Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The August newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Castlereagh–Canning duel Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) • 2008 Mumbai attacks • United States Special Operations Command • Kony 2012 Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,147) • only work on referencing and citation (43,205) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,373) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,805) • work on structure (31,847) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,167) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,874) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (3) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (0) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (1) • task forces added (1) • attention to task force coverage (657)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk)

Just a heads up

If anyone's working on an article, and has an image that needs a bit of restoration to make it more usable - it need not be FP quality, though that's always nice, as it gets the article on the main page - please let me know. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Keith-264 everything on here ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Choose one or two to start. There's a limit to how many I can do a day =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Adam Cuerden—if you have nothing else, I'll be getting Template:Sclass- to FA when I block out a couple weeks of time for it. There's a few FP-quality images from NARA in it, especially this one, if you're interested. Again, though, only if you have nothing else! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or does that one look like it's a scan from a print on non-photographic paper? There are lines which look like paper grain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco, I'm not sure what to even look for, so you tell me? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say scanner lines, myself. It's a bit mediocre at full resolution, but it's big enough that that may not matter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, this exists, and is probably a better and more interesting picture of the ship. Any objections, @The ed17:? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't that one already in the article? (Near the bottom). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's of the rear of the ship, which is why I used the other image in the lead. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• LoL. Adam, do you want to take File:Photograph of the Battleship USS Michigan - NARA - 19-N-13573.jpg or should I? Don't have much to do today so I wouldn't mind editing that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Have you begun work on this yet? If not, I think I'll do it right after SMS Baden. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I did a bit, but I've got some work on my plate right now, so if you have time in the next couple days go right ahead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If there's anything you an do to improve the quality of the maps here Second Battle of the Aisne I'd be grateful even unto half my kingdom.Keith-264 (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've jumped in and done a few - but there are plenty left! (Hohum ^@) 11:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Found a better-quality image of Soupir. Maps are next, though mapmaking/vectorizing is a different skill than I have, so it'll mainly be checking if larger copies can be found. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Blanking on Royal Navy article

There's been some recent article blanking on Royal Navy ranks, rates, and uniforms of the 18th and 19th centuries [1][2]. I've moved the article to avoid further dispute and would welcome other user comments here. Thanks for any input. -OberRanks (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HMCS Reo II. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/USS Smith-Briggs. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done This wasn't actually submitted for review but I commented anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wisconsin Military Road. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Featured Topic: Ford Island

Hi folks. I'm going to start on a project to try to get topics related to Ford Island to featured topic status. A lot of these articles are related to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Would anyone be interested in working on these with me? We could even get Attack on Pearl Harbor to GA or FA and overlap another featured topic. Sources should be plenty, there is a lot of history here. My main interest is in Ford Island itself, but this is a great project for anyone with interest in the attacks as well.--v/r - TP 03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello from WikiProject Bibliographies

Hello everyone!! I am from Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies and would like to invite people here to help our readers to find links to bibliographies at one central location (Wikipedia:List of bibliographies). The page will be reinvigorated over the next few months. You are the first project I have approached about helping populate this. I asking for help because I am assuming this project would have a preferences in how and what should be added and thus could set a format for presentation of the bibliographies covered by this Military history project. -- Moxy (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

1814 campaign in France

I have copied an article called 1814 campaign in France from Wikia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) and I have added the appropriate attribution.

But the article lacks in-line citations for verification and hold opinions that may not be verifiable, so the article needs copy editing to bring it in line with Wikipedia norms. I am placing the information here so that those with an interest in this project are aware it exists. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to use Wikia as a source, instead of as a history attribution. The attribution template is located under references, instead of the talk page, where it should sit, with similar templates, like {{copied}} or {{translated}}. Wikia is not a WP:RS and should not appear in the references section. I tried to fix this error, but was reverted. The color and being a box is a direct indication that the wikia attribution template is not for use on article pages. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

PBS has updated {{Wikia content}} so it's no longer a box, so now fits on an article page, being similar in appearance with {{FOLDOC}} etc source templates -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

To meet both the licence requirements of Wikia and Wikipedia's plagiarism guideline requirements on copyleft, attribution must be placed in article space, as specified in plagiarism guideline. I have altered the template so that it checks on whether it is in a talk space or some other space so that the template alters its display for a specific name space. -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Generations of Main Battle Tanks to help avoid an edit war

Hey folks,

I've been recommended here by a mod of the wikipedia support IRC to hopefully get a little help with an article that is being consistently abused by people trying to use casual thoughts and opinions over sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation

As has been cited on the page, there are 3 known generations of MBT. However the editor 'Rasseru' has consistently "undone" the efforts to keep it correct and trying to imply there is a "4th" generation populated solely by the Japanese Type 10 tank that they really seem to love personally (as evidenced by their posts in the talk page) and via using a misinterpreted article that states it as the "4th generation of Japanese tanks", but that doesn't mean it's "4th gen" in the terms of the article. (It simply means that it's the 4th MBT they've made, when you check the article) Some of the other "cites" they use to say "4th generation" are simply hobby sites or general internet descriptions, not genuine sources and certainly not listed by the generational specifics that define the article from its highest sources. I have corrected it, been undone and then brought it to the talk page of the article, only for him to remove everything I ever said on there, something which a wikipedia mod has put a mention of proper process of on his talk page. As such, it's clear they didn't want to discuss it with me and were just trying to remove everything I'd done to keep the article accurate to sources. However, I was recommended to come here and seek help from other editors for this issue on how to correct it all and keep them from consistently edit warring this page on tank history.

Thanks for any help folks, I stand ready to aid however needed.

--User:TheFuzzyOne (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a somewhat muddled issue. Sources of debatable reliability do speak of a "fourth generation", while other sources of equally debatable reliability call the same tank "third generation". Expert attention would be highly welcome. Huon (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats fully understood. However the page thus far has been defined by the 1983 Rolf Hilmes source at the top. Thats the one that it's all been laid out according to already. If we're to rechange it all, then all the definitions of it needs to be changed around as currently it's been made to change because of "which tank is better" as opposed to by defined traits or dates which should be stated clearly. Each one is defined by some sort of technology currently, but the "4th gen" ones suggested by Rasseru don't bring anything new to the table to change that in a historical sense. I just worry that the page will turn into arguements over "which tank is best and should be countered as 'good enough' to be in any table, as opposed to that of historical and documented definitions regardless of individual ability. As can be seen, Rasseru's comments started with "I think" which says enough to me that if it becomes about individual "power" and "what wins over what" it would create a massive can of worms in future of 'tank arguements', that's my primary concern to keep using the traditional generational definitions instead of 'power levels'. --User:TheFuzzyOne (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

TheFuzzyOne didn't fully read the source about advanced 3rd generation and fourth generation. Clearly in many new sources stated that "using a new generation of technology" and using fourth generation armor same as fighting wheeled units. Plus in the fact the design and advancement that was put into a tank that is rarely seen by other nations and not a upgraded version. I maybe be one of the people who suggested and the future angle the article... I talk this out in the talk before. Before I made any changes and waited for a while, did some research on the subject and found sources. TheFuzzyOne just came and undone everything without talking about it at first. I have another concern of users who do not have their profile or user wiki setup. I seen these users not trusted with their sources and who don't state their background or allow comment on wiki user page for future talk. As I added more source after the first undone. I felt TheFuzzyOne comments were very harassing on the topic and not open minded at all. Didn't give me a chance to state my debatable views of the topic. If TheFuzzyOne clearly wanted to talk about this issue? He would talk in a better tone than he is doing now. Also he is failing take in recent events and developments. This source of "1983 Rolf Hilmes" is from another era and things have changed in 30 years from tanks at that time. I am willing to give up on "fourth generation" idea because clearly someone else will bring up this topic again and again. But I won't give advanced 3rd generation that clearly be seen now and a lot more people are using this term in wiki and in the public. I am willing to stop posting to "Generations of Main Battle Tanks" if TheFuzzyOne is not allow to post on that article as well. We would just harass each other on who is right. Because TheFuzzyOne clearly over reacts on my talk comment "I think" as individual stating the fact. This word is misplace out of context and I do not think my word is law. That why I may of moved the talk that is maybe a bad move and the talks were very one sided to TheFuzzyOne. I do not know why power is being bring up to this arguments? Someone really thinks that this is about power? Lastly, if this topic is about Asian against Western powers? No Asian nation should be looked down on their military advancements and the technology they could make. A lot of info was lost with the undo from other users from removing advanced third generation and fourth generation. Rasseru (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I like to point out that the naming and assigning of the generations is not done by the military. The "generations concept" comes from the media and the public to tell others "that this tank is better because....". Also if you put this in a book or a film you have to use "generations concept" for the viewer to better understand. Since the Military now just explain things by technologically which people are now smarter to understand. Less need to class tanks by a "generation" to get people to understand. Also "generations" is use for historians that really don't study current technologies that much of the time. Based on the current list generations, technologies of nations, and development that 10 to 20 years. We should be in a theory of Generation 4, but now a lot of people are reporting that these are "Advanced 3rd Generation". Basically saying these tanks are better than the ones in the 80s and 90s. Which they are and the common person only see them looked different with some parts that are the same. A lot of the Advanced 3rd Generation's technologies are just well hidden/secret, used as upgrades for past generations, more concept, and hardly used in combat with a matching generation. The major different of a 3rd Generation and a Advanced is that the technologies were built and design into the tank than being a add-on. Rasseru (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Then where is this recognised sourcing of various different elements? Tank power is a subjective element and as you say, we cannot know which is better than which to clarify which ones go into "advanced" or not, especially when there is no defined element to class these back and forth. It is entirely just a sourceless division for the sake of "my country's tank is better" rather than a factual element. The page is not about which is "better" than the others in its generation. It's about grouping tanks as they are by the layout of the page for clarity of information, not about making up buzzwords. Media say "advanced" because it is advanced, but thats not meaning it's a new generation unto itself before of colourful adjectives used in the media. It's like with fighter jets, 4th broke into "4.5th" because of changing times and it became a globally recogised term. There is no such thing yet for tanks. It's not underselling Asian tanks, it's not bias against them, it's just how they're listed. Wikipedia isn't about being "represented better", it's about factual information alone. If you have a source that clearly, from a well known and globally accepted tank authority states very clearly that there are more than 3 generations then please post it. But "media" is not one of them. Historians, governmental definitions, these are the types of sources needed here, not marketing material to attract hits on media sites. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

TheFuzzyOne, totally missed the point of concepts, reality, media's view, and understanding theories to a subject. We are not looking for "tank power" alone in how something classified. Also, I never said we are look for "better". There many different factors your not taking in account and looping on yourself off topic to other issues. A "Neutral point of view" must be giving on generations. The media is listed as a reliable resource for wiki articles. Rasseru (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely. You're trying to combine two different generational elements. Aside from the fact that the media site isn't meaning "tank generations" and it just meaning it's Japan's 4th main battle tank, where does it specify what constitutes a 1st gen? What constitutes a 2nd gen? A 3rd gen? Nothing you have posted when editing this article from its original state has given any detail on this at all. The entire article needs to be consistent to one thing and currently the only one that permits those descriptives is the one from Rolf Hilmes. You can't just change the rules of one descriptive to fit another's description. It all has to sing from the same songsheet or it's muddling concepts entirely for individual benefit. There is no single source anywhere online that has the individual descriptives on 4 generations of tanks up to the modern day, so for the sake of wikipedia to avoid opening a can of worms from a thousand different sources where anyone can say anything (TankNutDave for example is just a hobby site). There is no insult or issue to any of these tanks being listed as 3rd gen, they have all the required elements and it keeps the entire page more informative and streamlined to view from based upon a defined state of generational requirements. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This issues has be mostly solve because sources been found and added to a new section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation . That states there is a "Advanced" and "Next Generation". But, argumentative between nations in it's concepts of technologies and the purpose to keep it neutral. Please review section before opinions are consistently abused by all parties. Thank you. Rasseru (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Some new articles

A couple of interesting new articles have been created recently: Australian Army during World War I and Tanks in the Australian Army. Could use a little assistance with citations, fixing some wikilinks, general clean up etc though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Australian Army during World War I seems to be cobbled together from existing articles, judging by the citations. Hamish59 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed there are some (quite a few) issues with both, but not a bad start. Bit of work has already been done by a few editors but quite a bit more required. Hopefully some other editors might be interested in assisting. Anotherclown (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/02

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Belgian refugees. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/7th Army Joint Multinational Training Command. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles P. Eagan. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've accepted the second one. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Henry Tompkins (Rhode Island). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for help on HMS Clio (1807)

Does anyone have a copy of British warships of the age of sail, 1793-1817 by Rif Winfield who can confirm the information cribbed from this source on HMS Clio (1807). I am looking to confirm the information I have to hand on the complement and armament of HMS Clio. Thanks in advance. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You could try asking Rif Winfield directly :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did! I didn't realise he was active on Wikipedia, many thanks for the tip. He was very helpful in untangling my notes. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about a type of cannon in Spanish ships

Gónada, my Spanish-English dictionary isn't too helpful with translating this as it translates literally as genitals. I'm presuming from the es.wikipedia article [3] that they're a longer barreled cannon than a Carronade, possibly the equivalent of a bow gun or a swivel as they're quite small. Any help, the context is translating [4]. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... My advice would be to italicise them and call them by their Spanish name, I'm having trouble finding a better alternative. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what their English equivalent would be called as all I can figure is that they were long-barreled carronades.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Massachusetts Minutemen and Minutewomen

The usage of Massachusetts Minutemen and Minutewomen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Boston Minutemen

The usage of Boston Minutemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Boston Minutemen for the discussion -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

help please. using images from "copyright expired" to commons

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/091633/ Hello. I want to use an image in a like article. I was thinking that the image is downloaded, uploaded to commons and tag added. Is there a more appropriate method and what copyright tag would be used for images in the Australian War Memorial (link above as an example). Thanks for your help. Phenss (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at Commons:File:Thornycroft Hathi P00156.019.jpg for an example. Useful templates are: Commons:Template:AWM-image and Commons:Template:PD-AustraliaGov.

Be warned though, per Commons:COM:URAA, Commons no longer recognises non-US PD unless they're also US PD (i.e. broadly pre-1923). Massive bulk deletions are going on of UK PD material, I'm not aware how much Aus material is going too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Post-1945 AWM images which are free of copyright in Australia are also OK under URAA as the AWM has been explicitly tagging the images as being free of copyright and in the public domain in its database. As the AWM is/was (depending on how you look at things) the owner of almost all the images it publishes on its database, this tag avoids any issues with potential US copyright. See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 15#File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There *shouldn't* be any issues with that image as it was taken in 1945 so PD-US-1996 would seem to apply but I'm no expert. Regardless, the mass deletions by Commons under the banner of URAA seems to have been challenged as misaplied policy and the images *may* be restored. That said I try not to follow such trivialities - generally I have found image policy to be the domain of pedants that are little better than vandals. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But as your example shows, Stefan2 (oh, what a surprise) will still contend that. As removal and deletion of contested files isn't subject to 3RR, it's very difficult to resist deletions by a few of the very persistent editors, like Betacommand. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

--- Hello again, I have uploaded this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gabmatzung_Lutheran_Mission_Church_1943_as_Field_Ambulance.jpg

And after much advice, have used the following licence:

Commonwealth or State government owned2 photographs and engravings:

Will see if it is accepted. Would appreciate your thoughts on this licence and also these pages which I am busy updating and creating pages in and around Lae Papua New Guinea. As you can imagine the AWM has heaps of media relating to: Salamaua–Lae_campaign Malahang Voco_Point Mount Lunaman Chinatown,_Lae Lae_Airfield Nadzab Lae_Nadzab_Airport Landing_at_Nadzab Landing_at_Lae Lae_War_Cemetery Situm Yalu,_Papua_New_Guinea

Phenss (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ihor Kostenko and the Nezamozhnik

As has been recently reported in the Wikipedia Signpost, a Ukrainian Wikipedian has been killed in the protests in the Ukraine. He had an interest in military history related articles and worked hard to improve them on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Specifically, he put much effort into an article on the destroyer Nezamozhnik. I think it would be fitting if we could help try to raise the newly created English language article on the ship to good article status as a tribute. If anyone else is interested in helping feel free to jump in. --Noha307 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 03/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Storm SRTV. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/86th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Draft:Yordan Milanov (Officer). Appears non-notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Mansoor. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Naval Aviation Squadrons

I've recently created 100+ articles about these squadrons, using the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons, (DANAS), which is the authoritative work in the field. There's a list of those articles HERE. DANAS is available online, but it is broken up into chapters and sections of chapters, making it difficult to know what all is in it. I'm thinking of posting an article with a title like "List of U.S. Navy Patrol Squadrons", which would list all the Patrol Squadrons in DANAS, provide easy links to the chapter and section that apply to each chapter, and would provide links to the relatively few squadrons that have their own Wikipedia articles. A draft of what I'm thinking about can be found HERE. I know that such an article would be useful to anyone interested in these squadrons, but I'd like some feedback on the idea of having it. For example, is it kosher to have the links to the chapter sections in the body of the article? Any and all feedback from people involved in this project would be greatly welcomed. You can provide it here or on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A little bit off the subject, but I wonder if there has ever been a discussion on the titling of articles on United States Navy and Marine Corps aviation squadrons on Wikipedia. It is not uniform at the moment. There are articles with titles like Lou is proposing: Hypothetically VP-1, but there are articles on other squadrons with titles like: Patrol Squadron One. I believe I have seen at least one article with a title like PATRON ONE. The majority use the abbreviated format, but it seems to me that an uninformed encyclopedia user would be more likely to use the full title in searching for information and that argues for using that form for the article with the shorter forms being redirects. On the other hand, this may be one of those areas where there's a consensus favoring the VP-1 format among active editors in the area that isn't in the MOS, but is followed . I would also concede in the example I chose VP-1 differentiates from ZP-1 without using the clumsy and ambiguous Aircraft Patrol Squadron One.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, having "(U.S. Navy)" on the end doesn't fit the naming conventions. If they were repeated, you would slap "(United States)" on the end, but in this case, they aren't needed, as no other country has our naming conventions for these sorts of things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am VERY aware of the many ways these articles are titled. It seems like there has been no coordination (but that's not surprising). Once I started posting a lot of them, I decided to use something simple, and to correct the names later if necessary. I put "(U.S. Navy)" on the end of all my "VA-nnn" articles because there are many articles about highways in the U.S. state of Virginia that are titled "VA-nnn". The disambiguation problems are more than I'm equipped to handle. The problem is almost nonexistent with my "VP-nnn" articles, because nothing else (with one exception that I found) starts with "VP-". I'd like to have a discussion about all this with thoughful people, and IMHO a lot of wise thought is necessary. I've outlined a lot of this stuff HERE. Feel free to post comments there, or here. Lou Sander (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I had already commented that the naming of the articles was clearly non standard at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 February 11#Page move request but it was ignored at the time. A good example is Second VA-55 (U.S. Navy) which is really bad article name by any standard. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Lou's fault so much as the fact that we really don't have a consistent naming process for these things, and there are not rules set in place that I know of that we follow. Years ago, we had a slight issue with some of the Air Force names on this site (it occurred when I started to mass-produce pages for Air National Guard units), but we decided to keep them without the disambiguator. On the other hand, the people over at Commons have seen it fit to add a disambiguator on every category known to man. Although the Navy doesn't acknowledge that units by the same name share the same heritage, we have often treated them as such, so Lou's actions in this regard aren't necessarily wrong, but they go against what we have done (which is technically wrong when you look at it that way). In terms of what to do from here, I am down to move everything to the disambiguation-less titles, and merge in the "Second XXX" pages and whatnot, since that might serve to confuse the average reader. As long as Lou doesn't object, I'll start moving the articles within the next few hours or so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A caveat (although anecdotal). My expertise is with USAF units, but I understand (from a relative, recently a non-aviation USN squadron commander) that the Navy has changed its treatment of aviation squadrons in the fairly recent past. Where it formerly treated aviation squadons like ships, (i.e. if a VP-1 was decommissioned, a newly commissioned VP-1 would be a "second VP-1" not the same squadron) it now treats them more like the way USAF does (i.e. the new VP-1 could be the old one reactivated -- or whatever the term is, so Kevin's merger proposal may be in accordance with current practice. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: @Lineagegeek: I'd REALLY appreciate it if you wouldn't move any articles right now, at least not in the absence of close coordination with me. There are good reasons why Second VA-55 (U.S. Navy) was named the way it was. I know it's not in keeping with certain standards, but it conforms with the way the squadron is named in DANAS, the standard reference work in the field. There is a LOT of work involved in straightening out the lineages of these squadrons, and a LOT of room for error and confusion. I have been immersed in this stuff since late January, and the more I work with it, the more I see how it all fits together (DANAS standards and Wikipedia standards, etc.) PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't act in haste. I am VERY happy to share all the information, and I am VERY interested in having an optimum scheme for naming these articles. I have done a lot of meticulous work here, and more of the same is needed before all the names and disambiguations are straightened out. Lou Sander (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not moving anything. Wrong guy. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lou Sander Can we go ahead and move all of the ones that aren't the 55th and other squadrons like it? In terms of the "Second XXX" squadrons, I wouldn't be adverse to putting the active years after it, as it would be a more sane title than is what there now. Moving the pages won't do anything but give you redirects, as long as we don't merge anything. I have over six years of experience working in this area, so I know what I am doing, just so you are aware. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: Thanks for the reassurance! Maybe let us know a few of the articles you would like to move, along with the rationale for doing it. Once again, I'm looking for good names, and I chose the ones I chose to make it easier to create a lot of articles with a minimum of hassle. Now that they are created, it's cleanup time. I don't know much about your group's conventions, but I know a LOT about how the Navy keeps track of this stuff. Just to show people what's involved in the naming and renaming of these squadrons, HERE is the cross-reference document for Patrol Squadrons. (BTW - I did all the VA squadrons while I was learning this stuff, then I did the VP squadrons. They are less messy.) Lou Sander (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: The VP squadrons are a lot less problematic than the VA's. When I created them, I paid a lot of attention to avoiding "Second (whatever)" and the like. I handled it by putting in brief lineages of prior squadrons (see VP-44, which was actually the Fourth VP-44, or VP-22 which I did a bit later on.) The VP squadrons are all detailed HERE. You can see everything about every squadron with one or two clicks. All the VP's except one are named "VP-nnn", and I hope that is satisfactory to everybody. The one exception is VP-16 (U.S. Navy), where there is a disambiguation problem with a drug that is also known as "VP-16". It would be great if that one could be cleaned up, but I lack knowledge and confidence about how to handle disambiguations. Lou Sander (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lou Sander: All I want to do is move all of the articles from the "(U.S. Navy)" disambiguator if possible, which would not change anything on your end. In terms of merging things, we can save that for another day, as you would be most qualified to do that work. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: There may be a problem with that (as I understand the proposed action), since there are a bunch of articles about Virginia highways, named "VA-nnn". There are also Virginia congressional districts named "VA nn", and sometimes there are several versions of the highways (renamed, etc.). It looked like a nightmare to me, so I just named all my articles "VA-nnn (U.S. Navy)". It may be nonstandard, but it avoids (or postpones) the disambiguation problems with the highways, congressional districts, and who knows what else. I'm NOT expert in disambiguation matters, but I know enough to see that there is potentially a lot of work involved in cleaning that stuff up. (Look at VA-18 for an example.) Lou Sander (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also see User:Lou Sander/VA Disambiguation for some thoughts I had about it a while ago. Lou Sander (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lou Sander: I can still move some of them and you can create the disambiguation page behind them, but I mainly wanted to address the "U.S. Navy" part, since it doesn't go with naming conventions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There are also problems with the Vermont Congressional districts using VT-XX; I ran into those when I was trying to link squadron articles for my article on the early war carriers. I'd much prefer to use years of service for disambiguators rather than Second, Third, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: I don't know anything about creating disambiguation pages, so I don't think I'd do too well at creating ones to handle all the numerous situations. I appreciate that there are naming conventions, but I'm not aware how they might fit here. It would be helpful if you or somebody could figure out a proper disambiguation scheme for VP-16 (U.S. Navy) and Etoposide, a.k.a. VP-16. That one is a piece of cake compared to the squadrons-highways-congressional districts situation. Lou Sander (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: The use of Second, Third, etc. is in keeping with the very-well-thought-out scheme used in DANAS, which is the ultimate reference for all these articles. DANAS includes an extensive cross-reference list that is organized by Second, Third, etc. Service dates would not be useful in consulting it. IMHO this is a case where the classification scheme used by DANAS/the Navy doesn't mesh too well with what might be preferred on Wikipedia. Lou Sander (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It may well be thought out but does me absolutely no good when I need to find out which VA-114 served on the Constellation in 1955 or whatever. That's why I want to see years of service used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Tank Museum - Photography

Greetings MilHist. Wikimedia UK has had a dozen tickets given to us by the Tank Museum here in Dorset. I will be putting out a call for photographers in a few hours. But even if you aren't a photographer or likely to be anywhere near Southern England this year, we would welcome your requests in the table of requested photographs. Regards Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC) aka WereSpielChequers