German War" category? It is redundant with "Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II" and currently contains some copies of other branches of the tree. --illythr (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above (#Great_Patriotic_War_vs._World_War_II) may be relevant here. It certainly looks like there is some duplication and redundancy in the cats, but I don't think anything has been agreed yet about naming so it may be best to wait on the outcome of the project discussion. EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that discussion's been archived. There's no "GPW" cat anyway. The only relevant element seems to be that the user who's been adding the "Soviet-German war" cat everywhere is the same one who strives to eliminate all mention of "GPW" from enwiki. --illythr (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Korean War -- is there an end in sight 55 years later?

With the recent (November 2010) skirmishes between nK & sK, a flurry of edits has taken place. One thing I've noticed is how these various incidents get added to the Korean War templates, categories, and articles, 55 years after the s:Korean Armistice Agreement was signed. Part of the situation revolves around the fact that the Korean War ended with Armistice, which certain editors interpret as a ceasefire and which, in turn, leads to a conclusion in their minds that the Koreans are "technically" still at war with each other. Their biggest argument is that no Peace Treaty was ever signed between the two Koreas. True, the Koreans have had fighting and provocations along the DMZ and NLL for years. At the same time, there is ample WP:RS to say the Korean War ended in 1953. They have had diplomatic visits & talks, trade & tourism, and sports (Olympic) cooperation over the years. This is ample evidence to support the "truth" that the Korean War ended with the Armistice. (Much discussion has taken place in article edits and talk pages, and rather than continue to rehash that discussion here, I invite WikiProject Military History editors to look at those talk pages.) SO I ASK -- shouldn't WP:MIL be involved in this process? In my very quick review, I don't see KW articles as part of the main concern for WP:MIL. (Yes, I see there are huge backlogs!) With this in mind, I ask for a WP:MHPR of these concerns. (And I'll probably be tagging some articles asking for WP:MHPR.) Please help -- establishing an end to the KW will do a lot towards preventing this mess from getting worse. (Or has KW become the forgotten war in more than one sense?) Thanks for your help in this regard. --S. Rich (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There's also plenty of reliable sources to indicate that while de facto the war ended in 1953, de jure it is still in progress. Despite the lack of open hostilities, legally, the two Koreas are still at war. Which, to be completely clear how I stand, though, does not mean more recent incidents should be considered "part of the Korean War"! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'd agree the de facto war is over, it would be factually incorrect to say it is, since there has been no treaty. My thoughts would be to create some kind of "post armistice conflicts" page and spin off that section of the KW template into its own template to separate post-armistice conflicts into their own era. —Ed!^(talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, adding post-1953 incidents to the Korean War article, template, category, etc. is the wrong thing to do. And an article on the situation from 1953 to now is a good idea; it might help to draw a line through the thing. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm -- I see where Sweden fought a war with the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the war ended with the Treaty of Stuhmsdorf. But 30 years later the parties were fighting again during the Second Northern War. That war ended with the Treaty of Oliva. What gives? If a peace treaty is required to end a war, does the fact that fighting breaks out again mean that the first war actually continued? In the example I cite here, there were a series of Polish–Swedish wars. So if we follow the logic of the extended Korean War editors, who say the recent and continuing clashes between the Koreans are all part of the same Korean War (because no peace treaty exists), then the "Polish-Swedish wars" article is misnamed -- it should be titled the "Polish-Swedish War", even though the conflict/s was/were spread out over 200 years. (And not all of the conflicts ended with peace treaties.) But, "Oh, wait!" the extended war editors will exclaim. That was [a] war between two countries, so it is possible for one war to end and another to start up later. In the Korean War we have this single, protracted war between the North and South, albeit with US/UN & PRC/USSR involvement, and the Armistice did not end it. Well, again history can assist. If we look at the Three Kingdoms of Korea we see lots of fighting going on within Korea. (Indeed, not just in this period, but before and after.) With this in mind, according to the logic of the extended Korean War editors, all of the wars within Korea should be considered one war because none of them ended with a peace treaty. And with this logic in mind, we can, we should add Goguryeo–Tang Wars to our [Category:Battles of the Korean War] and Template:Campaignbox Korean War templates. --S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Problom is there was no peace treaty ending the Korean war, just a cease fire that has (more or less) held for 50 years. There are otehr examples (such as poor old Andoras Adoran-German war 1914 - 1939, the cost in lives must have been horendous). At the end of the day whilst tehre do appear to be a few RS that consider the war not to be over its also true to say this seems to be aminoirty view.18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

The issue here is the same as the one with the "Eastern Front" vs "Great Patriotic War" discussion going on on this page: what does our readership recognize? Virtually all sources will say the war ended in 1953. The problem is that the "Korean War" in its entirety is actually two simultaneous wars: A civil war (1946 - Present) and a proxy war (1950 - 1953) we need to address these two things in separate articles. They may be inextricably intertwined but they are not the same thing. —Ed!^(talk) 05:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would direct this discussion here: [1] per below. —Ed!^(talk) 05:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the Korean War Actually end?

If any editors are interested there is a discussion on the Korean war talk page regarding whether or not the Korean War has ended and whether or not the various incidents along the border since 1953 can be considered part of the Korean War. The current discussion can be found here [[2]] Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please also note another discussion going on above. —Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Command Histories

U.S. naval ship command histories are developed in accordance with OPNAVINST 5750.7 and OPNAVINST 5750.12; they are submitted to the Director of Naval History (N09BH), Washington Navy Yard; and they are deposited with the Naval History & Heritage Command. These histories are available online in PDF format but are not searchable at the Naval History & Heritage Command website.

1. Since these command histories offer excellent primary source material, I felt that their inclusion would make an excellent addition, and I initially tried adding these command histories to the Bibliography or External links section of the article of the specific ship and naval air squadron.
2. User:RP459 questioned the above approach as it pertains to the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) article.
3. As an alternative, I bundled the command histories into a List article that is linked to the specific ship article via its See also section.
4. Please note that I got an Original Barnstar for the above solution/compromise from User:RP459 on 9 September 2010 .
5. I subsequently received a posting dated 4 December 2010 from Buckshot06 informing me that this listing approach in not appropriate per Talk:Strategic_Air_Command#The Bibliography and MOS standards.
6. Buckshot06 suggested that these command histories should be included in the specific ship article.

Request: Could the WT:MILHIST gurus provide some guidance on resolving this issue consistent with my initial objective of providing access with these U.S. Navy command histories? Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marc, I'm afraid that your post is rather difficult to follow. Articles such as List of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) command histories don't seem sustainable to me. They clearly don't meet the notability standards (WP:N) and violate the rule against creating articles which contain nothing but links to other websites (WP:NOTLINK). The US Navy's history website isn't loading for me at the moment, but I'd suggest just including a link to the Naval history website's entry on the ship (if this exists). Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick-D. I have revised my original posting. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To summarize this post in a sentance, Marc wants us to use the links to the command histories, like the ones on List of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) command histories as refs for articles like USS Enterprise (CVN-65). Buggie111 (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Buggie111, I believe your summary is unfortunately incorrect. Marc tried to "initially ... [add] these command histories to the Bibliography or External links section of the [relevant] article ... ." But RP459 did not like this. It is my belief that in line with MOS sections on standard annexes, and the link in Talk:Strategic Air Command, that RP459 is incorrect. All supporting material should go on the article for which it is relevant. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is no policy reason why these links could not appear under Ext links or in the refs for the given ship. They might be refused, on case by case basis, on other grounds - being Primary? source when a better source is available, adding little extra content (while detailed they carry a lot of inconsequential detail - though perhaps I picked a bad couple to look over), adding them all for a ship with a long career might overwhelm the external links section. And the List of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) command histories article is untenable and should go to AfD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no hurry. Let's finish discussing here first.

I agree that adding them in the external links – despite the length – is the right way to go. We could also create a central repository on a project page, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/U.S. Navy Command Histories. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Category:Carrier Strike Groups for the full list of carrier command history articles; there are others dealing with destroyers etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I included the lists of command histories for the Ticonderoga class cruisers Antietam, Bunker Hill, and Mobile Bay because they are assigned to their respective carrier strike groups. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Command histories include a great deal of information, including a detailed operational chronology, that is used by Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships as well as the "Year In Review" for Naval Aviation News. Given the fact that several Nimitz-class carriers — USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), USS George Washington (CVN-73), USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74), and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) — do not have DANFS online entries, these command histories can be useful. In fact, the Carl Vison article is using command histories as references, as well as the Carrier Strike Group articles that I have written. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Marcd30319, the consensus here is pretty clear: they need to go in the ext links section. Please consider starting merging them back in, and if RP459 disagrees, refer him to this discussion and MOS:APPENDIX. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And after the merging is complete, what about the deletion of the "List of ....command history" articles? If there are no objections it could go Prod rather than AfD.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the command history lists to their respective ship articles. and I have deleted the individual list articles. Thank you for your assistance. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Marc30319, one other issue with that category: it should only contain the Carrier Strike Group and maybe Battle Group entries (eg HST BG or Commander Carrier Division Four (ComCarDiv 4)). It should not contain the destroyer articles (they go in the Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy or similar categories) or the carrier air wings (which should go in Category:United States Navy Carrier air wings, under 'Aviation units and formations of the USN' or some such). Categories should only contain things that are included in the title, not extra articles. The linkages work through the text of the articles. Have I made this clear what I mean? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Carrrier Strike Groups integrate carriers, their air wings, their escorting Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers, and their assigned destroyer squadrons into a single unit. Also, in the case of Carrier Strike Group Fourteen, the only ships assigned are the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea (CG-58) and USS Gettysburg (CG-64). It is this force integration that is the raison d'être for carrier strike groups, and these units are permanently assigned to their respective carrier strike group. Therefore, including carrier air wings, as well as the assigned Tico cruisers and destroyer squadrons, within Category:Carrier Strike Group is both appropriate and consistent. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

While I see your thinking, to me this seems similar to putting the 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery in the category:Brigades of the British Army because it is currently attached to the 7th Armoured Brigade. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We well understand your point about IDTC workup and integration of varied ships through a training cycle into one formation under a single ISIC. But do you understand how this would work logically Marc? Every ship that ever served in the Atlantic Fleet would go directly in the Atlantic Fleet category. It makes the categories impossible to use. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not intend to include every DDG and FFG assigned to an active CARSTRKGRU within this category, just their respective DESRON. Nor do I intend to include the AOE or SSN that may deploy with a CARSTRKGRU. At most, Carrier Strike Group category will encompass 11 CVNs, 10 CVWs, maybe 19 CGs, 11 DESRONs, and earlier CVBGs for historical reasons. Please note that the official web site for each CARSTKGRU lists its flagship CVN, its embarked CVW, and its assigned Tico CG and DESRON, except CARSTKGRU FOURTEEN which has only two Tico CGs. This seems consistent and logical, and it represents current U.S. Navy operational and doctrinal policies as well as ongoing deployment patterns. If this is not agreeable, then I suggest that only CARSTRKGRU articles and their earlier CVBG antecedents be linked to the Carrier Strike Group category, not individual CVNs, CVWs, CGs, DESRONs, etc., which will be listed in the individual article's infobox. Marcd30319 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you risk overwhelming the infobox (with blue to boot) if you add all the components to the infobox. For example I would fill in "Size" in the unit infobox in terms such as "1 aircraft carrier, 1 helicopter carrier, 4 cruisers, 3 naval air squadrons". The infobox is for at a glance and there's plenty of room in articles for the full Order of Battle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Marc30319, your first solution is exactly right. CARSTKGRUs only go should go in the category. I'm not worried about the infobox; others may be. If you check the MILMOS on units, you will find that the most up to date name of the unit is preferred, which means that the Carrier Group and Carrier Division histories ought to be merged into the CARSTKGRU articles. CARSTKGRU is only the latest term for what started out as Carrier Divisions (?) - correct me if I'm wrong. COMCARDIV 4, for example, today may be a Carrier Strike Group itself. Do you know the full history of COMCARDIV 4? I believe it turned into CARGRU 4, but did CARGRU then disband after STKFLTLANT was inactivated? Appreciate any data you may have. Thanks for being willing to listen, and kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a section called 'Current Composition 2010 would be the best approach. This is what was done for the Commander, Naval Surface Forces Atlantic article, and the Use section could be left blank within the infobox. Now, Carrier Division Four (CarDiv4) can be traced back to World War Two, and CarDiv4 served as administrative billet for Commander Naval Air Force Pacific (ComAirPac) but operationally, Commader Carrier Division (ComCarDiv) served as a task group commander within the Fast Carrier Task Force. This administrative-operational duality continued into the post-war Navy. Thus when ComCarCarDiv 4 deployed to the U.S. Sixth Fleet, this flag officer would serve as a task group commander for Task Force 60. In 1973, CarDiv 4 was redesignated as Carrier Group Four (CarGru 4), but the previous administrative-operational duality continued. According to Polmar's Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, Reagan-era carrier battle groups (CVBG) began to integrate into a more pemanent formations that evolved into carrier strike groups. According to GlobalSEcurity.org, during this period, CarGru 4 became the carrier training coordinator for Naval Air Force Atlatic. Effective 1 October 2004, Carrier Strike Group Four was created and CarCarDiv 4 was disestablished, with its training functions absorbed by U.S. Second Fleet. My approach would be Carrier Division (including Carrier Group), then named carrier strike group, and finally numbered carrier strike group. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the fused admin/op dual command structure - see my recent edits to Task Force 76. But we have to go with the formal name of the formation. If I understand correctly, the 'HST BG' etc was an informal name for the formation technically known as ComCarGru (whatever number). I used to have a Naval Aviation magazine 2004 article listing the CarGru/CruDesGru transition to CarStkGrus. This under 2nd Fleet was the kind of listing it was. Thus CarDiv - CruDesGru/CarGru - CarStkGru. You'll see at 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division my listing of multiple unit designations in the infobox with dates. What do you think of this approach? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections

Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

• Proceed here to cast your vote. Once you have decided how to vote, casting your vote is quick and convenient, using the Foundation's software.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with renaming Belgo-Arab War

Hey guys, I just created the article Belgo-Arab War and want to rename it, but am unsure what the most proper name is. French Wikipedia and Commons both call this conflict "Congo Free State's campaign against the Arabo-Swahilis," which seems a little cumbersome. Only one source uses Belgo-Arab War, and most other sources just describe it without giving it a name. Right now I think the Commons and French Wikipedia title is my best bet, but I wondered if you guys had any other suggestions. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't suppose 'Belgo-Zanzibari War' would work? '-Arab' makes me assume it took place in the Middle East. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Congo Free State campaign against the Congo Arabs"? --Cerebellum (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dutch-language sources call it the 'Arabian campaign' or the 'subjugation of Eastern Congo', http://books.google.nl/books?id=7cOr7D-HHBsC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=belg+congo+tip+1892&source=bl&ots=6isveTre4e&sig=IJznr6xsH0cRVwSLjSQjstmmdLU&hl=nl&ei=-wr9TPXhFsSfOuuggdUK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=belg%20congo%20tip%201892&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by JurSchagen (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Correlates of War list it as the "Belgian-Tib War of 1892-1894". "Tib" here is presumably Tippu Tip; this approach seems to focus on the second side being a group of individual interests, rather than a political entity. Shimgray | talk | 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly support the straightforward "Congo Free State campaign against the Arabo-Swahilis." Buckshot06 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there don't seem to be any better options.  Done --Cerebellum (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons use of "the Arabo-Swahilis" seems directly lifted from frwp; I'm not sure the phrase itself is actually used in English. Shimgray | talk | 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest Pacification of the Eastern Congo, which is also used by the one source that uses "Belgo-Arab War" and crops up in a GoogleBooks search. The current title is too cumbersome for me (since "Congo Free State" is not a nice adjective, and "Arabo-Swahilis" has got to be at least as confusing as a "Belgo-Arab" war in Africa). Srnec (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Terms such as 'pacification' are rather POV (for instance, whoever was being 'pacified' probably didn't see things that way!) Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Eastern Congo campaign"? Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Real life is complicated; this is indicated in the current Congo Free State and Arabo-Swahili notations in the title. We do not need to dumb it down. I think it's perfectly good as it is. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The title may indicate that real life is complicated, but it doesn't do much good indicating who fought whom. "Congo Free State" is clear enough, although there is no mention of Belgians (which I don't mind). But what is an "Arabo-Swahili"? This term does not appear to be English, and that I do mind. I only understand the title and what it refers to because I happened to read the French WP article a few months ago. I would prefer War between the Congo Free State and Zanzibar (1892–94), or is it incorrect to call the Belgians' opponent Zanzibar? Srnec (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We're adapting the English language here, and it grows here like it grew with the adoption of Eskimo, panzer, flak, or any number of French words you'd care to name. Language evolves, and 'Arabo-Swahili' is far more accurate than Zanzibar, because the pre-colonial polities of Africa were far less territorially defined than in modern times. Zanzibar is a completely misleading title. Arabo-Swahili is more correct. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One concern I have (leaving aside the foreign loanword issue) is that using something as specific-sounding as "Arabo-Swahili" gives the impression to the reader that it's a common name in the literature, which really doesn't seem to be the case. If there simply isn't a standard name for something, I'd much rather we used something vague and generic rather than something highly specific - "1892-1894 war in the Eastern Congo", for example, which would be consistent with the way we title articles on current unnamed events. Shimgray | talk | 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2010

Military historian of the Year 2010

With the end of the year nearly upon us, the time has come to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project should be awarded this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award. Which editor in our project has, in your estimation, contributed the most to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the course of the last year? Any Milhist editor may nominate up to ten editors – this is to prevent any of our resident geniuses from nominating the entire membership list! – but can vote for as many editors as they like. Self-noms are frowned upon.

The top three get the gold wiki, the silver wiki, and the bronze wiki respectively. All other nominees will receive the WikiProject barnstar. Please nominate in the following format, with brief comments (twenty words max). Votes go under the nomination and are approval (ie support) only.

• [user name] [reason] ~~~~

:# Support. ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Thanks!

Nomination and voting

Please try to keep nomination statements to twenty words max. Thanks, and good luck! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Anotherclown: For doing for the Vietnam War what Ed! is doing for the Korean War, contributing a series of fine Cold War battle articles, including 3 A-Class and 5 GAs this year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: Excellent contributions, even while deployed o/s. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert: Another machine of the project, he churns out excellent battalion histories and other articles (including a number of GA and As), does the thanksless administrative tasks behind the scenes as a co-ordinator and is a tireless contributor at GA, A-class and peer reviews. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: As nominator. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support - many high quality reviews and assists. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Amazing work done this year!--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - much help throughout the year and very good at helping with content development, Sadads (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dank: For incredible copy editing work on many Military History articles through the ACR and FAC process. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: as nominator. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support: per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Helpful and hard working :)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support, always quality work - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ed!: For significant contributions to the project focusing upon the Korean War. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support as Korean War topic collaborator. Jim101 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support as nom. Need I say more?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7: For 5 FAs and 3 A-Class articles this year plus numerous GAs, regular B-Class assessments, and being prepared to take on and improve controversial subjects like Douglas Macarthur and Manhatten Project. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support per Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support as nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ian Rose: No idea about his stats but Ian has contributed a large number of high quality articles this year including numerous GAs, As and FAs. He has also co-ordinated a number of task forces and contributed strongly to GA, A class and Peer reviews. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: As nominator. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support: Prolific contributor of content and has done a lot of co-ordinator work. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support: Has done yeoman work and always a pleasure to read the work of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• MBK004: For all the important yet widely considered low level work he does to help ensure that our project runs efficiently, in particular his closing of A-class reviews. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: we have greatly missed his services recently. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support: per Tom. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Block Unapproved bot. Support Since he acts like a bot. Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support I still think we need to rename you OMTBot ;)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nick-D: For continued excellent work on a wide variety of subjects, taking 3 to FA this year (+1 pending), 2 to A-Class, and 1 to GA, and for constant intelligent discussion and assistance to the project. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support: a solid contributor and a tireless administrator. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support as nom.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Parsecboy: One of the most prolific contributors in the project. Currently only the second recipient of the A-Class Medal with Swords. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support If Parsecboy and Sturm were tied onto a generator, the energy crisis would be solved! Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support as one of THE greatest things to happen to MIL since....well I can't remember.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sturmvogel 66: For achieving 406 points from 69 articles in the October article writing contest, and many other contributions over the year. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support, what can you say, the guy's a machine... ;-) Plus don't forget he won the 2010 WikiCup as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support': as nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per AR. Impressive statistics. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Nevertiring workhorse. Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support how can I not support the guy who won the Wikicup?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support, for obvious reasons! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Remember that you are able to vote right now! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember, are nominations considered an impicit vote or should we make it explicit (i.e. "support as nom")? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, myself, I've just added "support as nom". I think this should be okay. If this is wrong, please just let me know and I'll strike. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Done so as well, as has Anotherclown -- so at least if we're wrong, we're consistently wrong... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to vote for all of the above, along with many more editors. I think that there's been a remarkable jump in the standards of articles within the scope of this project this year (which has exceeded the significant Wikipedia-wide improvement). Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Almirante Latorre-class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Almirante Latorre-class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Allen West (politician)

Just an "FYI" for anyone who has the time and/or inclination to get involved. There's a bit of a minor tiff on this article about a high-profile ex-US Army Lt Col who apparently retired after an incident during a detainee interrogation in Iraq. I think the editors in dispute on the article - both recently blocked for 24 hrs at ANI - might benefit from some friendly guidance about the appropriate weight to give to such information in the article lede. I've left a note on the talk page but I don't generally work with WP:BLPs so expert input would be welcome. EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion notices, 9 December

USS Indianapolis in popular culture and List of references to guns and butter in popular culture are at Articles for Deletion here and here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs involving articles within the scope of this project should be added to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military (which is well worth watchlisting). I don't think they generally need to be announced here. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

TFA Requests

For anyone interested, there are a couple of MilHist articles at TFA Requests right now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) FAC needs further comments.

The FAC for 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) is on its 23rd day, currently with 2 support and none opposed. Additional comments and votes would be appreciated. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)/archive1 —Ed!^(talk) 22:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation discontinuity

I'm curious as to why many Soviet Union military history articles are merged with the Russian Federation military history, where as the Russian Empire articles are not.

It seems to me that the Soviet Union is a different country from the Russian Federation having different form of government, national borders, strategy, etc.

Although it undoubtedly inherited a lot of equipment from the Soviet Union, its personnel had been re-employed under a new constitution, and the personnel that chose to serve new states of former republics were re-employed after swearing allegiances to those new countries also.

Many made claims that RF defense policy is but a continuation of the Soviet policy, but why hasn't this argument been made in respect to the Russian Empire and Soviet Union? The Soviet Union too inherited hardware and units from the Russian Empire, and fought to regain former borders, including the Baltic states and Finland in 1939-40 to mention a few.

One example is the rather confusing attempt to 'continue' histories of former Soviet military units in their new-state guises. True they may have administratively retained old names for a time, but constitutionally they are not same units, having changed uniforms, flags, and most importantly the authority of the RF Duma under which they function. The Soviet Union also gained armies, corps and divisions from the Russian Empire, so maybe those should be included in the articles also?120.18.31.237 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)