Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The September 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 Battle of Saipan • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • The Motherland Calls • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Robert Poore • Chagatai Khan • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS • Operation Matterhorn logistics • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. Peer reviews Henry Clay Work • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark Good article nominees Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Felek al-Din Dündar • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Dabney Coleman • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Tel al-Sultan attack • Sack of Delhi (1757) • Black and Tans • Castlereagh–Canning duel • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Piri Reis • Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain) • George Preece • Francis L. Sampson • HMS Regulus (1785) • Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212 • Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 • Pandour Corps • Central Powers • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Shadia Abu Ghazaleh • SMS Otter (1877) • SMS Jäger • Battle of Köse Dağ • Surface Fleet Review Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,707) • only work on referencing and citation (43,240) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,048) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,908) • work on structure (31,922) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,200) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,967) • only work on supporting materials (1,297) • assessment (40) • assessment as lists (7) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (5) • assessment checklists completed (30) • task forces added (0) • attention to task force coverage (655)

News and announcements A proposal for restructuring task forces has been made; input from all editors is welcome! A good article nomination backlog drive is being held during the month of October; all project members are invited to participate! The August newsletter is now available! If you are in need of a quick response, please feel free to ask your question on our IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist). Counterparts to this discussion page also exist in several other languages, including Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Polski, and Русский.

Battle of the Imjin River

There is a discussion here that would really benefit from an outside opinion; can anyone comment? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've weighed in on this, but I'm not sure I've really managed to move things forward. A greater variety of opinions on the conflicting views expressed would still be useful. David Underdown (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey - a wrong righted

When I posted the combined table of contributions to A-Class Reviews and Peer Reviews results earlier this month,[1] I failed to include YellowMonkey's copious contributions. (It was a cut-and-paste error from Word to Wiki: his was the last entry and probably didn't get highlighted.) I have updated the archived table accordingly.[2] His contributions were as follows:

• A-Class Reviews Jul-Dec '09 - 25
• Peer Reviews Jul-Dec '09 - 18
• Total: 43
• Position: 3rd overall

• A-Class Reviews Jan-Jun '10 21
• Peer Reviews Jan-Jun '10 6
• Total: 37
• Position: 5th overall

Thus, not only did he miss out on the awards but also on the associated mentions in The Bugle. Given the scale of his work, a lesser man would have felt miffed but YM took it cheerfully in his stride.

I take this opportunity to apologise to YM for this error; to belatedly congratulate him on his efforts; and to thank him for his many contributions to the project. The appropriate barnstars have been retrospectively awarded.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence, I pass forth my congratulations to YellowMonkey. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stellar contribution. Great work, YM. Thanks for sorting this out, Roger. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations (and thanks for his forbearance!) to YM, and thanks to Roger for putting things right. EyeSerene^talk 12:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, YellowMonkey, on a great corpus of work. AshLin (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy now open

The A-Class review for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1964 South Vietnamese coup needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1964 South Vietnamese coup; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stryker vehicle controversy

FYI, Stryker vehicle controversy has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Monthly backlog elimination drive?

I was wondering does this WikiProject have its own backlog elimination drive for dealing with unassessed articles, sort of like what the GOCE has. I mean there are over 300 unassessd articles at the moment and I don't think that any one person can review so many articles alone. Category:Unassessed military history articles Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:43pm • 06:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Been a while since we had such a drive I think. Highlighting here always helps. I knocked off about 25 German aircraft articles myself the other day (setting a goal of eliminating a group of similar articles works for me, maybe others) but it's clearly creeping up again. If everyone reading this just did 10 it wouldn't take that long to get down to zero... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, I just did 2 myself but I'm not very confident reviewing the articles themselves. I've been reading up on the reviewing process and how to assess articles etc. so if I do make a mistake feel free to give me help or nudge me :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:50pm • 07:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On a tangentially related topic, we've recently added backlog indicators to the major open task categories on WP:MHOT; if anyone is bored and looking for something to do, that's a great place to find it. :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that having a drive every month would reduce the urgency of it so much that there wouldn't be much point. Might it be wiser to have this as part of any review contest, as has been suggested on other pages recently, if that is implemented? – Joe N 23:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kongō now open

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kongō is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Action of 9 November 1822 now open

The peer review for Action of 9 November 1822 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16

FYI, Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Defenses

Is it possible to make the Category:Defenses and put Category:Medieval defenses below this category ? Also, is it then possible to use the image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pictogram_defenses.png for use as the main image for this category ? Thanks, KVDP

Samuel Eliot Morison

A long-running discussion over wording concerning criticisms of this author's books has re-started at Talk:Samuel Eliot Morison and it would be great if other editors could comment there. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added my take. It would be good to get a couple more opinions, if anyone has some specific knowledge. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hill 303 massacre now open

The A-Class review for Hill 303 massacre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Military mottos for deletion

Given the scope of the AFD I thought I had better let the project know that I have nominated a large number of articles on military mottos for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naval Vessel Mottos: United States. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Logistics

The current Logistics page is said to be up and running, but I'm not sure if anybody still knows it is there or if anybody uses it. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the weirdest book...

E. Hicks, James (1941). Notes on U.S. Ordinance Volume II: 1776 -- 1941. Apparently, Hicks was a major in the U.S. ordinance department, and he spent some of his off time during the war writing this text. If anyone ever wants to write up Rifle, Carbine, Pistol, Artillery, etc., they should call me =) So I have to ask, what is the oldest whole book in your possessions? ResMar 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Ordnance, not to be confused with Ordinance.   Cs32en Talk to me  23:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The oldest books I own aren't really that old - they're volumes of various World War II official history series published in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I'm getting into WW2-era memoirs after reading Edward Young's excellent book One of our Submarines. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Kipling, Soldiers Three, 1914--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Mississippi class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Mississippi class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for ARA Moreno now open

The featured article candidacy for ARA Moreno 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open

An A-class nomination of Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open. Any interested editors are invited to participate. Any input is welcome! Constantine ✍ 11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War

Last night 121.220.77.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) changed links on about a hundred articles from Great Patriotic War to World War II or Operation Barbarossa. What to do? Some of the changes are actually improvements but doing wholesale changes without discussion seems inappropriate. He has stopped for now. Do we have a policy on this sort of thing? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tricky. As you say some do seem to be improvements, but others are a little bit less so; I think I saw a link or two to WWII when it should be Eastern Front, and occasionally the change has been made to "world war II" (without capitals). As Great Patriotic War is just a redirect to WWII there's little harm done otherwise. I guess its just a matter of whether Great Patriotic War is POV/non-neutral or not. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I've contacted the IP and let him/her know about this discussion. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article about the phrase says it is seldom used outside Russia, and was created to inspire patriotic feelings in participants. Most of the articles where the phrase appeared were about Soviet soldiers. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. Do you treat it like British/American spelling and just go with whichever fits the context (or was there first), and let variations naturally proliferate? I don't think so, in this case. Even though it is significant to many Soviets that the war is called something different, and that its referent is a specific subset of the larger war, most readers simply don't know what the term means. Whereas a patriotic Soviet (or today's version of one) might feel heartened by seeing the familiar term, they would still know what the generic WWII meant. Meanwhile, an unpatriotic Swede would have no idea what the Great Patriotic War was, and assume it had nothing at all to do with WWII. That is a small benefit for one reader and a big problem for another. I think common interests triumph here and WWII should be the default. The exception would be articles which referred specifically to the Soviet term or to specific dynamics about the East/West Russian Front. Better disambiguation might help. I don't have the historical background to comment further. Ocaasi (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Great Patriotic War might be a good article title to discuss the way the Soviets saw, or at least portrayed the war and their allies. The tricky thing would be doing it without just regurgitating Stalinist propaganda, but instead showing the difference between the propaganda and more reasoned analysis of the war. Edward321 (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO this is a rare situation when Stalinist propaganda reflected a real state of things. The term just reflected the obvious parallelism between the Napoleon invasion (which also was called a "Partiotic war") and the Soviet-German war. The parallelism is quite objective and correct, so the term survived Stalin's death and now is used by both Stalin's supporters and opponents. Incidentally, I am not sure why the main article on this subject is called "Eastern Front": for one of two major participants of the conflict it was a "Western front".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the common English-language name for the war. I agree that it's unsatisfactory though. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Something similar was done by an IP editor a week ago. I do not remember where the incident was reported, maybe WP:AN/I. I think these should all be reverted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the edits not already reverted by Illythr. The reasons are diverse and one or more of the following:

1. The edits are grammatically incorrect.
2. The term Great Patriotic War is used in a strictly Soviet context (example), often in reference to commemorations (example).
3. The IP claims neutrality, but in fact expresses a fringe POV, as evident in this edit.
4. It is impossible to replace GPW with WWII as they cover different time periods and different contexts. A similar example is the term Continuation War used in Finland for its limited role in the Eastern Front of WW II.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the reverts; unless there's a compelling reason to change the status quo I don't think it's a problem and, as Petri Krohn notes, the Great Patriotic War, Operation Barbarossa and the Second World War aren't really synonymous. EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Excelent work, WikiProject Military History! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Thomas C. Kinkaid now open

The A-Class review for Thomas C. Kinkaid is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC for HMS Princess Royal

The Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive2 needs eyes. Please read the article and leave your thoughts about any issues it might have on the page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating department talk pages

To help centralize discussion within the project, I would like to propose that we redirect the talk pages of the four departments (assessment, contest, logistics, and review) to this page. This will serve to reduce the number of different discussion venues that project members need to monitor, and to lower the risk that someone will post a question and not receive a response.

The four department talk pages all have minimal levels of activity:

Page	Activity
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment	81 discussion threads since May 2006
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Contest	24 discussion threads since May 2007
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Logistics	6 discussion threads since March 2008
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Review	17 discussion threads since April 2007

Merging this activity into the main project talk page could be done without noticeably increasing traffic load here; as a point for comparison, this talk page has had more than 200 discussion threads since the middle of July.

Further, the department talk pages have a relatively small number fewer editors watching them, increasing the risk that posts will go unanswered:

Page	Editors watching
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment	109
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Contest	38
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Logistics	56
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Review	69

As a point for comparison, this talk page currently has 705 editors watching it.

Considering these factors, I think that consolidating the departments' discussion here would bring significant benefits from the standpoint of centralized discussion, without incurring any major drawbacks.

Any comments on this idea would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to me and I completely agree. --Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Monstrelet (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For want of any alternatives, I agree. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea too. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. EyeSerene^talk 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As there haven't been any objections, I've gone ahead with archiving and redirecting all four pages here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle now open

The peer review for Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kronprinz (1914) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kronprinz (1914) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Légion d'honneur

FYI, Légion d'honneur has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looks a bit more complex than the move request suggests - I've left some notes. Shimgray | talk | 21:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil

Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil is currently assessed as a Start class article by our project due to concerns with grammar. I've attempted to address these concerns, but have found it a little beyond my capabilities (I don't have access to any of the sources, just came across it during a peer review a while back). If anyone with copyediting skills is looking for work, you might consider taking a look. I don't think it would require much work to bring it up to B class. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at this one at the weekend - it's quite a big job. The original English isn't too bad but it's complicated. Also some signs of defensiveness over the translation on the talk page. If someone else wants to have a go, be my guest. BTW, if it is a further attraction, this looks like a genuine "one short of a B" - fix the grammar and I think it's there.Monstrelet (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election for Tranche X

The September 2010 election for Tranche X coordinators has concluded, with one lead and fourteen coordinators selected. This tranche will serve for a one year term, the extension having been passed by referendum in the March 2010 election. Thanks to all who participated in the election, and special thanks to Tom, whose past year of service as the lead coordinator is greatly appreciated. The complete listing of coordinators for the new term can be found here.

On a side note, an important discussion took place during the election about how to make our review processes more open to new reviewers, and more generally, how to increase the number of editors who participate in article reviews. In case anyone missed it, the discussion is still on-going, and has been moved to the Strategy think tank here. I encourage all editors to weigh in.

For the coordinators, Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to all the coordinators - I thought that this was the strongest-ever field. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't that could quite be true without you being in it -- but I'm sure we all appreciate the sentiment... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lindsay Hassett now open

The A-Class review for Lindsay Hassett is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet

FYI, Harrier Jump Jet has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Title

Hi.... we're having a bit of an issue with the title of the Invasion of Goa 1961 page. Some say that 'Liberation of Goa' is too much Indian POV, while others say that 'Invasion of Goa' sounds like Portuguese POV. As such we're short of NPOV ideas for the title

We would like your opinion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa#Title_tag Tigerassault (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is correct when writing on Russian subjects, "Great Patriotic War" or "Second World War"

Hi, hope you guys can help. I am in a dispute with User:WorldWarTwoEditor over which to use when writing on Russian subjects. For example, "The village was occupied by German troops during the X", should "X" be "Great Patriotic War" or "Second World War" (with the latter piping to Eastern Front (World War II)?

He maintains that "Second World War" is the more neutral term and that "Great Patriotic War is propagandistic and bombastic. I maintain that "Great Patriotic War" is the one used by Russians and it's western-centric to use "Second World War" when describing Russian events. Any advice would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it is used only by Russians should be ample enough evidence that it suffers from NPOV. If you disagree with the use of "Second World War", why not opt for a more neutral term like Russo-German War, or Soviet-German War? JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It could be argues that 'great patriotic war' refers to the purley Russo-German conflict whilst WW2 refers to the wider global war. Thus 'great patriotic war' is part of WW2 but WW2 is not part of 'great patriotic war'. In respect to the question I would say use "Second World War" Its not as if 'great patriotic war' was not part of the wider conflict 9and indead Russia recived large amoounts of aid as part of that wider war.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest avoiding "Great Patriotic War" (we have an article on it, incidentally) completely - it's an irreparably biased term. It'd be the equivalent of piping the American Civil War as the War Against Northern Aggression. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link. Using Great Patriotic War is the equivalent of referring to the Pacific War as the Greater East Asia War in any articles about Japanese subjects. It just doesn't strike me as particularly clear. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with what's already been said here. The Great Patriotic War is biased towards the Soviet point of view and most readers will not recognize it. Simply World War II, Second World War, or [[Eastern Front (World War II)|]] will serve the readers better and avoid Soviet propaganda issues. – Joe N 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is biased, and there are plenty of options that it can be changed to, such as World War 2, Second World War, Eastern Front (World War II), even German-Soviet War and (if discussing the beginning of the Eastern Front) Operation Barbarossa. --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Front is just as bad as Great Patriotic War, or just as not bad. When writing about a capture of a village, surely the context is the actual offensive / defensive operation, not the War in General, for example, "captured by Soviet forces during Operation Uranus, part of World War II," provides both appropriate contexts.. When writing about Soviet experiences of the War, GPW should be used, unless of course we're talking about Soviet citizens in the UPA or Polish Underground. GPW isn't inherently biased, it does however clearly represent a popular self-conception. Use with care when discussing Soviet perceptions. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose GPW. Enough of this fluff. Maybe someone should check out Bangladesh Liberation War; there have been some arguments on the talk page there on and off, but the Bengali majority have their way. They use "freedom fighter" and "martyr" everywhere as well :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, well. OK. This is one I thought I would win, but it just goes to show that you never know. Hats off to you, WorldWarTwoEditor, and carry on, and I apologies for doubting you, and thank you for your contributions I will say this in parting, though: "Great Patriotic War" is not a propagandist title or "fluff" or whatever. Granted it was obviously given the name by the government, it currently is and has long been the title by which essentially every Russian of every political stripe refers to the war, much as Americans say "American Civil War" or whatever. The Russians do not conflate their conflict with events at Sedan or Tobruk or Midway or whatever. And changing "Androsov's monument to the Great Patriotic War..." to "Androsov's monument to the Second World War..." would sound frankly bizarre and actually insulting to a Russian. But this is the English Wikipedia, so OK. Thank you all for taking the time and consideration to contribute. WorldWarTwoEditor, you should refer to this thread if further challenged. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is certainly scope for using "Great Patriotic War" in some contexts, but not as a general replacement term for WWII. In the sentence you give above, what does the source say? I'd imagine something like Androsov's monument to the "Great Patriotic War"... might be a suitable compromise, sources permitting? EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd just been thinking much the same thing. There will be exceptions to the rule - names for instance should not be changed (say in the context of the name of a book, painting or other work of art), nor should quotes. I'm similarly unsure of the context of the example above, but if it was considered the official or unofficial name of the monument it should be left as it is, with an explanation in brackets afterwards, eg. "...Androsov's monument to the Great Patriotic War (the common Russian name for the Eastern front of WWII) was blah blah...". Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that would be equally acceptable. In the context of writing about how the Russians perceive their part in WWII, I think using "Great Patriotic War" is perfectly fine. As a general term though, it falls foul of the naming convention guidance to use the most common English term (which I guess would probably be Eastern Front). EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For something like a sculpture, inscription, or quote, GPW makes sense. It just isn't appropriate for use in general articles describing military operations. I think that's basically what Steve and EyeSerene said above, although in fewer words. – Joe N 02:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Great Patriotic War.

• The term defines a specific period of World War II, distinct in its time limits from the whole of World War II and even more so from Operation Barbarossa or German invasion. Operation Barbarossa is a particularly bad replacement, since it defines only the initial German offensive, and is German-centric. Eastern Front (World War II) is European-centric, since for Russia and post-Soviet sates the front was in fact Western. German-Soviet War is perhaps the most neutral of possible replacements, but in fact the term is not quite correct, since there were Hungarians, Romanians, Finns and many others on the German side. So, the term "Great Patriotic War" is appropriate and the very best when used in the limited Soviet or Russian or Ukrainian etc. context, i.e. not on the world scale or on pan-European scale. For example, in the article about a Soviet individual it can be pretty misguiding to see "he went fighting on Eastern Front" or "during Operation Barbarossa he..." (there was no any Operation Barbarossa for the Soviet people at that time, and the name covers only the few initial months of World War II).
• More to say, the term Great Patriotic War is not propagandistic or bombastic, but rather exact description of the war from at least the Soviet point of view (and that of modern Russia, Belarus and Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, that is over 250 million people). With all the losses and destruction, the war indeed was the greatest one in the history of Eastern Europe and, in fact, the world history. And pretty much patriotic it was too. I hope nobody here would question, for example, the terms American Revolutionary War or American War of Independence and try to replace them with American rebellion or British-American War etc., though, perhaps that could be appropriate in the British context. My suggestion is not going too much nationalistic or, as well, anti-nationalistic, and use every term in its appropriate context. GreyHood ^Talk 12:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, everyone, please note the similar discussion above. GreyHood ^Talk 13:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think anyone is seriously proposing Operation Barbarossa, that is obviously historically wrong. The reason why I, at least, prefer Eastern Front (World War II) is that most English-speaking readers are going to recognize it, and most readers of the English Wikipedia speak English. While it is true that for former Soviet countries the fighting was in the west, in most English-language sources it is described as the Eastern Front, and it seems to me that we should focus on making it accessible to English speakers and compatible with English sources, not Soviet or Russian ones. – Joe N 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course Eastern Front is the best solution in the general articles or in the articles about non-Soviet events and people, but it can be misleading in the context of articles centered on the Soviet events and individuals. Besides that, both "front" and "operation" are stylistically bad in too many contexts, so we have to use mostly the German-Soviet War or Great Patriotic War. The first term has its drawbacks, especially when referring to the war on Finnish and Karelian, and Romanian fronts. The term Great Patriotic War is also encountered in the English language sources, and hopefully at least the western WWII specialists and historians are well aware of its meaning, while common readers can just any time click on the name and see the explanation on-wiki. GreyHood ^Talk 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support, for many of the expressed reasons. In a Sov context, or from a Sov POV, this is the term of art. Should it appear outside that? Probably not. Will it? I really doubt it; Eastern Front is far more likely IMO, even once the front has technically moved to their west. Also, IMO, exposure to & usage of it outside the historiographic community is greater now than it might have been when most of us were learning, so it won't be as much an oddity as we may think. Moreover, any other term is a neologism, isn't it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Eastern Front (World War II) is a misleading term, and even if someone didn't understand what it was they could click the link and read about it. I think great patriotic war would be more misleading because it redirects to Eastern Front (World War II). --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Eastern Front obviously can be geographically misleading, while Great Patriotic War can't. Besides that, the War seems to be stylistically better in most contexts, while Eastern Front (World War II) is clumsier. GreyHood ^Talk 00:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As ranger steve said, "From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link. Using Great Patriotic War is the equivalent of referring to the Pacific War as the Greater East Asia War in any articles about Japanese subjects. It just doesn't strike me as particularly clear." --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This comparison isn't good, since it doesn't reflect all the problems we have with neutral, stylistically good and geographically clear replacement for the Great Patriotic War. GreyHood ^Talk 11:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I only meant it as an example, you should see the discussion that went into the coverage of Pacific War for exactly the same reasons... Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And foir many (such as the Poles and Ukranians) calling it the great patriotice war is equaly biased. It was not only a war about the Soviots keepiing mother russia free (and indead they actualy enterd the war in 1939 by inivading POland, lets not forget that).Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This can count as one more argument against the Eastern Front, since 1939 events in Poland actually happened in the Eastern front and shouldn't be confused with the later 1941-45 period, which is covered by the terms Great Patriotic War or German-Soviet War. And I don't think that anyone in his right mind would insert the Great Patriotic War into Polish context. GreyHood ^Talk 18:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One Poland was a battle field during the WW2, including the fighting on the eastern front after the invasion of PLoand. Two Ukrainian nationalist (partriots) faught against Russia (and the Germans) on the eastern front. The great patriotic war represents only the soviot view of the conflict. It ignore Polish and Ukranian (and dare we say Finsish) sensabilities. WW2 is neutral. Also lets not forget that the great patriotic war was not a seperate conflict, the Soviots recived large amounts of Aid from the western allies. So its not conflict isolated from WW2.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody tries to present GPW period as isolated from WWII and it has nothing to do with Polish or Finnish sensibilities until it is placed in the appriopriate context (descriptions of Soviet war memorials and art works, biographies of the Soviet individuals, etc., i.e. the limited Soviet or Russian or Belorussian or Ukrainian etc. contexts; yes, Ukrainian too, since the Western Ukraine is not the whole of the country). GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the neutral point of view that GPW has. If anything it glorifies war with words like "great" and "patriotic". --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, no other war in history deserves the attribute "Great" more, because of its sheer scale. And I just have to repeat my comparison with American Revolutionary War / American War of Independence - not that neutral, but perfectly acceptable names. GreyHood ^Talk 08:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Per others above, I think it makes sense in a general context to use "Eastern Front" or a near equivalent, simply because this is what most of our readers will search for and recognise without having to follow disambiguation links, and in my experience this is what is generally used in English-language source. As a very rough-and-ready barometer, "Great Patriotic War" returns 258,000 Google hits while "Eastern Front" (and its variations such as "Eastern Front WWII") return around 1,000,000. I agree that part of our mission is to educate as well as inform, but we can always write something like "...the war on the Eastern front (referred to by the Soviets as the 'Great Patriotic War')..." in articles where we need to do so. EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody would argue about renaming the article Eastern Front (World War II) into Great Patriotic War. Naturally, most readers will search for Easter Front. What we are arguing about now is the extent to which we can use the Great Patriotic War inside a text of a random article. I agree that this usage should be rather limited, and that we should prefer other variants in general contexts. But it seems that some users, like WorldWarTwoEditor, want to eliminate the term GPW from Wikipedia completely. This is obviously very wrong thing. GreyHood ^Talk 08:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above I agree that in some (likely to be self-referential) contexts, GPW is perfectly fine when used in a way that reflects the sources. The situation strikes me as similar in some respects to the British referring to the First World War as the "Great War"; the term is not widely used but it certainly has a part in the historical lexicon when it crops up naturally in context. I agree that it's a mistake to try to artificially remove one term in preference for another. Neutral writing isn't necessarily about enforcing what we as editors perceive to be neutrality, but about accurately reflecting the sources in a non-judgemental way. Both terms have their place. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Parker Hale M82 variants

There is 4 articles on different variants of the same rifle. They are the Parker Hale M82, C3A1, Parker Hale L81A1 and L81 A2 Cadet Target Rifle. Should they be merged?--MFIreland (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so; we don't, for example, have separate articles on the M16, M16A1, M16A2, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, merge. Its not as if they are all fully fledged articles with lots of content.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JUst to clarify the stress was on "all" meaning in total - the C3A1 is a reasonably complete article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles merged. It still needs some tidying up. Parker Hale M82 --MFIreland (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Permission and Copyright - Military Unit History

Hi there,

I have been referred to this section in an attempt to educate myself. I originally came up with the concept of writing a full history on a former South African Military Brigade I once belonged to and does not exist anymore, at least to the degree which it once was (It has been scaled down to a Regiment) I have received many extracts from literary works as well as individual articles by former commanders of sub-units and military archival material which has been released to me by these military commanders. I have pieced everthing together to reflect a chronological history of this brigade. In the process of editing my article on Wikipedia I was informed that my article had multiple copyright infringements and I am now in the process of getting releases from all who have provided content to me.

The question I want to ask is that if I re-write / recreate / re-organise the article to look in no way looks like the orginal piece of work do I still need to get releases from the persons who have contributed these individual pieces?

I also would like to know in what format does Wikipedia accept these requested releases? Signed and Scanned letters of release with appropriate wording? Please assist me as this project is very important and I have a large stakeholder group of former Brigade members who have tasked me to put this together and I want to deliver successfully

Many thanks --Smikect 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)

To answer your first question, as long as your article does not directly copy or closely paraphrase any of the copyrighted material, it's fine. That being said, you should of course cite the original articles from which you're getting the information. For your second question, you can have them contact OTRS, where a record of their release will be established. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Smikect, and welcome to Wikipedia. Have you read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and looked for relevant material via Wikipedia:Copyright assistance? If the information you're looking for isn't there, the noticeboard Wikipedia:Copyright problems would probably be the best place to ask these questions. As general guidance, if the wording of material you add to articles is substantially different from the original (eg, in that the wording is different and the structure not identical) then you're in the clear. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick,

Thanks for answering my query. I have done some research as recommended by Wikipedia and googled content from every single paragraph in the 37 page article I put together (which comprises a handfull of donated content) and I have discovered two web infringements. I will remove the one web infringement and just put a link there. The other web infringment I have already received tacit permission from the web content owner however I will need to ask this person correctly as recommended by Wikipedia under the guidelines. The balance of the handfull of donations are from Authors of books and military commanding officers. My question is do I ask them in the same manner as I ask the Web owners? Can I use the same template provided? Please advise

Many thanks --91.72.134.188 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do would probably be to re-write the information so that it is not a copy of any of the copyrighted material you have. That is what most of the articles on Wikipedia are. See, for example, Horses in World War I - many different sources are used, most of them still under copyright, but because the information is reworded, restructured and presented in a different manner it is not considered a copyvio. Most authors are not keen to relicense an entire work under a free license - it means that they basically lose all right to profit from their work and anyone can copy from them at any time - it's not allowed to be a "wikipedia-only" license, and it is non-revokable. However, if they really do want to re-release it under a free license, then it needs to be explicitly licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA), per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Again, your best bet with copyrighted print materials is to just re-write the information, except for an short, pertinent quotes. Everything should still be properly sourced and attributed, of course, but this way you will avoid the copyright issue altogether. Check out some of the other military articles listed at WP:FA and WP:GA for more examples of sourcing vs. copying. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog drive

We would like to announce that we are holding a mini-Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive. The drive covers only the articles in the War and military section of the WP:Good Article Nominations page and prizes will be awarded for the reviews made. The contest page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/GAN backlog elimination/October 2010 and contains all necessary information on procedures and awards. Any questions may be directed at myself or posted on the contest's talk page. For the coordinators, Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for RfC input

There is currently an RfC at Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts about the nature of that subject. I suggested that it seems to me that, if there is sufficient notability for an article on Judaism and the military (or, maybe, Judaism and government and/or social repression, which I think may historically be more or less the same thing) that there would be no reason not to have an article of that type. Honestly, for most of the major historical religions which have had significant impact beyond a single national entity, I think such articles, as perhaps 3rd level articles, or subarticles of "History of (named religious group)" would be reasonable. If any of you, who I think might know more about this subject than me, know whether there is sufficient notability of such topics for major international religious groups, please indicate below or at the RfC linked to above. Alternately, if others think it might be reasonable to have a broader discussion at perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, please let me know either at the RfC, here, or on the Religion project talk page. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

30.06 Cal SAR (Search and Rescue) Rifle

I have added 30.06 Cal SAR (Search and Rescue) Rifle sub-section to the Ruger M77 rifle article. Does anyone have any more info on this rifle? I could only find one website with info. MFIreland (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec now open

The featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

EYES on proposed move of Légion d'honneur

Requesting impartial opinions regarding the move from Légion d'honneur to Legion of Honor. The proceedings are being swamped by people from frWiki, canvassed or no, and the reason for the move is not being addressed (move discussion; Google test results). Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's present the facts as they are:

• Out of 14 taking part in the discussion so far, there are 3 French persons - hardly a French tsunami, not canvassed by anyone, regular users of en:wiki, who did not know each other before this.
• The reason for the move is being addressed, with a majority of the participants opposed to the move from the very beginning:
  • 4 support
  • 8 oppose

Also, Mr. Direktor is not mentioning his flagrant animosity against the French with use of disparaging remarks, accusations of nationalism & of "inviting their buddies from frWiki to oppose this, rendering the debate difficult.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment but the whole thing is bizarre. There is some ugliness creeping into the debate though, so should perhaps be watched. Maybe a reminder on WP:CIVIL from an admin?Monstrelet (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As a participant, yes, I'd appreciate a fresh pair of eyes. The discussion, such as it is, seems to be rapidly moving towards stonewalling and rather dubious imputations of motive... Shimgray | talk | 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As of today:

• 4 support
• 9 oppose - should be 10; however, one of the French contributors crossed out his "vote"[3] in protest to Mr. Direktor's attitude toward French participants. Inadmissible to be bullied on en:wiki for one's (French) "nationality" - and on the Légion d'honneur talk page !

--Frania W. (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lam Van Phat now open

The A-Class review for Lam Van Phat is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy now open

The featured article candidacy for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy 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) 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Help required at Expédition d'Irlande

Hi all, I was wondering whether anyone would mind taking a look a the article linked in the title, where a content dispute between User:Ledenierhomme and myself is in danger of becoming an edit war. Our respective positions are laid out on the talk page and I'd appreciate some uninvolved advice on where we should go from here. Many thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I second Jackie's request. The editor in question seems to have a poor grasp of wp:consensus, wp:undue and basic good manners. Ranger Steve ^Talk 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Coandă-1910

FYI, Coandă-1910 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is undergoing an edit war, and has been protected multiple times. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for restructuring task forces

Following an extensive discussion about the usefulness of the task force model, the strategy think tank has arrived at a proposal for restructuring task forces that will reduce maintenance and cross-posting overhead and increase our responsiveness to editors who post questions and requests for assistance while maintaining the useful organizational features of each task force. The proposed approach consists of two key steps:

1. All task force pages will be restructured to a new simplified format
2. All task force talk pages will be redirected to the main project talk page

The special projects, which are currently located under individual task forces, will be brought up to sit under the main project page, but will otherwise be unaffected; the existing working groups will not be affected at all.

The new format proposed for the task force pages can be seen at the fortifications task force; it reduces each task force page to the following elements:

• Scope
• Participants
• Article statistics and showcased content
• Open tasks
• Resources

The format also includes a number of stylistic changes meant to provide a common look and feel to our task forces that matches the appearance of the main project pages.

Any comments on this proposal would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support all of the above EyeSerene^talk 08:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Farawayman (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Help needed.

There hass been an ongoing Edit war on the Missile page, really don't know why anyone but me and the other guy haven't noticed. We are in dispute over the lead images of the "Basic Roles" section. Please advise. Victory in Germany (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hadong Ambush now open

The A-Class review for Hadong Ambush is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

V-2

FYI, V-2 has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral edits on Nazi Germany

I've noticed a number of concerning edits to the above article. A couple of examples:

• 9-11 million victims of the Holocaust changed to 6 million victims (ref supports 6 million Jews, not total victims)
• 30-45 million Slavs planned to be exterminated (supported by ref); changed to lower figure only; note the edit summary
• Highly debatable source used for 600,000 German casualty figure due to Allied bombing

A trend is apparent. More eyes and especially input from subject experts would be most welcome :) Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 12:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted most of Illraute's edits and left a note on the talk page explaining why. Thanks for bringing this up, I'll be keeping an eye on him. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'd have done so myself if I had the time, but I was already late for an appointment. I've seen the editor around elsewhere - the impression I got is of someone on a crusade, so I thought it bore watching. EyeSerene^talk 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Its still ongoing I'm afraid. I've fact tagged one change as the source doesn't actually support either version, but I can't access the other sources. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you have a look at the "talk page"; I am not following any agenda - many of the current numbers given in the article do NOT match their source. (see talk) Quotations, ie. cited data has to match its source. That applies also to all of you.--IIIraute (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page, but I'm afraid that changing a figure that doesn't match the source to another that doesn't match the source doesn't seem to be a solution to me. Feel free to disagree. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

...write whatever you want and follow your own political agenda; I don't care... I've already reverted my edits. Such a rotten article... if I continue arguing here... it makes me feel sick.--IIIraute (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think that my edits constitute a political agenda, in fact I can assure you that they don't. Please try and respect that some people are genuinely trying to improve wikipedia and aren't doing it because of some nationalist or political reason. Fact tagging a figure that is still wrong after being changed is pretty common sense if you ask me. In any event I note that Hans Adler has provided more precise figures and sources to back them up, so the issue I raised is moot. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

...don't worry Ranger Steve, my comment was mainly oriented towards the clever contributions of EyeSerene and Parsecboy. No hard feelings. Arrivederci, Over and out!--IIIraute (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Stormtrooper

FYI, Stormtrooper has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Imperial stormtrooper. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy now open

The featured list candidacy for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy 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) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject United States questions

Over time Wikipedia:WikiProject United States has been left in the desert to die. Although individual editors have been busy and some subwikiprojects are very active the over arching project seems to have gone unattended. After ignoring it and hoping someone would step up I am going to take the initiative and try and resurrect it and see if I can get it back on track. I am starting here because a huge amount of the active editors seems to originate from MILHIST US or ACW. Your going to see I a lot on the next couple paragraphs but "I" would love it if that changes to "we" over the next couple weeks or months.

Also, since there are changes in the works for task force restructuring I thought now would be a good time. Below I have several suggestions for streamlining some of the US related content. I have also left a message here. Please give me any comments and or suggestions so I can make sure that the transition goes as smoothly as possible.

My starting suggestions are:

1. Inactive talk pages - Redirect the talk pages of the Defunct and Inactive SubWikiProjects related to the US to the talk page for WP US. This was recently done by the Milhist WP and I think it would be good for the US project as well.
2. Inactive Projects - Begin the process of Archiving and eliminating the Defunct inactive US related WikiProjects. Some have already been squashed but there are a lot left.
3. WP US Restructuring - Restructure the WP US project to be more organized and I stole your format. I hope you don't mind. I have already begun building a new format here and once I get a little more developed I will solicit votes on changing to the new format. Please feel free to make comments or make changes. I could use all the help I can get.
4. Consolidate like content - Create subpages (that can be transcluded into the various projects related to them) for some of the Common themed activities. For example, I created a subpage for members at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Members but I am planning on breaking it down even lower. For example Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Main/ACW (for those users that work on American Civil War related topics). That members page could then be transcluded here and on the WP Milhist ACW task force page. One shot, one kill; so to speak.
   1. Same applies for Featured content
   2. Same applies for To do
   3. Same applies for Articles for Creation
   4. Others as identified/needed
5. Make sure that the US related articles are properly categorized. Currently there are 8000+ articles on the WP US list but there are over 18000 American military personnel. Plus some of the subprojects such as US History, ACW, and US Military history far exceed that. -Kumioko (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Intermediate cartridges

A most curious AFD in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intermediate cartridges. Curious because the nominator has some points, and the article is indeed in poor shape. East of Borschov

Usage of non-free historical images

During last year most Soviet Union related WWII images have been removed from virtually all WWII articles. They were either replaced by unsatisfactory photos, which do not serve the same encyclopaedic purpose, or removed completely. That happened as a result of the change of the new Russian copyright laws, according to which overwhelming majority of war time photographs are not in PD in Russia (although they are in PD in, for example, Ukraine). As a result, the Soviet Union related article look much poorer than they could, and a reader, which a priori is less informed about this part of WWII, gets almost no visual information about these events. Military WP articles become biased towards US, German and UK, despite the fact that Soviet historical photos do exist and their usage is allowed in WP under fair use terms per the Foundation's resolution [4] ("Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works"). However, my attempts to prevent removal of non-free photos faced stubborn opposition of some editors who interpret guidelines literally, and whose treat the historical photos in the same vein as numerous Pokemons, album covers, etc. I already discussed this issue on the neutrality noticeboard [5] and my concern is shared by other editors.

In connection to that I propose to select several (few) non-free Soviet related photos to use them in WWII articles. To minimise usage of non-free photos, I propose to use the best photographs which would allow us to achieve needed effect using only minimal amount of non-free photos. For the beginning, I plan to add three non-free photos into the WWII article, because the article which has almost no Soviet related photographs cannot be considered neutral any more and, therefore, its GA status can be affected by that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)