Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

	Please use this page to start discussions that either affect the project as a whole or several task forces. For discussions about individual existing task forces, please use that task force's talk page instead.
	Skip to table of contents • List and scope of task forces • Add new section

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list
News and announcements The July 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 • Genghis Khan • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured list candidates List of Eureka Stockade defenders 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 • Tim Hughes (soldier) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Lockheed YF-22 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Military logistics • Brighton hotel bombing • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work	Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • The Motherland Calls • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza • Amazon-class frigate (1795) • Operation Matterhorn logistics • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Udagbedo • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Black Hills National Cemetery • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully Good article reassessments Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Joe Rice • Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City
Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,757) • only work on referencing and citation (43,187) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,944) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,748) • work on structure (31,825) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,172) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,821) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (3) • assessment as lists (2) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (2) • task forces added (280) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Last stand

Just wants to bring attention a minor suggestion regarding the article Last Stand i made on the talk page, think more opinions then my own and one other person is required before any possibal change is made. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 15:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Category notices for decorations and awards

Hi all.

I've just replied to someone who emailed us via OTRS asking why our "article" on the recipients of a particular gallantry award was incomplete - it seems they had interpreted the category page as being intended as an article listing all the recipients, and was wanting us to add someone to it.

This is not the first time I've had to do this - over the past three years, I think I've dealt with emails from five or six people who've got this impression, and strangely it's almost always to do with military decorations. Looking at the category pages, we also have a lot of cases of people trying to add relatives (usually) to the "article" by editing it directly.

On a couple of cases, I've added a headnote to the article to try and explain this, eg:

This is a list of people with Wikipedia articles who have been recipients of the United States military decoration, the Purple Heart medal, for being wounded in combat. It is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of past recipients.

Some have since changed into a much vaguer statement:

This category is for recipients of the Legion of Merit, a military decoration of the United States armed forces which is awarded for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements.

So, my thought. Would it be worth coming up with some kind of standardised template we can add to the tops of such categories, nicely formatted and so forth, which manages to explain clearly and concisely that this is just an index of Wikipedia biographies of people who've received X, rather than a comprehensive list, and please not to add more? It'd also give us a nice prominent point to link to the article on the award itself...

Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've often thought along the same lines: a lot of biographical categories seem to have this problem and I think the solution is some form of the blurb mentioned above. I'd provide a link to Wikipedia:Categorization some where in there though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur. We'd soon be swamped if we tried to list everyone with a medal, and a little explanation might go a long way. It's not always clear that a category listing is nothing more than an auto-generated article index. EyeSerene^talk 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Resurrected from the archives, 2009-03-29

I've created a mockup of a template for this at Template:Medal category, which gives us something like:

This is a category listing, which serves as an index of existing Wikipedia articles about recipients of the Purple Heart.
It is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of all recipients.

for {{Medal category|award=Purple Heart}}

Any thoughts on wording (or on a better way of presenting it) before I roll this out? Shimgray | talk | 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it, clear and concise. You might want to make the image smaller, though, so there isn't so much blank space in the template. – Joe N 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was originally expecting there to be more text :-). Done! Shimgray | talk | 20:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Presumably this can be adapted for use with all decorations, including those non-miltary related?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume so, but I din't know if it'll require more flexible wording that way - do you "recieve" an honour, for example, or are you "awarded" it? Shimgray | talk | 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure of the exact terms of address. I think it'll have to be considered on a case by case basis. If I did want to adapt it for a different type of award (say by creating a new box with slightly different wording), would that be possible and how would it be done?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If we have defined usage cases (for a medal it needs to say X, for an order of chivalry it needs to say Y, etc) then we could do it with variables - we'd just need to figure out what all the possible options would be. Shimgray | talk | 22:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "recipent of the XXXX" works in almost all cases (and I really like the box by the way). The only exception I can think of at the moment is the Orders of Chivalry, in which case the correct term is "invested as a XXXX". Otherwise the wording is fine.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good idea, nicely executed! I've tweaked the wording slightly on the template (please revert if you disagree with the changes) to accommodate countries and units that are recipients.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten there'd be a few cases like that - though I suppose they're rare enough we could get away with saying "people". Now, the question is, how do we roll it out? Manually, or can we use a bot? Shimgray | talk | 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to recipients, without saying "people", avoids the problem ;-) Probably best rolled out manually, that can't be that many of them, surely and any other little problem could be fixed at the same time.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've made it a bit more complex, so that it can now handle modifiers - {{Medal category|award=Victoria Cross|nationality=Australian|period=in World War I}} generates this:

This is a category listing, which serves as an index of existing Wikipedia articles about Australian recipients of the Victoria Cross in World War I.
It is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of all recipients.

It's now in place for all the Australian decorations; any thoughts on problems there before I go further? Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

& now (so I don't lose track) - Belgium, Canada, India, Italy, Poland, Romania, Rhodesia, & Sri Lanka. Shimgray | talk | 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

...Pakistan, Vietnam, USSR, South Africa, NZ. Russia. Only the three big ones left - Germany, the UK, the US... Shimgray | talk | 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Sink

this

Second Lieutenant (RA) 14 June 1927

First Lieutenant (RA) 31 August 1933

Captain (RA) 13 June 1937

Major (US) 31 January 1941

Lieutenant Colonel (US) 1 February 1942

Colonel (US) 3 November 1942

Major (RA) 14 June 1944

Major General (US) 11 April 1948

Lieutenant Colonel (RA) 15 July 1948

Brigadier General (US) 13 February 1951

Colonel (RA) 23 March 1951

Brigadier General (RA) 11 April 1955

Major General (RA) 14 April 1955

Lieutenant General (RA) 8 September 1959

does not match with this

PIAT

I'm gathering references for a future attempt at expanding/improving the article on the PIAT, that wonderful British anti-tank weapon, but I have to admit it's hard-going. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what the article could use would be some more on its development. More general info on its use, number issued per platoon, theatres of use and so forth. Who used it, by implication it's UK and Commonwealth but which nations, when and where. what about other Allies formed up under Commonwealth armies or divisions? By its nature as a short ranged tempermental weapon it seems that most any good hit against a German heavy tank made the user into some sort of hero but while we could possible fill the article with those examples, perhaps content on training and tactics would be more use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, development and tactics is definitely required, as is a much more expanded use section - the whole article needs work. It just seems to be a matter of actually finding the sources - a book dedicated to the PIAT would be a goldmine if anyone knows one. Skinny87 (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find anything on the Australian Army's use of the weapon in the South West Pacific. It seems to have been issued late in the war and was used at least in the Borneo Campaign, possibly in quite a different way from how it was used in Europe given that the Japanese didn't have any tanks in the area. Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a short piece in Quartered Safe out Here where George Macdonald Fraser talks about having been assigned to give training in the PIAT somewhere in Burma - it seems to have been used, or at least intended to be used, as a kind of light artillery, suitable for attacking pillboxes or river barges. Shimgray | talk | 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got John Week's book on AT warfare, Hogg's coming soon, and an article on the PIAT from the Britain ant War magazine. But it seems like for the rest I'm going to have to piece it together from literally dozens of books/articles. There doesn't seem to be anything written about the PIAT in any great length. Skinny87 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote on article name for 2008 South Ossetia war (aka August War, Five-Day War, Georgia-Russia Conflict, Russia-Georgia War ...)

The name of that article has been disputed almost from the second it was created. Following lengthy (but unfortunately unproductive) discussions on the talk page, we are currently holding a vote to settle the issue and stop it from being a constant source of distraction. Since there was an incident of vote canvassing, comments and votes by neutral outside editors are especially welcome. --Xeeron (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bump for last day of voting. --Xeeron (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Alexander Cavalié Mercer now open

The peer review for Alexander Cavalié Mercer is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[pf] 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais now open

The A-Class review for Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A-class reviewers needed

Most of the current A-class reviews have been active for well over a week and require further votes and comments so that they can be closed. In particular, the ACRs on Raymond Brownell and the Australian light destroyer project have received two support votes and need a further support to be promoted (as they have no outstanding comments or oppose votes - though both are encouraged if editors have concerns about the articles) and Roman–Parthian War of 58–63, SMS Seydlitz, Wolfgang Lüth Ton That Dinh, Operation Deny Flight and Samuel Burston have each received a single support vote and no opposes. It only takes a few minutes to review articles and/or provide comments and your efforts would be greatly appreciated by the editors who have nominated articles for A-class status. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC in Siege of Leningrad

Could you please comment the RFC! Bot removed it already once and we have received only two comments to the dispute. Please! --Whiskey (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the RfC listed at WP:RFC? (I couldn't find it) EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

French battleship Richelieu present at the surrender of Japan?

A question has been raised as to whether Richelieu was present at the surrender of Japan or not. Interested editors are invited to comment, and RS' that give information on this are very welcome. Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

List of wars involving the United States

Your input is requested on a move proposal here. Neelix (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Barnet now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Barnet is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Jappalang (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Project scope?

Was wondering whether Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mary Anne Clarke falls within project scope. Best if someone else makes the call; sure is funny. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My take is that she's a bit too peripheral to be within scope unfortunately. Nice restoration though :)  Roger Davies ^talk 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this and wasn't sure. As a person I'd say no, but the picture itself is relevant to Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, which is a milhist bio. However, I'll defer to the guv'nor ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bagh :) I did it the other way round, based on the article it's currently in. If it were part of Prince Fred's article, I'd agree with you.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well it's obviously not at the moment, but it easily could be. EyeSerene^talk 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And, by a strange coincidence, now is.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Definitely within scope.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

:D EyeSerene^talk 11:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. :) Durova^Charge! 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New Page

hey, I don't think the creator of the page did this, so I figured I'll do it for him. There is a new page about Brazil's efforts during WWI. It's still needs some expanding and sources, please help, (also, assess the article). Brazil during World War I. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I can help with the naval aspects of the article (glad I wrote Minas Gerais now ;). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for copyeditor

The FA nomination of Capture of Fort Ticonderoga is going reasonably well, but one of the reviewers is requesting an outsider to copyedit the writing. Is there someone here who could make a pass over the article to tighten its language?

Thanks! Magic♪piano 12:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look over... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Magic♪piano 14:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Sub-lieutenant

The peer review for Sub-Lieutenant is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

President Obama -in his infinitely late wisdom - is sending more warships to the Somali coast to help the hostage situation there. Last night one TomStar81 expanded your Bainbridge article, but now word has it that USS Halyburton is heading to the scene as well. I do not know how things work here, but I think it would be a good idea to expand the other article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.56.121 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Hi. I'm very sorry to bear the bad news that a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia has impacted articles of interest to your project. Previously, I had thought it only impacted articles related to gastropods and mollusks. The short story version: User:GrahamBould, now blocked, copied text from books and non-free internet sources into literally thousands of articles over a span of perhaps three years. In its early days, the matter was addressed at the administrators' noticeboards, twice: here and here. Conversation about it is now taking place primarily at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. I do not yet know to what extent your articles are affected, but I have verified that at least one article still contains text copied directly from a book which I can only access in snippet: Pillbox affair. If you have interest in contributing to the evaluation or clean-up of these, or helping devise a constructive approach to the problem, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't apologize for doin a good deed, Moonriddengirl, sometimes the bearer of bad news is the one that get the ball going on an important project. Owing to both the severity and the importance of the matter I will move a copy of this to the coordinators talk page and leave messages on each of the coordinator talk pages to get them up to speed on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for HM Bark Endeavour now open

The peer review for HM Bark Endeavour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos from the Australian War Memorial

Feel free to use these images. User:Benlisquare/Gallery#Australian War Memorial Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 07:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Missile farms

We seem to be missing an article on missile farms, significant to both ICBMs as well as ABM systems. Would be nice to be able to link it from various articles on missiles, weapons and defense systems.Student7 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to the list of requested articles of the Weaponry task force, that's the best place I could think of for it. – Joe N 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on RN's LCAC(L) needed

Does anyone have any interest in creating an article on the British Royal Navy's Landing Craft Air Cushion (Light) LCAC(L), and/or any material for such an article? There has been some confusion of the LCAC(L) with the US Navy's Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC class}, with some users actually adding the Royal Navy as a user of the USN LCAC! (They were exported to Japan.) A dedicated article would help alleviate this confusion greatly. I can create a stub from the RN's web page, but I'd like to use more sources. However, I've been unable to find any more comprehensive info on freely-availabler internet sites. Thanks. (Also posted at WT:SHIPS.) - BillCJ (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be a militarized [2000] in which case there's an article at Griffon 2000 TD hovercraft. I suggest following that line of info. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

page suggests the same but doesn't give a source.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

seeing as the Griffon article cites the 2003-04 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships as the source of its info, looking into that or a more recent edition of Jane's may help prove that the British craft is a militaised 2000 TD (or will alternately demonstrate that the British craft is a derivative of the USN design). Does anyone have a copy at their fingertips? -- saberwyn 05:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World (link to Google books page) (which is in many ways better to Jane's IMO) calls these craft Type 2000 TDX(M) assault hovercraft (LCPA), as does the Landing craft of the Royal Marines article. The hovercraft were built by Griffen Hovercraft and the Naval Institute book provides their full stats. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks very much! At least that helps to clear up what it is. LCAC(L) seems to be a recent designation, and part of why there's confusion with the USN's LCAC. Comparing the pics on the RN website gives no doubt it's not a US LCAC. I'll make a redirect from LCAC(L) to Griffon 2000 TD hovercraft. It might be worth a variant article in the future, or at least a separate one for the military hovercraft. I know next to nothing about hovercraft, but I created the Landing Craft Air Cushion and Air cushioned landing craft pages simply because they did not exist, and I knew we ought to have articles on them. Thanks again for the help! - BillCJ (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

archivebox

Exactly why can't I access the archives of this talk page? the {{archivebox|auto=yes}} was removed because it's not necessary ??? If I want to look up sequential archived talk, the search box cannot do that. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't imagined anyone would ever want to look through the things sequentially. I've added the box back for your use. Kirill ^[pf] 05:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Take Ichi convoy now open

The A-Class review for Take Ichi convoy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

CFB Holberg/CFS Holberg

Now decomissioned but still in need of an article: I came across it and redlinked it on Holberg, British Columbia earlier and decided to post notice of it here. I think its counterparts northwards such as CFB Masset/CFS Masset may already have articles. Or not?Skookum1 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition for content reviewers

Good reviewing is the lifeblood of the project, providing the critical feedback so essential to improving an article's quality, particularly in our Peer and A-Class reviews.

Our top reviewers over the past three months are Joe N (55 reviews), The_ed17 (49 reviews), Cla68 (38 reviews), TomStar81 (37 reviews), Nick-D (34 reviews), Abraham, B.S., Wandalstouring, YellowMonkey, Cam, Ian Rose and Woody. In gratitude, they have each been awarded the WikiChevrons.

The following editors have been awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for their help and input: Catalan, Skinny87, Bellhalla, Jim Sweeney, Jackyd101, Patar knight, Hawkeye7, EyeSerene, Harlsbottom, MBK004, The Land, Piotrus, Binksternet, GraemeLeggett, IceUnshattered, Lazulilasher and Parsecboy.

We would also like to thank the following editors for their contribution to our review department: Eurocopter, Hlj, Lawrencema, MisterBee1966, Nudve, Patton123, Tpbradbury, AdjustShift, Amore Mio, AshLin, Bachcell, Buckshot06, Ceedjee, Cool3, Dapi89, EnigmaMcmxc, Fnlayson, Giordaano, John Smith's, Kevin Myers, Kyriakos, LinguistAtLarge, Maralia, Mjroots, Nigel Ish, NuclearWarfare, Perseus71, Piotr Mikołajski, Randomran, Redmarkviolinist, Saberwyn, Stepshep, Shimgray, Sniperz11, Tartarus and Una Smith.

If you would like to help review, simply go to Peer or A-Class in the review department and start! If you've never done it before, simply look at other reviews to see how others have approached it. You'll soon pick it up!  Roger Davies ^talk 15:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War reassessment

Hey, I came across that the Iran-Iraq War was a start class article. I'm not that good at assessing articles, but the article looks that it could be a B, GA, or A class article. Can someone reassess the article? Deavenger (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The current assessment is indeed correct. The article does not meet our B-class criteria as seen by the checklist in our project tag on the article's talk page. Since this project does not use C, and the article does not meet the B-class criteria, it is indeed a Start-class article in our assessment scheme. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for checking. Deavenger (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Heraldry and Vexillology

Hi! I've come over from WP:HV because I'm working on some stuff that is at least partly relevant to here.

• Firstly, I'd like to make sure that anyone who might be interested in WP:HV has that link.
• Secondly, I'd like to ask whether 'Province of' Prussia article fall under the scope of this project, for some of them could definitely need improvement.
• Thirdly, it's likely that because heraldry was largely a military thing, that there may well be sections in, say, material covering the Province of Oldenburg that is relevant to the area's heraldry. Details of colours, flags, banners etc. may be present - I'd like to ask that this material be posted on these pages, particularly sourced, so that the WP:HV department can work it into relevant H&V articles.
• Are there any good websites covering the individual histories of the consituent states of the German Empire?

Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Charnwood now open

The A-Class review for Operation Charnwood is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Cam ^(Chat) 15:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for help re: Terminology of Battle of Britain

The designation: "Battle of Britain" is normally capitalized, and it was my understanding that the use of the term thereafter if shortened, as in "the Battle" should also be capitalized. The RAF use this form, is it correct? This stems from an anon that insists that only the full term be capitalized. See:Battle of Britain (film) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

online ressources for research

I changed my subjects to include some history besides archaeology. So I learned that there are several research tools for historians online that can be freely accessed. Should we start a list of these in the logistics departement? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:German punitive operations

Is it just me or is that name a bit strange? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Requests

• Viet Nam-Era Monitors (converted Higgins Boats). No specific article exists. You could possible get assistance from WikiProject Ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.68.186 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Does Brown-water navy#Vietnam count as a good starting point? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• There are also articles at Fast Patrol Craft and Patrol Boat, River. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• It’s good for background info and such, but horribly incomplete, especially in the hard technical data. I know no two Monitors are the same, but at least some basic information could be collected. The PBR and Swift boats are totally different craft.