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 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 • Battle of Durazzo (1376) 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 (147,570) • only work on referencing and citation (43,148) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,709) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,681) • work on structure (31,793) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,170) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,774) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (3) • assessment as lists (118) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (2) • task forces added (284) • attention to task force coverage (657)

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.

Category:Unassessed military history articles

Several times I've added articles from the "Category:Unassessed military history articles" to be assessed. They seem to be deleted or ignored from the assessment list. I realise I am new to being a Military History Coordinator and have encouraged some users to improve articles they've made edits too. Which they have kindly taken the time to do improve these articles. However, I am disgusted how some articles I've put on get taken off for no good reason without being assessed.

Personally, I am trying to help as a Coordinator and get the unassessed, assessed. I've resorted to trying my best to try and get the assessment correct as I see fit. Sometimes I expect something to be low assessed while it turns out to be assessed higher, while the same goes for the opposite I might feel it could be something higher, but it is assessed lower. Really it's a "gamble" to let someone assess it for you. It still needs to be done in the end.

Yes I feel honoured that people that have voted for me (into this position) as a Military History Coordinator, this is the first big role I've had since I opened my account in 5 years of being on the English Wikipedia. While I have tried my best at all times, even contributing some image to Commons.

Over the fourteen days or so, I was going to ask every Coordinator how is my "contributions" to WikiProject Military History?

• Is it upto standard?
• Or am I not doing much and letting other Coordinators do most of the work?

Being a Coordinator isn't easy when someone doesn't know all the shortcuts to improve articles or various coding for articles. I do my best and stick with what I know, I am willing to learn, but not to the point of being overwhelmed. In the end, I could basically be a full time Coordinator 24/7. Over the years I've learnt alot from Wikipedia and when someone comes down hard on me it doesn't feel very good. My knowledge of Battles to people, through to personally getting books ordered and reading them to simply improve an article, I will tell you now, I hated reading out loud at Primary School and High School.

As some of you are probably aware, my english isn't perfect. Failed English in Year 10, went onto Year 11 and did two courses of English even though I am born and raised in an English-speaking country. Then after Year 11, just passing being absent for most of the time due to anxiety and other issues since it was a brand new High School, double the amount of students that I came from the High School prior only had 550 students in 4 years then to go to 1,150 students in 2 years. Went back the following year to do Year 11 again to improve my marks and do Year 12. Unfortunately the same thing happened the year before. Dropped out and went to TAFE to do computers, until then I had done computers in High School since Year 9 through to Year 11. Hated it though, wasn't really interested.

Then I decided what would I do since I'm not at School anymore, I should go to TAFE. What did I end up doing between 1998 and 2003? Computers. While I was at School in 1995 and 1996, I a decision to make for three subjects to do for those two years. I chose, the German language, Computers and History. Of course the German language back then, didn't get enough students for 1 class, so I was basically forced to choose again and it ended up being "Cooking" for two years. In that time I took to "History" especially World War II and Cooking was alright, because you got to eat before other students in the other classes for lunch or we'd pass food through the window for other students.

So basically I'm doubting myself being a Coordinator and I thought that I could help relief the "Backlogs" on the Assessment page of WikiProject Military History. Guess I was wrong in a way, at the same time I'm proud (to be a WikiProject Military History Coordinator) and to be doing this and I'm willing to learn. Just don't come down hard on me, I am fragile. Adamdaley (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Adam. To address your two questions directly:

• I don't think there is a "standard" in the sense of "these are your duties", so no one can really judge you except by the standards of your work. If you are actively contributing a lot and producing a lot of high-quality articles, then that is a high standard. Alternatively, you might contribute a high-turnover of administrative duties, like Kirill, for example, who doesn't write a great deal of articles, but whose presence keeps things going. There are dozens of roles on Wiki that people can fulfil – in essence, you become a cog in a great machine. If you slow, or work faster than others, the results can vary – you might create a backlog, or you might leave yourself without anything to do in your chosen area – in which case, there is plenty more to do. As a volunteer you can do what you want, in whatever proportion. True, there is no form of coordinator review in the same way we have editor reviews or even admin reviews. It is up to you to determine your ability to fulfil the role or coordinator as set out by and Wikiproject you work with. Although MilHist says there is not much a coordinator here can do that a regular editor can't do, I think most people do see the coords as a team with a certain set of duties that are their tasks, so to speak, that by becoming coords they have stepped up to the plate and are expected to bat – reviewing and promoting, for example. Whilst anyone can review, someone is expected to close each review, and often it is a coord who does this, because they are left to do it. How you do it, is up to you. So in short, I don't think anyone can question your standards due to the fact that there are none in terms of the standard at which you can perform any duties, only the standard of your articles is really measured by any formal scale.
• Are you letting others do too much work? The underlying question being, are people complaining? Has anyone suggested that you are shirking your duties? Are you happy with the efforts you make, and do you feel you are putting ample effort into the role you have been granted? As I said in the first question, coordination is as much a matter of personal standards, coupled with performing a number of tasks that help keep this Wikiproject going – you need to identify what cogs need turning, and which aren't going as well as others, the see if you can help speed things up. Wiki is full of backlogs, "wanted" and "to do" lists, things unassessed, low-quality material needing work. I think it will always be the case. No one can blame anyone – Wiki has its strengths and weaknesses. But you need to play to your own strengths, rather than feel you have to deal with the weaknesses – because some of Wiki's weak areas are so vast, that any one-man attempt to right them could prove futile – like tossing pebbles in the sea and hoping the water level will rise. There are ways, places on Wiki and the WMF to voice your concerns and motion for changes to the way Wiki operates, to improve turnover, makes weak areas less weak. Consensus often agrees to act upon suggestions that will make Wiki a better place, if the person with concerns has a solution, or even the foundation of a solution that others can build upon. Wiki didn't appear overnight and it has a ways to go. Simply be proud to be a part of it.
• Finally, to comment in the number of unassessed and low-quality articles. History is a vast topic. Military history is just as vast – if the sum of history was the Earth, I'm sure military history would be the equivalent of a vast ocean, like the Pacific. It's a huge place to take a plunge into. If you go by Lists of wars and through the earliest eras, the oldest recorded battle is something like 4700 years ago. But even if we take roughly 5000 years of military conflict on Earth as the range for "military history", that is an area so big, no one could learn it all in a lifetime apart for in a very general glossing of the "when, where and who", perhaps the basic "why". Taking 2 of the most popular modern wars, WW2 and Napoleonic Wars as examples, a) because they have more influence on our lives/society, and b) they are better documented than, say, Roman Gallic Wars. Again, each of these wars are so massive they require a lifetime to study. Hence why many historians are oft considered "specialist". Men like Richard Holmes, David G. Chandler, Shelby Foote, Charles Oman, et al. who dedicated their lives to one or a few wars, are in the same boat as all of us – life's too short to know everything. So don't think that by not being able to assess everything you have "failed", the task itself is grand. I know there are some editors, like Dank who can comfortably read and assess "any" article, regardless of where in our 5000 year spectrum it falls, and kudos to his flexibility and determination – he's a rare breed. There are areas of history most of us don't even touch, due to total lack of interest. I expect most of us "specialise" in just one or two wars, eras or periods of conflict, and beyond that everything else is rocket science. And there are some of us who have a "passing interest" in everything and "get the gist" enough to review anything that is considered "military history". Your area/s of interest, learning curve, etc are just as flexible as your personal standards. If you've only ever studied WW2 with any great detail, then nothing is to stop you focusing purely on WW2 reviews, assessments and improvements. On the other hand, if someone presents a half-dozen articles they've written on The Crusades, there's nothing to stop you "having a go" – based on the theory, that "war is war" regardless of if they use swords or guns, the premiss is the same: causes, battles, sacrifice, victors. Sometimes I think of history like music, instead of periods, I think of it as "genres" – war, politics, society, etc. It suddenly becomes neater, draws things together – if you focus on the genre, it helps you assimilate the content a little easier, even if the period is new to you.

Not sure if that's of any help, or even the sort of response you were hoping for. I think, all that really matters is what do you want to achieve through Wiki, as an editor, or coordinator, or whatever role you take, whilst still being able to enjoy yourself and feel your contribs are recognised. There are no certificates, cheques or parties from Wiki, it's all about personal achievement, merit, confidence to do as much as you want. Don't push yourself, and don't let anyone push you. You have the right to be happy with your own standard and level of contribution, and no one has a right to question your commitment to any degree. Personal reviews are about competence, and I'm sure no one doubts yours.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish - I'll be honest, no one has complained. I may have had one question my ability (or judgement) on one article for adding "Citations Needed", we got past that and that particular article has been expanded. I can understand I'm only one person in thousands to a couple of million users who contribute constructively to Wikipedia. I may do things a little different and a longer way, with things, but with my illness I'm like that. Really, I don't do drugs, smoke, drink (well maybe one or two beers a year), I consider myself not stupid, but sometimes I can play to be stupid and not get the point. I'll see if I can go through some of the backlogs in the "Biographies" that is associated with WikiProject Military History.

Just wanted to let the Coordinators, that I am doing my best even though it may not be much and I do have alot of time on my hands, compared to others that maybe busy in real life and can only get on every now and then. I'm probably a Wikipedia-aholic. Once again if anyone has objections that I am not pulling my weight, please tell me. Because I feel I may have assessed some articles too High, as "B" class when it may have only been "C" class. I'm also willing to listen and learn from the more experienced Coordinators, past and present. Adamdaley (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't do drugs, smoke, or drink either, and some people just have a thing for being thorough, whether it simply be habitual behaviour, peace of mind, OCD or just good practice. I expect many Wiki-users are the same. As long as you're content with your methods and they work well for you, go for it. But we don't judge contributors by their habits.. just as we don't judge by age, race, religion, orientation or level of education. No qualifications are required to be a good editor.. or even a bad editor in good faith. As long as a person is competent, and not disruptive, and proves they can be a good team player, that's all that matters. People aren't monitored daily unless they prove themselves troublesome and need someone to keep an eye on them. I very much doubt you need to worry that you are doing a bad job. As for C/B class assessing, don't worry too much about it - as they are both easy to assess without review, if you rate C and someone thinks B, they can change it. If they think C and you think B, again, they can lower it. There is unlikely to be much fuss, and they may even discuss their reasons with you. Once it comes to A-class, the reviews are in-depth and logged, so the promotion is more or less based on a group decision. You neither need to be a coord nor an admin to review anything on Wiki, it's just another set of those cogs, working through a list and criteria to the best of your ability. The more you do, the better you'll become. If you feel you're becoming a Wiki-holic, take a Wiki-break to freshen up for a day or two, even a week. When you return there's no rush to worry about what you missed doing or thinking you have to catch up. I'm sure no one thinks you're "stupid" either. Doesn't matter if your English is good or not - we have people here from English-speaking countries, Germany, France, Poland, Russian, Asia, the Far East, and so on. As long as we can understand each other, nothing else matters. Self-confidence doesn't come easily to everyone, but you stood for nomination as a potential coord and clearly people showed faith in you, whilst a couple of people received fewer votes. That can't be a bad thing. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently I helped someone from Poland to re-write an article, it was like two weeks of doing minor editing for him and of course I didn't mind, because no one else seemed to have wanted to help him. So I decided to help him. I get on IRC and talk to people on there in the Wikipedia channels or to read what's going on, on Wikipedia that I don't know. I am honoured to be a Coordinator for WikiProject Military History even though it maybe for only a year. Adamdaley (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Poles can be pleasant people to talk to. I also like the Dutch, they're very keen on having an English-speaking majority in the Netherlands, though you'll find a lot of Europeans that genuinely enjoy talking to native English-speakers to help strengthen their own English. I've known a few in the past. Even Americans/Aussies/Canadians who like to learn British-English words (usually slang) can be fun to chat with, I used to do that a lot when I was highly into online gaming/clans/forums/msn, but I haven't done that for a long time. Copy-editing articles written by people who are not pro/native English-speakers can be rewarding and not too frustrating as long as you know what they're trying to convey and can phrase it better. Aside, you may get re-voted next year, if you stand for coord again, depends how well things go for you this year, I suppose - plenty of time yet. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

AdamDaley, for what it's worth, I think you're doing fine. As MarcusBritish suggests above, you were elected because a representative majority of the community felt that you had something to offer as a Coordinator, and could see that you would give it a good go - not because they thought that you (or any of the other coordinators for that matter...) were either perfect or knew all aspects of Wikipedia intimately. You've done a lot of work on the backlogs, for example, and I certainly appreciate that contribution; you've illustrated many other contributions you've made above. Given the huge potential for activities on the wiki, just in the field of military history - from GA, ACR and FA work, copyediting, help for non-native English speakers, help for native English speakers (!), content work, copyvio fixing, wikignoming, coaching, outreach, etc. etc. - no one could contribute to all those opportunities. This community is all about valuing what people do contribute, not worrying too much about the inevitably long lists of things we each don't do! Keep up the good work, Hchc2009 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam m'boy, I have the same (admittedly flip) advice I had for Dank when he was considering the merits of the Lead Coord position: don't think too much! You're doing just fine, really... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

To echo what others have said Adam, don't think you have to do it all. I've been amazed at the reduction in the unassessed backlog. I make a point of visiting to see if I can pick up any within my expertise and I know it's usually between 50 and a hundred there most of the time so well done. If you feel you need someone with period expertise or who can help a non-native speaker, then ask. I'm truly amazed by some editors' mastery of English as a second language but some need a little help and most people in the community will give that. Keep going Adam but don't beat yourself up. Best wishes Monstrelet (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank the people who have given support in this discussion. I appreciate it very much. Over the last few days I've started to do the Backlog of "B class" which is over 26,000 articles. Tonight I've managed to do four easily. Off-topic I am having personal problems as my mother was hospitalised around 2:30 am Sunday morning (Sydney time), which I stayed till around 9 am in Emergency then came home had a sleep, shower and went back with some stuff as the Doctor feels she'll be there for a few days. Hence the semi-wikibreak notice on my Userpage and Discussion page. I'll be around, just leave a message on my Discussion page if you need to contact me. Adamdaley (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tonight, I had a conversation on Freenode concerning an Admin (Sp33dyphil was actually in the channel and saw the whole thing). It wasn't good. Because not only my personal life is getting too much but also, my health is deteriorating both physically and mentally. Wikipedia has been the only place that I could volunteer my time too and it didn't matter what was wrong with my life (every other volunteer place in real life didn't want me there). I'm going to see if I'll be able to have a few days off, but the question is, what will I do with nothing to do? Honestly, it doesn't matter. Wanted to be a good Coordinator, I feel the way I am health wise and in my current situation, I'm letting the team down. Adamdaley (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam, reading the above would very much recommend you put yourself on light duties for a little while while you get things stable. Don't worry as much about the admining for a while, use your wiki time for something that engages your creativity and interests. You need something fun and diverting not another stressor at the moment. Best wishes and look after yourself Monstrelet (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Echoing the above, without wishing to devalue the co-ord positions, don't take them too seriously Adam or you'll never get off the co-ord page! I think it was EyeSerene who gave me some good advice when I was doing it - don't allow it to divert from doing what you enjoy on Wiki. It's not a job, so nothing is expected of you. Just do what you enjoy and don't stress when you can't manage everything you intend to. You only need to look at my co-ord term to notice that I not only ran out of time to fulfil co-ord duties, but I ran out of time to contribute to Wiki altogether! My point is, don't even begin to worry about taking a few days off. Best, Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Done it two nights running with another Admin. This time not on Freenode or with the same Admin, but a second! I tagged this article for translation: Panzerlehrbrigade 9. See source code for the Infobox it's in German, not english Wikipedia "Military Unit". I've tried to do my best with this, but unfortunately, I don't have anyone to help me on this to translate the German to English due to not wanting to stuff up the Infobox once it's been changed to english "Military Unit" for the German Unit in question. However, I do appreciate all the support the people here have given me. I'm very appreciative and thankful, since I'm going through a bad time not only on Wikipedia but in real life too. Adamdaley (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how I could make this any clearer. The infobox displays in English on the article. Therefore you can use that to show what each term in the source code means. Therefore you can use that to swap it out with the english infobox. No translation required.--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The translation has been done by someone and I have left them a message and given them a Barnstar to show my appreciation for this person taking the time to change the Infobox from German to English (source code) for english Wikipedia. Adamdaley (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinions

Hello all, if possible could a few editors please take a look at Battle of Abu Tellul (also known as the Affair of Abu Tellul)? There is a debate on the talk page about whether it should be named a "battle" or an "affair". All opinions are welcome and of course I'm happy with whatever decision the majority comes up with. I just want to establish a consensus so we can move on with improving the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What's with this term "affair" for a military event? It sounds feeble, more like a title from an Agatha Christie book than a dangerous combat situation in a war. The debate on the talk page seems to revolve around the scale of the event, so why are people not using words like "campaign", "battle", "skirmish" or "clash", or if a more general term is required, "action", "combat" or "engagement", all of which have more context than "affair" which conveys no meaning, and seems more like an outdated romantic term used by people such as H.G. Wells and Victorian authors, than a historically accurate modern encyclopedic description. Just my 2c regarding the wider choice of better words available rather than arguing between those two. Will anyone seeing "Affair of..." in a search or category page think "oh, that must be a battle!" For all we know "Abu Tellul" could be a person having an affair (i.e. knocking someone up behind his missus back) which was notable. As far as I can see, there are only 2 other "Affair of..." titles on Wiki – Affair of Nery which redirects to Action at Néry, and Affair of Katia. So despite the best interests of RoslynSKP to portray an accurate definition via the title, there isn't any great use of the term on Wiki, and as AustralianRupert says, it appears archaic and not recognisable as a combat event, in which case "battle" is the better of the two, but there may be a more accurate word to suggest the scale of the fight, from the few I suggested, et al. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RoslynSKP is only following the official nomenclature, as laid down by the Imperial Battles Nomenclature Committee after the Great War. It's the name that readers will find in the British official history, and therefore what a researcher may well key in. We don't have to follow the official nomenclature, but have to be careful when we don't that readers will still be able to find stuff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to share your opinions. I appreciate it. Does anyone else have anything to add? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Battle" or "Engagement" would work, with "Battle" being preferred. No reason for "Affair" not to redirect though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - a redirect would cover both nicely. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I had some concerns about this when I wrote Action at Néry. As Hawkeye notes, "affair" is more or less the "official" title - it's what's used as a heading in the official history, for example. (Note the distinction between Nery (an "affair") and Villiers-Cotterets or Crepy-en-Valois, on the following pages, which were "actions".) I am guessing the approximate approach is that something was only "Battle of X" if a battle honour was authorised for it; otherwise it was termed an action or an affair, though the distinction between those two is not very clear to me, and seems to be blurred in current writing.

If we deprecate "affair" as a bit meaningless to modern readers, which is fine as long as we include redirects, I'd strongly recommend going with the less formal "action" rather than "battle". Names of the form "Battle of X" are almost always a standardised, well-used form appearing in historical works; if the sources don't use "battle", we shouldn't either, lest we confuse readers who can't find it referred to elsewhere. This is comparable to the situation with ship engagements, where we prefer "Action of [date]" to "Battle of [date]". Shimgray | talk | 22:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just been looking at Wikipedia:MILMOS#Battles and note there is no formal convention with regards to the names of different types of engagements. If there are formal names such as those given by the Imperial Battles Nomenclature Committee (which I personally have never heard of until now), then it is not unreasonable to use those names in the form of a redirect to more modern naming, e.g. Affair -> Battle. I like the idea that "Action of..." is often designated to smaller naval battles, particularly older ones between ship of the line type warships, whereas once we reach the age of Ironclads and modern warships, the term "Battle of..." seems more appropriate. Although I think "action" is also often used to refer to "cavalry action", quite a lot, and engagements between cavalry units only are often titled "Action of..." events, for some reason. It is probably, therefore, too difficult to standardise the use of terms without being imposing, as in many cases they often have historical ties of their own, depending upon how contemporaries or earlier generations of historians to ourselves have termed battles. Historiography, though, is a more modern concept than history, and the "way we study history" leads to the way we identify it, often to the point of rewriting history books to suit modern audiences, but without actually rewriting the history or altering the context itself. I'm sure historians who have released subsequent editions of their works have done so not only to correct any mistakes and include new information since the last edition, but to also update terminology, and such, as older editions become more outdated by modern names and as academic writing conventions change over time. As a result, Wiki must also strive to keep up to date with these practices, and benefits from the ability to simply edit, redirect or move articles to more suitable titles without having to limit itself to irrelevant or outdated terms indefinitely – that's not rewriting history or meddling with "officially designated titles", it's simply common sense to target a modern international audience as best it can. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Another point to consider is whether adopting the name used by Imperial Battles Nomenclature Committee is neutral POV. Surely the Turkish and the Germans had there own name for the engagement? Why then should we use one official name over another? Use of a generic naming format, per WP:MILMOS/C such as "Battle of X", "Seige of Y" or even "Action of Date" is less POV in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the other issue of course. The Committee was made up representatives of the various Imperial governments. From memory, Carl Jess was the Australian representative. The Committee recognised that its decisions were arbitrary in some cases, as it was sometimes far from obvious when a battle began or ended, and what series of battles comprised a campaign. There was debate over some of the classifications. There was considerable debate, for example, about the Battle of Fromelles. As a rule, the de facto standard followed on the Wikipedia is to use the common name of the battle in English. Where there is a foreign name that is more than just a translation of the same, then it should be noted, but I feel that this being the English language Wikipedia, the articles should use the English names. So we have the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway rather than whatever the Japanese call them. I did query once before as to how some of the articles on battles of the South West Pacific in the Second World War were named, and when the answer was that editors selected them as they thought best, I felt WP:BOLD enough to change some of them. In all I think the current names should be retained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, use of the common name of the battle in English seems appropriate, where such a "common name" exists (IMO in the case of "Battle of Abu Tellul" it doesn't and hence why my opinion is to use a generic name). I've certainly no desire to open a very large can of worms and propose bulk renaming of articles! Anotherclown (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In some cases that itself is an issue. Take the American Civil War, for some battles there is a Southern and Northern name, e.g. Battle of Manassas / Bull Run. Same with the Napoleonic War, e.g. Battle of Borodino / Moskowa – in these cases, it's easy enough to name the article by the most popular usage and redirect the other, and mention both names in the lead's first sentence. But in the case of WWI/WWII battle where you have a British name and Turkish, French, German, Japanese, Burmese, etc alternatives, is it prudent to redirect all the non-English ones to the common English name – excluding cases where non-English characters would pose an issue (Japanese, Russian, Arabic, etc) – it's fair enough to say "Wiki is English, we use English per MOS", but there does come a point when Anglo-cising every event, place and battle in history to suit ourselves takes the piss in a fashion, right? I'm saying this, also, from the POV that I'm writing an article about Napoleon and am trying hard to use French names of places, e.g Marseille, not Marseilles, because it is French history. So if a battle occurs between, say, France and German forces, is it acceptable to use the common English name of the battle over any alternative names given by those who actually fought it? To pose a question: changing battle names to "common English" – is that a biased POV? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think per Commonname etc, if you have an event that has been well covered in English language sources you use that name (and other common alternate English language names) for the event. If the name of the event in the language of the participating parties is signficantly different (ie more than a straight translation) then it, with the addition of a note to explain it, should also be given in the lead. Using a common English name for a foreign battle is not necessarily POV - it's more following guideline policy. (And perhaps in cases using an outsiders name is NPOV.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Battles Nomenclature Committed states: 'The rank of "battle" has been confined as a general rule to engagements of primary importance fought out between forces not smaller than the corps. The title "action" has been employed for the next class, the limit in this case being taken as the division; lesser engagements have been styled "affairs".' [Battles Nomenclature Committee 1922 p. 7] I agree that 'affair' is now archaic, and that while the BNC is a guide that it should not be followed always e.g. Maghdaba and Rafa have both diverted from its guidance. And calling Abu Tellul an action might be stretching it a bit as has been pointed out re Action of Tell 'Asur. My concern is that if these small engagements are titled battle in the Sinai and Palestine campaign they will be compared with the battles on the Western Front and elsewhere during the First World War and the S & P campaign will look overdone and exaggerated by comparison. However skirmish leads straight back to battle on Wikipedia and clash leads to the rock band and music. What about 'fighting,' or perhaps 'combat' as defined by Wikipedia, might be more suitable? --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BNC seem to have some unusual definitions in terms of "ranking" engagements. Given that everything is an "engagement" per se. I define things as follows, rather than muddle terms, as historians do not always agree on naming conventions:

• Campaign: Overall "mobilisation plan" of an aggressor – refers to goals rather than engagements.
• Engagement: Confrontation between opposing sides, regardless of scale. In terms of the phrase "full-scale engagement", I tend to think of it referring to the commitment of all available resources at the time it takes place, compared with a limited-engagement where less resources are employed to confront an enemy.
• Action: Confrontations within engagement, regardless of scale. In naval warfare "Action" used to refer to a minor sea-battle.
• Battle: Per "pitched battle" (shortened to "battle"), usually a major large-scale battle where neither side has withdrawn and prepares to attack/defend, possibly hoping for a decisive result. Used for large-scale sea and some major aircraft battles, also.
• Clash: Confrontation, possibly between lead/flank elements of a force that is unplanned. May result in one side's withdrawal, or develop into a full-scale battle.
• Skirmish: Minor confrontation between skirmishers/light troops.
• Combat or fighting: To have engaged the enemy, regardless of scale. Both take place within any engagement. "Combat" sometimes used to indicate a minor clash between skirmishers/scouts, that did not evolve into battle or heavy fighting. Sometimes used for dogfights between aircraft as "aerial combat" (shortened to "combat") is commonly used.
• Siege: Engagement where one side is heavily fortified against besiegers. May lead to battle conditions if storming occurs, but "siege" used to differ from open battle.
• Affair: Not in my military vocabulary, possibly an out-dated term or limited to BNC titled engagements. At best, just another word to mean an "engagement" with no suggestion of scale or conditions.

Because of this, I don't advise "fighting at..." be used, too broad a meaning. Whilst "combat of..." is often relatively light fighting and rarely conclusive. There are a lot of terms to consider, and although I don't expect everyone to agree with my line of reasoning, it helps to have a similar way of logically scaling things.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Using English names to label an event is not POV, but using English names to define the scope of an event is POV. IMO, the real problem is to recognize distinction between the two and to make sure we don't cross the fuzzy red line. Jim101 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How so? NPOV is used to balance opinions. A large percentage of articles on battles have a victor, and the defeated. It is more important to maintain NPOV in the prose than in the title when describing the battle and how one side won. Regardless of if Napoleon or Wellington, et al, had won the Battle of Waterloo, it would still be a "Battle of.." some place. If the Germans had chased the Allies back into the sea during Battle of Normandy, would it be any differently named? IMO, no – D-Day would be a "failed campaign" and Battle of Normandy marked as "defeat". It's not like we're calling these events "Brits kick Boney's bum at Waterloo, 1815" or "Nazis got thrashed at Normandy, 1944". Whilst the scale of any engagement is always a variable, the name of it is really to define a fixed event, and aim at "suggesting" a scale rather than defining it due to lack of standard naming conventions, and the unlikely chance that historians would ever agree to one, anyway. No one benefits or loses, POV wise, if we call it an "Affair..", "Battle.." or "Action..", in terms of rewriting history or discrediting those who fought. It's simply a matter of using wording that works on a present day encyclopedia, to label, yes, but also to "broadly define" rather than specifically rate or rank an engagement in terms of size and possible strategic importance. Military history is always going to be full of minor and trivial examples of questionable and disputed POV where there is no easy way of settling the matter without changing the facts - something Wiki is oft criticised for is having highly-disputed articles that are based on consensus rather than reliable research and citations (theoretical example: if 500 people call 9/11 a government plot, 500 call it a terrorist attack – no consensus, the article becomes "neutralised" to suit "people" rather than "evidence", making that wiki article encyclopedic, the context uneven, and the content of no use to anyone!) Military history articles should avoid the same behaviour of supporting theorists and advocates of trivial historical beliefs – holocaust denial, etc – to maintain its integrity as a serious project. I don't think the name of an engagement is a serious matter of POV, especially in comparison with carefully determining and describing the strategic/tactical outcome of some disputed battles to everyone's liking, as there is no historical "fact" in the difference between using the word "battle" or "action", it's simply a matter of context. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here...what I mean by "to define" is the habit of using the official English name to limit the article content to English POV just because foreign sources don't use the same name. I mean, it would not be neutral to describe Affair of Abu Tellul as "just an affair" in the article while ignoring German/Turkish POV because their sources don't use the same name. But per the principle of WP:DECISION, I don't see a problem with calling the event as "Affair of Abu Tellul" when the article itself made it clear that it is a large scale battle and German/Turkish POVs on the matter are evenly presented. You have to have faith on reader intelligence. Jim101 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure, I agree with you there, all the way – ignoring sources is bias, or even synthesis to selectively use sources that only support one's own preferences surrounding any engagement. It's understandable that a lot of editors do not speak foreign languages, but there's no excuse for excluding sources that have been translated, or studies based on foreign sources. The broader the sources, the better the content. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's really interesting MarcusBritish about '"combat of..." is often relatively light fighting and rarely conclusive.' In the case of Abu Tellul no territory was won or lost and the fighting mainly between 2 regiments and 2 and a half battalions was over in a few hours. --Rskp (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the majority of my military history lies in Napoleonic/American Civil Wars, and often very different tactics/formations, more massed men and horses due to lack of modern equipment - specifically MGs, shells, tanks, planes, etc - I would agree that if there was a better alternative to "Battle" or "Affair", based on the relatively small numbers engaged at Abu Tellul, that "Combat" is a reasonable term to hint at a fairly small-scale event with no major decisive value per se. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot – I've already moved Affair of Katia to Combat at Katia (I know ... it doesn't sing, but ... what can you do? :) :) ) and am trying to track down all the references to it. Got the main ones anyway. Its a good result for Katia, pity about Abu Tellul but 'that's life'. --Rskp (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's only a matter or raising it as a valid alternative name in the talk page discussion, based on logical reasons, like I've expressed above. The consensus is about coming to an agreement over "what is best" for the article, it's doesn't have to be a fixed vote between "Battle" or "Affair". Just because Anotherclown wants "Battle" and is throwing his weight around doesn't make his opinion "right" and not open to dispute – within reason, that is. Whilst I think wanting to use a name only ever adopted by the BNC is somewhat POV and has limited appeal as a military description, I also think there are good arguments why "Battle" might be too strong an emphasis on the event. That's not to say it wasn't a battle – it seems to have had organised attack/defence positions to deem it "pitched" in a sense – just that it seems to have been a very scrappy one, and could possibly be better named, without affecting POV. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I think I've stated my case fairly clearly and others have stated their's. I'm sorry that the generic battle has won as I think the articles describe events which were too small to be called battles but I can't waste time going over and over it. Looks like Combat of Katia is being challenged too - what a joke. --Rskp (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I also created a redirect Affair of Qatiya, as this is the form in the official history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look through the sources I based the Katia and Abu Tellul articles on; none of them mention 'battle of ...' or 'affair of ...' just the place names, excepting Hill's 'brief battle of Abu Tulul', and Erickson's 2001 Appendix G (he does not mention Battle of Katia in the body of his book) while the Battles Nomenclature Committee and Falls official history both support 'affair' in both cases. The sources are 2:1 in favour of affair for both Katia and Abu Tellul and the sources should be reflected in the name of these articles rather than fashion or a consensus based on web searches. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic Revolutions

This is a cover term for the "revolutionary wave" that spanned from the 1750s to the 1830s: basically, the end of the Age of Enlightenment. The current article is listed as start-class and does not have a great deal of information. I know that the articles on the individual revolutions give plenty of information, but have started working on an expansion to the article. The expansion includes summaries of the revolutions (more than one paragraph). I am wondering if anyone else is interested in contributing to this. DCItalk 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Corsica is not in the Atlantic, this looks a bit like an OR essay.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just a term (not a very correct one) that names the wave of Enlightenment-spawned revolutions. Some even list Poland's 1790s chaos as part of the revolutionary wave, and it's certainly not part of the Atlantic world. The article is far from done. DCItalk 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we have some sources that use the term Atlantic Revolutions fpor a series of interlinked evetns please?Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• [1]
• The Search for Beulah Land is a book written by a Welsh historian. The subtitle reads: the Welsh and the Atlantic Revolution
• World History in Documents by Peter N. Stearns mentions the "Age of Atlantic Revolution"
• Revolutions in the Atlantic World by Win Klooster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Revolutions, we have a page.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The current article (the one in the main namespace) is just a list, barely beyond being a DAB page of sorts. It certainly needs growth, but not in the form of a "list of summaries" of semi-related topics. It should be focused instead in the connections. Explain which things from the X revolution influenced similar things at the Y one, which ones were similar but not the result of an influence, and which ones were rejected (for instance, the Spanish Enlightenment was more conservative towards religion than the French one) Cambalachero (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is very very important when dealing with theories in academic history to weigh the influence of the theory in the contemporary scholarly world, and to primarily discuss the theory rather than its explanatory examples. Structuring an article around the examples the theory proposes is coatracking together an article in support of a theory, rather than discussing the proper subject of the article: the theory. For example: Australian settlement is an theory explaining Australian history in the 20th century. In contrast, almost all scholars agree that a French revolution occurred. One should be discussed as a theory, the other as a sequence of events. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Can't say much beyond Fifel. Historical theories often come out of the dominant narrative of the historiography of a subject. However, just because a majority of historians subscribe to the narrative does not mean they are right. You're going to have to focus on the theory, as Fifel says, but I'd also include a section on the work of historians that differ from this theory, aka the alternative narrative. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • There are no "rights" or "wrongs" in social sciences. Cambalachero (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a very good link, Cambalachero – I haven't seen it before. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Be aware that nothing in this will prevent me from marking your history assignments as E or F when you get it wrong. I'm just saying. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Affair of Abu Tellul

We are having difficulty finding consensus regarding the name of this article. Some think 'battle' most appropriate but the sources don't describe a battle - more an action, although the naming authority for the war assigned 'affair'. In the Sinai and Palestine campaign there were engagements which were significant but which were really too small to be called battles; if they were all called battles the campaign would look a bit out of proportion. Would it be possible to add to the 'Article structure' another sub-section to cover 'actions' along the same lines as for 'battle' –

1. The name of the action (including alternate names).
2. When did it happen?
3. Where did it happen?
4. Which war or campaign does it belong to?
5. Who were the combatants?
6. What was its outcome or significance?

I'd really appreciate some advice regarding this problem. Thanks, --Rskp (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above. See the heading Request for opinions. Anotherclown (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rskp, although the matter is being discussed above, I want to mention a few points. Sometimes the term given to an engagement does not relate purely to the scale of the engagement but to the conditions of the encounter, in that some engagements occur as a chance encounter and become known as "combat", "clash", "rearguard action" (during a retreat), etc. In the cash of two (or more) armies drawing together, positioning guns and troops, then fighting out, the term "pitched battle" often applies. Though these are usually thought of as grand Napoleonic style battles with huge columns and lines of men and cavalry forming up before engaging, the size of those battles ranged from as few as 15,000 per side (a few brigades/a division) to 200,000 per side (several corps or whole armies), making the scale vast in comparison. In contrast, WWI land engagements often come across as entirely pitched given the use of entrenchments, barrages, etc, but it could still be matter of determining the form of encounter rather than proportion in comparison with other battles, as it's not always a simple matter of numbers. A campaign is an overall objective, regardless of scale, so it doesn't matter if the engagements within a campaign are all minor clashes, or a series of battles, sieges, actions at sea, bombing raids, or whatever – a campaign is something a side plans to commit to with an end result in mind, engagements are not always pre-planned in terms of location and scale of combat situations within it. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about an article I have at FAC, the Battle of Kaiapit. Officially, it was an affair too, being a fight between an Australian company and a Japanese battalion. I did not create the article (Nick D did) so I didn't name it, and don't know the thinking behind the name, but there is a clue in the last paragraph, where I compare it with the Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam in 1966. That too was a company action, against a somewhat larger force than at Kaiapit (but at Kaiapit they didn't have artillery support, which sort of evened things up). On this model, Long Tan, generally celebrated as a battle, would only be an affair or engagement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I see things on this, simply: what term do the majority of sources use for the combat? Using anything else strays into WP:OR territory I'd think... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bushranger and Hawkeye7 - I have strayed into WP:OR and will move Katia back to affair. --Rskp (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Oswald Watt now open

The featured article candidacy for Oswald Watt 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! Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon warfare

My attention was drawn to this article, which seems to be an OR essay. I've tagged it and explained the need to improve it on the talk page.

I could improve this article, though not in the next few days. What I would like, though, is for someone knowledgeable in these matters to have a look and see if they can find a published source which would support what is an arguable but non-standard view of the subject. Alternative academic interpretations could then be given to balance the article. Thanks. Monstrelet (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Monstrelet, the only editor I know offhand who is into the Anglo-Saxon period is User:Mike Christie. Hopefully he can help or at least point you in the right direction. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth can also hook you up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Ealdgyth is likely to be able to help with this. I don't have much on this topic myself, but Lapidge's Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England has a few references listed in the "Arms and Armour" entry:

• H.R. Ellis Davidson, The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1962)
• M.J. Swanton, The Spearheads of the Anglo-Saxon Settlements (Royal Archaeological Institute, 1973)
• M.J. Swanton, A Corpus of Pagan Anglo-Saxon Spear-Types, BAR Brit. ser. 7 (1974)
• N.P. Brooks, "Weapons and Armour" in D. Scragg ed., The Battle of Maldon AD 991 (Oxford, 1991)
• T. Dickinson and H. Härke, "Early Anglo-Saxon Shields", Archaeologia 101 (1992)

I hope that's helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Alas, books I am aware of but don't have access to. There are others, though, so not impossible. The key thing is to see if the very specific theory given is in any published work, so that it can be properly cited and compared to other published theoris.Monstrelet (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd--neither Blair nor Stenton seem to offer much on the topic. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really - the military dimensions of general history weren't particularly fashionable when they wrote. Tended to be left to specialist military historians.Monstrelet (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now done some work to improve the article in structure, content and refs. I have contacted Ealdgyth but no reply as yet. If anyone wants to do some further work on this, I've left some suggestions on the talk page. Monstrelet (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add United States military history task force under WikiProject United States

Greetings, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the United States military history task force of Military history might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include a joint task force for it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the joint task force being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. If have any thoughts, comments or questions, please let me know. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Having seen how this worked with the Old West project, I'd have to vote against this should it come to that. Besides, isn't this TF already supported by the Military History project? Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what's being requested here. Obviously, as the other parent project for the task force, WPUS is perfectly welcome to provide links to it within its own task force lists; I don't think we need for any formal process to determine that the task force is a "joint" one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Kirill. Just remember, it's a joint task force run by WikiProject United States and WikiProject Military history, like American cinema task force of WikiProject Film. Just to clarify were not talking about deprecating the project. Just adding it to the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. The only significant change would be to add this project to the {{WikiProject United States}} project banner as you can see here like with others such as WikiProject District of Columbia and WikiProject West Virginia. This would allow the project to be visible to a much larger pool of editors as well as take advantage of the various bots and scripts currently running on the WikiProject United States articles. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with having the WPUS banner generate a task force tag for USMIL; a lot of our national task forces already have that sort of dual-tagging scheme (i.e. matching parameters in both {{WPMILHIST}} and the other project's banner). We just need to make sure that the category names you use are the same ones we're using, or we'll wind up with two copies of the assessment statistics. ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand. My only hope is that supporting under the WikiProject United States umbrella we can use the infrastructure in place for the project, including, collaboration, portal, noticeboard, newsletter, etc to increase visibiliy and participation, which Kumioko did. Additionally, since many projects have overlapping scopes we can use that to our advantage and coordinate multiple projects on article improvements easier. The last few months the focus has been on getting WikiProject United States going again and getting the infrastructure in place. In the future we will be focusing more on article content with improvement drives (tagging, stub reduction, assessment, picking a topic for improvement, etc.). JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to have you guys on board. Just one little misunderstanding: that task force cranks out a lot of FACs, I'd hardly call it inactive ... I think someone was confused by the fact that the talk pages for all our task forces are redirected to this talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, its a rough start and it takes a while, usefully I've been tagging around with the {{WikiProject United States}} banner myself, along with Kumioko which uses with an AWB. The assessment can be done by bot. BTW, is it possible to support American Civil War and Revolutionary War task forces on the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States as well? JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

5 years now

I just realized that it has been 5 years now that I am contributing to Wiki. Thanks for all the help and positive feedback I received since. Have a nice day everyone. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work over the years. It's been a pleasure working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, Mr. B. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the anniversary !!! Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop it, Mr B, you're making me feel old. ;p Time flies... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal nominated for deletion

A Featured Portal related to this WikiProject, Portal:Biological warfare, has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been closed as "speedy keep". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Queries

The following two articles have sections () hidden from the actual article. The Panzerlehrebrigade 9 seems to have also German among the article is it really necessary? What could be done with this information? Or could be done to these two articles to improve them?

• Panzer Division Tatra

• Panzerlehrbrigade 9

I'm asking help from fellow Coordinators. I do not know what is done in this situation. Adamdaley (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The text in the Panzerlehrbrigade 9 seems to be from a slightly old version of the corresponding German Wikipedia article. I'd suggest removing it from the article as it's not very useful hidden away like that and any translations should be made from the current German-language article (which, in theory, will be more up to date and of higher quality). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Has any changes been made to that since Nick-D? Since I pointed it out or removed? Adamdaley (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So I have an issue...

So during the 2005 round of BRAC, the commission voted to create Joint Bases. Over the past couple of years, the bases have been "created" (essentially a merge of a few bases near each other. I created a page for the joint bases, but other editors have merged the base pages into this super base page, essentially destroying the page histories and making the pages harder to follow. For example, the Joint Base Lewis-McChord page was created out of the merger of the Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base pages (interestingly, the Gray Army Airfield page was never merged into the article). I actually just chose the page as an example, and it is actually the largest of the Joint Base articles. Personally, I would love it if the articles were kept separate and the Joint Base was used to state that they were just that, whereas the the pages for the individual bases would be kept separate so that they would help encourage new users to add information to a page which currently exists as a massive conglomeration of facts. I'm just curious to see what others think, so I'm bringing this issue here for discussion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. The seperate base articles have the potential to become high quality whereas a merge into one page does not. Imagine how convoluted Joint Base MgGuire-Dix-Lakehurst would be if someone tried to make it an FA. Three sections like the Fort Ticonderoga article on top of one another. each base is notable enough fore its own article, though as of now I'm not sure if it would be a better alternative to make each Joint Base an article separate from its component bases. —Ed!^(talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The BRAC 2005 Joint Bases are now a fact of life. The historical bases they were created from is just that. history. Also, the military has deleted the websites for some of them, but not yet all. Hickam AFB is now "Hickam Field". Pearl Harbor also has it's own website run by the Navy... Andersen AFB has it's own with no mention of "Joint Base Marianas"; Joint Base San Antonio has separate websites for the component bases.. although each base now has "Joint Base San Antonio" as a secondary title. So this is a work in progress. However places like Elmendorf AFB, Fort Richardson, McChord AFB, Fort Lewis, and the rest. Andrews AFB.. are now part of history. If there is a desire to split the historical entities into their own separate articles for Old Times' Sake or some other reason.. that's their prerogative. What will happen is they will become orphans and confuse the readers as the future history and events will be written to the Joint Base article .. which will be the one which will grow over time.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "just that, history": what's wrong with history? We're an encyclopedia, not an organizational chart. I'm not familiar with this so-called BRAC, but there is no reason why there couldn't be individual articles for bases that have a lot of history, and perhaps an article about these joint bases which would portray the current structure and summarize the history of its component bases, while linking to the main article on said components. E.g. the Joint Base article would be the main article, and the Fort X and X AFB articles would be forks. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Charlie, it essentially made a mess of many Wikipedia articles. Ed is right though in that statement and I never even considered that when I wrote that. Nevertheless, just because the websites are deleted doesn't mean that they cannot remain separate. As many people have said before, we are an encyclopedia, not the United States military. Just because they do something different doesn't mean that we have to follow their lead when writing articles. Furthermore, our goal is to increase readability and ease of use, not muddle it all into some mess just because some policy decision has created the precedent for a historical clusterfuck. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Old merge tags

I just followed a two year old merge tag at Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II to a discussion at Talk:Pacific_Ocean_theater_of_World_War_II#Merger_proposal. Somebody who knows about that timeperiod should take a look and actually do something, two years is a bit long for a merge tag. This also suggest we may have a merge backlog... is there a place which list merge backlogs by wikiprojects, btw? Do we have even older, forgotten merges to deal with somewhere? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is this listing (Warning: Don't try to open on a slow connection!). The section I linked to is all of the articles with merge tags. It looks like there are 424 MILHIST articles with merge tags at the moment, stretching back to at least late 2008. The overall list is all articles with cleanup banners/inline tags that have the MILHIST banner on the talk page - it looks to be around 32% of the project's articles, or a little under 39,000 articles. That's a bit depressing... Dana boomer (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I rarely use merge tags but I did do one recently when I was doing some research and noticed the similarities between some articles. I didn't intend to do the merge, just to alert those editors involved in the page that the needed to look into this. Perhaps this is a part of the problem - passing editors noting article similarities but not intending to do the work. Another is that merges are technically difficult - I couldn't merge two articles and I count myself as fairly average in terms of editing skill, so perhaps a lot of us are waiting for a skilled co-ordinator to follow up after us? Finally, I'm not sure what the policy is on mergers that would create one large article out of small ones. I wouldn't want to be going against a counter trend that is breaking up articles. Hope these examples of an ordinary editor's confusions and competences help us to think of ways we can tackle this backlog. Monstrelet (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) 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! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Saintes

For those with an interest in, or sources related to, naval battles in the age of sail, I've raised some questions at Talk:Battle of the Saintes#Shifting commanders, if anyone would like to comment. Benea (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias now open

The peer review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for May Revolution now open

The peer review for May Revolution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

SS-volunteers from Norway — "frontkjemper"

Wiki-Danish (and Norwegian) do not have interwiki to English, regarding their articles about SS-volunteers from Norway - both articles are about the Norwegian term "Frontkjemper". (The term allegedly originally referred to a category of German soldiers during WW 1 — Frontkämpfer.)

If someone can take care of linking, the Norwegian and Danish article, to one of our articles, then I can start adding text. (And if that does not happen, then I hope to finish my suggestion for the text for a stub about the Norwegian term. On what page can I place my suggestion for a stub; I do not have plans yet of creating a user name, but I would still like for a new article to be created, or that an existing article receive a redirect from Frontkjemper.)--85.166.141.247 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I will now attempt to start adding references to the Danish article, until I know where to contibute in English, about the Frontkjemper-topic.

Are there any references about German military authorities using the term Frontkämpfer (during WW 2), about these Norwegian SS-volunteers?--85.166.141.247 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You could add details to Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD Notice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southside Composite Squadron if anybody is interested in taking a look. Safiel (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Report from the German Wiki

I want to share a little bit of what is going for a while now on the German Wiki. I follow the evolution of some of the articles there because of personal interest and occasionally I am pointed to a new book or story. I want to put this in the most neutral way possible without jumping to any conclusions prematurely, for a while now a very heated debate is raging between the inclusionists and exclusionsts. The debate is very much centered around the biographies of various recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. You can find examples of what I am referring to on the talk page of Joachim Helbig or talk page Erich Hartmann. What I find so astonishing is how personally offensive this debate is slugged out. The core of the dispute is centered around whether these personalities are noteworthy or not. The inclusionists argue that these men have earned Germany's highest award for military valor or have led a major unit as commanders. The exclusionists argue that most of these stories are "brown propaganda", alluding to the color of the Nazi uniforms. The line of reasoning then tries to discredit sources used leading to the inclusionists calling it censorship or comparing it to the Nazi book burnings. Edit wars rage and information originating from the "questionable" sources gets deleted. In some cases the article gets castrated to the point that indeed the noteworthiness is questionable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that MisterBee. It's a shame that the debate is so heated, though I can see why this would be an uncomfortable topic. The military history exhibits I saw in German museums had a very different tone to those in most other countries. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

True...but it's a shame when it's decided that historical facts are to be avoided - or changed - because they're uncomfortable. Those who cannot remember the past.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This kind of thing really disturbs me. Deleting or sanitizing the historical record effectively covers up the bad. Historiography cannot afford to take sides. Nor, if we are to be taken seriously, dare we. History will judge; we merely record. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. A danger with having lots of articles on heroes of the WW2 German military is that there's a risk that people will focus on the deeds of these individuals and not realise what the big picture actually was. As such, there are lots of sensitivities with these kind of articles which I think that we need to be mindful of. As long as WP:N/WP:BIO and WP:NPOV are adhered to there should be no problems, but of course these policies aren't always followed and are open to some interpretation anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

cough Last time I checked a significant part of Historiography was taking sides on the theory of document-reader relationships and the nature of the processes governing external reality. Encyclopaedists might not judge, but historians do a fair bit more than recording. Of course, other historians do a fair bit more than recording about each other too, it keeps them honest. Sometimes it also results in a highly reported failed libel prosecution. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm asking for an ideal. In the long view, history will tell it all. I see no reason we shouldn't set a good example, even if nobody else does. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

German formations

Hi folks. I've been creating (by translation) basic articles on German divisions and brigades in the Bundeswehr, and generated a suitable template: Template:Bundeswehr divisions. However, this has identified a potential confusion. Currently divisional and brigade names are disambiguated using "(Germany)" ie. "1st Armoured Division (Germany)". However, when Bundeswehr division has the same name as a historic (e.g. Wehrmacht) division, we have a problem. e.g. both the Bundeswehr and the Wehrmacht had a "1st Mountain Division". Currently the existing article, 1st Mountain Division (Germany) is the historic one, but I wish to create its Bundeswehr counterpart. Usually German names are retained for the Wehrmacht (e.g. "1st Panzer Division" as opposed to "1st Armoured Division") but this is not the case for mountain divisions. An easy solution for now would be to use "(Bundeswehr)" and "(Wehrmacht)" for the articles affected. In the longer term that poses the question as to whether all German divisions should be disambiguated this way or not. Views? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for two articles, can the details not be included in 1st Mountain Division (Germany) with separate sections for the Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr periods.? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that and it would make sense if one was derived from the other, but they really bear no relationship apart from the name. This appears the norm - AFAIK Bundeswehr formations do not seem keen to associate themselves with formations that existed in the Second World War. The Wehrmacht division formed in 1938 in Munich and surrendered to the US Army in May 1945 in Austria. The Bundeswehr division formed up in 1956 in Ulm as part of the new German Armed Forces and disbanded in 2003 in Garmisch. Also all other identically named divisions in English and German wikipedia have separate articles. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

While I do see that they are identical from a nomenclature point of view, which would justify a "one article serves both" approach, I do see the need to separate them from a political affiliation point of view. The last section on "Report from the German Wiki" is testimony of why I believe we are safer to draw a more stringent view of separating them. The Bundeswehr is trying very hard to distant themselves as much as possible from its Wehrmacht heritage. The Wehrmacht fought a war of aggression for a totalitarian regime, crossing the borderlines of war crime more than once. The Bundeswehr of today goes on peace-keeping missions for a modern democratic country along with the enemies of the past. My advise would be to separate them. Maybe not that simple as I try to make it here MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that handling both divisions in one article would affect a huge scandal through the media in Germany, asking wether Wikipedia is reliable or even infiltrated by Neo-Nazism. Together with the fact that the divisions have nothing in common except their number and that they are a military unit of a german state, I would ask everyone please to seperate all divisions of the Wehrmacht and the Bundeswehr with the same numer/name. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1st Panzer Division (Germany) and the 1st Armoured Division (Germany) have set a precedent so 1st Gebirgs Division (Germany) and 1st Mountain Division (Germany) for the Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr periods could work. Or we could use 1st Mountain Division (Wehrmacht) and 1st Mountain Division (Bundeswehr) instead of disambiguating by country, which on reflection would be my preferred choice. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer (Wehrmacht) and (Bundeswehr) too because it's solved in this way in the german Wikipedia. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Panzer" and "Armo[u]red" approach has the disadvantage that it's fairly opaque - you can't look at the title and tell what it's about unless you know we have an arbitrary naming scheme. I'd support splitting by (Wehrmacht) and (Bundeswehr), with (Germany) as i) a redirect to the "main" disambiguation page, as we do for, eg, 1st Division (United Kingdom); ii) a short disambiguation page for German units only (including German Empire), or iii) optionally pointing to the "most prominent" example Shimgray | talk | 17:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation by date might also be an option in some cases. eg "1st xxxx Division (1938-1945)". Or state name :German Empire/German Reich/Federal German Republic (West Germany) etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Further comment. Military formations in other countries e.g. Britain, have a more or less unbroken lineage. For example, many of the British divisions and brigades in the Second World War ended up in Germany after the war and just continued in existence. E.g. 7 Armoured Brigade etc. Such formations reckon their history back to the World War II, even commemorating various wartime battles. By contrast, German divisions were disbanded after the war and, when a decade later the new Bundeswehr formed, my impression is, as suggested above, that they didn't draw on their wartime heritage for obvious reasons. So it's logical to separate Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr formations and not to do so for the formation of countries like Britain. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the identification of "1st Panzer Division" and the "1st Armoured Division". The latter really does have Panzer in its title, and it would be confusing to the reader looking it up. I would much prefer the prefer (Wehrmacht) and (Bundeswehr) solution, even if it involves renaming some articles. I note that we also have separate articles for some divisions under (German Empire) and (Germany). I also note that some British divisions have separate articles for the World War I and World War II versions of the division, even though the British Army regards them as the same division. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I support "Wehrmacht" and "Bundeswehr" (or "German Army" for the latter) solution - precedent supports it in naval matters as well, for instance, the ships of the German Navy are divided up into four categories (Imperial, Reichsmarine, Kriegsmarine, and German Navy for post-WW2). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bermicourt for bringing this issue up. I have been faced with the same issue with my rather pedestrian creation of some German Bundeswehr Heer units - principally III Corps (Bundeswehr). I too support "Wehrmacht" and "Bundeswehr" (along with 'Imperial Germany' for the Second Reich, perhaps?) and I would argue we can, in accordance with WP:UE exceptions where a word is very well known in English, use 'Panzer' for all German armoured divisions that used that title. I'm openminded on 'Panzergrenadier' or 'Panzer Grenadier', but editors should be aware that in my expansion of German Army and III Corps (Bundeswehr) I have been using the form 2nd Panzergrenadier Division (you'll see in the linktos it has about three). Thanks again Bermicourt for raising this for discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The British case is a bit odd. Some are separate (51st (Highland) Infantry Division and 51st (Highland) Division); some are unified (38th (Welsh) Infantry Division). There's no logical basis for which are and which aren't (the 51st had a continual existence in the TF/TA, while the 38th was a New Army unit which had its number "resurrected" in the TA expansion of 1939), and we should probably standardise one way or the other. The matter is complicated a bit by the fact that the names did change - the formations were simply "Division" in WWI, but "Infantry Division" in WWII. Shimgray | talk | 22:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Did they change? I know when the US divisions changed; does anyone know when the British Army officially changed the style of the infantry divisions? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I know it's common usage to refer to 2WW divisions as e.g. "Panzer" divisions, but I'm pretty sure Bundeswehr divisions are called "Armoured" by NATO etc. So, although it seems illogical at first, our convention is entirely reasonable in that regard. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Did German Army units of the Wehrmacht period inherit their lineage from pre-Nazi era units? (eg, were Wehrmacht divisions technically the same units as those which had existed earlier under the same name?). If so, the use of 'Wehrmacht' alone might be inappropriate. The use of 'Bundeswehr' for modern units seems appropriate given that it's the name of the post war German military. However, were any East German Army units retained in the Bundeswehr after reunification? - if so, this might not be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we, ought we, deal with 9. Panzerdivision of the Landstreitkräfte of the NVA? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Shimgrey: the divisions that are not merged are the divisions that I have not gotten around to, like 51 Highland (that's about two), or those that I deemed could not be continued (pre 1919 divisions having different titles from post 1919 divisions). If you look on my userpage you'll see that's on my list of things to do!! Like Hawkeye7, I would be very pleased to see some unambiguous evidence either way that the title did change from 'Division' to 'Infantry Division' and some dates for that change - right now I sense we are guilty of a lot of wiki-invention of titles.

Nick-D, we've actually had this discussion before; my talkpage has some evidence that User:W. B. Wilson dug up, and my academic research uncovered scholarly discussion that in an ad hoc fashion, some Bundeswehr units tried to attribute and create links with pre 1933 Heer units. This was not systematic or formalised. No East German Army units were retained after reunification; they formed divisions 13 and 14 and brigades 37-42 of the Bundeswehr Heer after 1990. Some of those units remain today.

Fifelfoo, I would argue that was a completely separate country, thus 9th Panzer Division (East Germany). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I knew someone had been working on amalgamating them in the past, I hadn't realised it was you :-). I'll have a dig around for firm details on the naming. Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think NVA-Divisions should be handled in the same way as Bundeswehr and Wehrmacht-Divisions. So it has to be 9. Panzerdivision (NVA). --Bomzibar (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However, English-language works generally don't use German terms such as '9. Panzerdivision' but translate them to something like '9th Panzer Division'. 'NVA' is rather obscure for English-speakers as well, and military buffs generally associate the term with the North Vietnamese Army so (East Germany) might be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted - with regards to my earlier comment about ship categories and their naming for the various German states - that the category for East German ships is Category:Ships of the Volksmarine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that names of NVA (and other Warsaw Pact) formations were usually fully translated by NATO and the West, whereas terms like "Panzer" are normal for the Second World War period. I will check my sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would note in response that virtually all of the many, many, many, books and articles I've looked at over the past twenty plus years use 'Panzer' and some variation of 'Panzergrenadier' for Bundeswehr Heer and indeed Nationale Volksarmee units. For example, 'The Armies of Europe Today,' c.1974, and 'Armies of NATO's Central Front,' Jane's, 1985. Because of this practice, and because the German term was 'Panzer' or variations of throughout, we should use one term for both Second World War and current units: either Panzer/Panzergrenadier or some sort of translation. I understand the situation which gave rise to the present 'split' system, but it boggles the mind that we should use the German word Panzer untranslated for the 1940s and translate it in the 1950s. It's ridiculous!! Thus, as I said above, I believe we should use Panzer/PG, not 'Armoured'. In addition, our current terminology for Bundeswehr units is internally inconsistent: Armoured (British Commonwealth English) but Mechanized Infantry (American) versions of ENGVAR. This is another reason to use the original German throughout. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all the English-language works I've seen on the postwar German armies use terms such as 'Panzer' and 'Panzergrenadier', so these can safely be considered the standard English-language names for these units. This much-reproduced order of battle of NATO forces in 1989 on Orbat.com provides an example of the kind of designations which are commonly used. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In which case, I guess we will need to use disambiguators like "(Bundeswehr)", "(Wehrmacht)" and "(NVA)" to avoid confusion. BTW according to the Oxford Dictionary of English (which is international), "mechanized" is the usual standard worldwide spelling (with "mechanised" as a standard variant) , so we're not inconsistent on that count. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good in general, since we've got (German Empire) already, but I would urge use of (East Germany) as it was a separate country, and doing otherwise would deprive them of their own country suffix bracket, which is standard across WP:MILHIST.

Therefore I would argue for, in historical order, (German Empire), {Wehrmacht) and (Bundeswehr) & (East Germany). I read that sentence and realise I'm being inconsistent about the (East Germany). But Nick's point on 'NVA' is very well taken for an online encyclopedia read by millions of Americans. Does anybody else have any suggestions - (Nationale Volksarmee) perhaps? Is that too long? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(East Germany) is fine, I think - it's inconsistent with the other Germanies, but consistent with everything else. One caveat - for consistency and retroactive compatability - would be that we should make sure that any article with a (German Empire), (Wehrmacht), (Bundeswehr), or (East Germany) suffix has a corresponding redirect (or disambiguation page) at the (Germany) suffix. Likewise, it might be a good idea to make sure that any (Bundeswehr) suffix has a corresponding redirect from (West Germany). Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:I Corps in the West (Poland)

Could we please have some additional views here about whether this article should be merged or reduced to a redirect in its current state? Briefly the pro argument goes that it was only an administrative formation, never engaged in combat, and the article is currently a short, unreferenced, stub. The con argument is that the formation existed and was of corps size thus the article should remain unmerged despite it's undeveloped state. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a proper, notable stub. We don't merge such articles into larger ones... stubs are quite acceptable, AFAIK. Aren't they? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Werner Hartenstein now open

The peer review for Werner Hartenstein is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Female soldier forced to skinnydip, chief of staff apologizing via spokesman, soldier meeting minister of defence

Norwegian national newspapers have reported about a female soldier who was ordered to skinnydip with male conscripted soldiers of Norway's army.

The following link states that "the Chief of Staff (Harald Sunde (general)) has apologized via his spokesman, and several politicians reacted strongly", [2]

And the article tells about the soldiers subsequent meeting with Norway's Minister of Defense. (And how the minister in some way has given her second thoughts about her publicized thoughts about a premature exit from her military service. )

The chain of events (or the affair — whatever it is (or will be) called, might be more notable than the individual soldier.

She (Alice Asplund) is notable to some degree for the forced skinnydipping, and later reactions from various political and military notabilities.

Are there any notable references to her in English?--85.166.141.237 (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential overlap of military history and current events

Are there any arguments that can be made, about the above not being military history?--85.166.141.237 (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

not news?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:BLP1E. She isn't notable enough for an article. If the incident blows up into something with WP:PERSISTENCE, then perhaps an article on it, but not her. (And why Norway requires its conscripts to skinnydip I dunno, but if it applies to one soldier it should apply to all...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Mark Hanna now open

The peer review for Mark Hanna is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Article in need of help

Not sure where to put this, but somehow I wound up at Elmo Zumwalt, and the article is in really rough shape. Could someone fix it? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's far from perfect, definitely undersourced, and perhaps badly written, but "in rough shape"? Did you have something specific in mind? CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed a bit just now. I notice that "awards" seems to take up a lot of space. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, the Greatest Brazilian military leader is now a FAC

It's with pleasure that I'm here to inform everyone that Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now a FAC. If you are interested, please read the article and share your thoughts on its nomination page. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)