Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The June newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Bradley Winslow Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Gubir shootdown • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Charlemagne • Tim Hughes (soldier) • John S. McCain Sr. • HMS Trent (1796) • Eleanor of Castile • Battle of Durazzo (1376) Good article reassessments Galatian War • Franklin's lost expedition • Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine • Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Civil War token Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,572) • only work on referencing and citation (43,148) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,712) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,681) • work on structure (31,795) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,171) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,777) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (8) • assessment as lists (118) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (5) • task forces added (289) • attention to task force coverage (657)

Reliable source

HI all I am sure this must have come up before is Regiments.org a reliable site ? [1] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The old site that used to be there and went offline in ~2007? Yes, I would say so - it showed its working, more or less, and was never obviously wrong. The current incarnation? No - it looks like a run-of-the-mill spam site, and we should probably convert all the links to archive.org forthwith... Shimgray | talk | 21:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The old version seems reliable to me and I've used the archived versions on a few recent battalion histories that I've written. Incidentally, here is the archived link to the main page of the old version. [2] From there you can navigate to most of the other parts of the site. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the old version was a RS. The new version certainly isn't. Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR First world war v. World War I

Hi all

Sorry to be a pain, but with the current discussions at ANI rephrasing_by_User:Hmains, and the old one delinking_by_User:Hmains, as well as on the MOS dates & numbers I thought I should first give you a heads up.

Secondly I would like to mention that the MilHist MoS only seems to have "World War I" in it, as I cannot see First world war anywhere.

If it is true that changing it from First world war to World war I is in fact an ENGVAR violation, then surely we should have it in the MoS as such? I could not find anything about it in either the MilHist or the main MoS. In fact I have let similar cjhanges go through without comment as, after reading the MoS I thought they were doing the right thing, and since then have avoided using "First world war".

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, First World War is the commoner usage in British English but WWI is the common abbreviation (I've never seen FWW). Similarly Second World War/WWII. I don't study the scholarly works of the period, so there may be different conventions there. However, I would be concerned by an attempt to standardise when common usage has both terms.Monstrelet (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Monstrelet. I *think* that Great War/First World War/Second World War is more common in articles that use British English, while World War I/World War II is used more in American English, however, in my experience in Australian English either construction is fine. I believe that both are acceptable terms and so long as there is consistency throughout an article, I'm happy with either. Thus the rule I tend to follow is to go with whatever the original contributor used. If there is a mixture in an article, then I will try to make it consistent based on what seems to be used the most throughout the article, or if the original contributor has expressed an opinion, then I'd go with that. Another option is to establish concensus on the talk page about what convention to use. There should be no need for wholesale changes except to maintain internal consistency within individual articles. That is just my opinion, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to support and agree with the opinion of AustralianRupert, as only World War x is mentioned in MILMOS it has been taken as being definitive, should we add a note to reflect that x world war is also acceptable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As with other instances of English variation, an article should be internally consistent but either form should be acceptable. I would oppose any global change imposition of a "standard form". If we are in agreement the MILMOS should be modified to be clearer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that - World War I is the explicitly preferred format for categories, AIUI. But in general, yes, it's a simple ENGVAR issue. Shimgray | talk | 15:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• A quick note - even if desirable (which it probably isn't), mass-changing from FWW to WWI without manually checking is a bad idea as the sentence construction won't agree. We already have a surprising number of cases where this sort of change has been made and left sentences like "During the World War I, it was found that..." Shimgray | talk | 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB cannot make decisions of consistency, it needs a rule which defines only one possibility and changes things to match that. Although a rule can be made within its options to look for "During the First world war" and change it to "During World War X" I do not think that is the way forwards. I can do a quick AWB run on MilHist articles and search for "the World war X" to correct it and think that anyone from the project who uses AWB could similarly create a rule, hopefully that would catch any errors already existing.

The ENGVAR thing is a little more tricky. Using WW II and Second World War is something I would think has occurred by editors, including me. I would assume that there may be a defence to having made the changes saying ENGVAR does not apply as "the MoS shows it as World War I" and so either it should be changed, or we should drop the First/Second World War phrasing as I can see no middle ground.

It is a little confusing to me that it is being written as First World War rather than first World War - World War is definately ok, but after the first one I cannot imagine anyone using first in either form as they did not know there was going to be a second? I imagine it would have been the Great War or the World War - obviously no one thought the war was great and the best thing to happen since the Boer War, so I can see why the US version is that way round, although it still seems as if it wan't really a real World War, we left out Africa, India, China, ... oh hang on no, we didnt did we, we already had a few with them lol!

• If the choice is both the MoS needs to be changed, HMains needs to understand that he needs to desist with changes and we need to inform MoS talk page of the still standing ENGVAR violation.
• If the choice is to adopt one only then we would need to adopt World War X as the cats are already formatted that way, and the MoS already has that as its examples as well as we would be effectively making the British.English English a fringe variant.

Personally I think it should be "both allowed" - if a rule was decided that said "both are acceptable except in categories, where World War X must be used" it throws a little confusion onto the matter, why cats would be only one and text could be both (I already came a cropper on that one when trying to assist with Commons cats a couple of months ago and my discussions on "Why cant I use First World War?" leading to me giving up on it)

It is a fairly straight forwards process to adapt AWB for either outcome.

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick AWB run on around 50 articles and only found 1x "the World War X". I will do another random one later today and see if any more come up. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible solution

I have been chatting with Hmains on possible solutions and he asked about a more specific search using (or at least I think that is what he was asking) the standard Wikipedia searhch boxes at the top of the page. After some research it appears that the Wikipedia search engine is Lucene, which led me to this page [3] It seems as if this works quite well:

• "the?world?war?I" NOT "World War" NOT "World" NOT "War"

If you put that in the standard wikipedia search box it gives Eastern Front (World War II) as the second result, and, lo and behold it has a "the World War I" in it !! Woohoo ! so, to do world war two would be:

• "the?world?war?II" NOT "World War" NOT "World" NOT "War"

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationalistiv view edits by User:VJ-Yugo in Yugoslav military articles

Please have a look at the contributions of this user in Yugoslavia-related military articles. This user seems to have a nationalistic view, violating NPOV. We need someone with expertise in this era and area to restore these articles to a good state.. --Denniss (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about restoring the articles - that's really an editorial decision for the article writers - but I've given VJ-Yugo notification of WP:ARBMAC. Any further concerns can be dealt with on that basis. EyeSerene^talk 10:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:VJ-Yugo EyeSerene^talk 10:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think?

Should French campaign against Korea (1866) be renamed French campaign against Korea? This is the only campaign France engaged in against Korea. I also think Spanish–Moroccan War (1859) should be renamed Spanish-Moroccan War because it started in 1859 and ended in 1860. B-Machine (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. France also participated in the Korean War, but there seems little risk of confusion. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My first opinion in en. wiki: according to Nick-D, it'good idea. --Bonty (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kelly

Mark E. Kelly is currently part of this project. Though he's a member of the military, he's been on loan to NASA for 15 years. I am not sure how he fits in to military history. Could he be removed, or could his ranking be upgraded from starter?--Utahredrock (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark did fly many combat missions, however, so did many other pilots. While very important, does that fact alone merit his inclusion in the military history project?"--Utahredrock (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• He still has a Military connection. WP:Spaceflight has to be the primary project for him. There's no real reason to remove secondary related projects. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Also, WP:Military history does not have a C rating. Add references for a couple uncited paragraphs and it can be moved up to B class. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added multiple references. If anything specific is missing, please let me know. Hoping it's ready for an upgrade. Thx.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer the earlier question - yes, it does merit his inclusion in the milhist project; if somebody served in the military, that makes them "includable" for MILHIST. As for the article, it still has a slew of unreferenced paragraphs, unfortunatly, so it's still Start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

- I commented at Talk:Mark E. Kelly#References. That's a better place for further discussion. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

70 years ago: Hood, Bismarck, Holland, Lindemann

It has been almost 70 years now since the Battle of the Denmark Strait (24 May 1941) and the final battle of the battleship Bismarck (27 May 1941). I was wondering if we could make a consolidated effort to place one of the associated top articles on the main page of Wiki as a featured article. What do you think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. My vote: Holland. The ships get most of the attention; why not give their captains some for a change? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. I can't help much with sources but if you need a copyeditor please drop me a note. EyeSerene^talk 13:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments requested about a proposed backlog reduction drive

Based on some brainstorming among the coordinators, we're considering holding a March drive to reduce our "articles needing attention" backlogs. The discussion to date, and some currently open questions, can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Backlog reduction drive. We'd like to invite all interested members of the project to give us some feedback on the idea; any comments should be made at the strategy page, and would be very appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Category name question

Category:Air Defense Artillery is proposed for renaming at Categories for Discussion, here. Comments are requested and welcomed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "Ticket to leave (British military)"

Hi all - apologies for the long post ! I realise it is not entirely milhist related but as part of nomination for deletion I wanted to also try and get further advice.

I nominated an article for deletion, its nom page is here

The British military one seems to have nothing to support its claims although people were in armed service after being given a ticket of leave it does not appear that they were given the ticket to facilitate their enrolment as a way to serve less prison time. Indeed it is possible that the term is only used around the inter-war period and during the second world war to mean a transport pass for soldiers going on leave - in my opinion that may not pass notability for its own page and I will discuss this use in a moment. The Ticket of Leave system was abolished in 1949 in Britain [4] but as yet I cannot find any evidence to support military service being a condition of being granted a ticket of leave.

The Australian convicts one is factually inaccurate as it appears that the tickets were awarded to convicts from all corners of the British Empire. For example the Canadian Ticket of leave act was introduced in 1899 and abolished in 1956-58 [5] and a US system was also introduced p.365.

My reasoning was that the disambiguation page Ticket of leave would be cleared and the information from the Australian one would be inserted and made pan-global by adding information on the other areas the ticket was given. this would not solely be British as Canada, Ireland and the US also implemented systems of their own. The British military one would have been blanked and an addition made under the ==Britain== section for the term being used in the military (although it is as yet unsourced. This would definately be the "main" page and so would not be a db page any more.

I may have done the AfD in the wrong order - can a deletions-noob friendly admin give me some advice on this matter please?

In retrospect I think maybe I should have just been bold and merged them, then requested the delete notices of the blank pages. As the AfD is open, and as a non-admin, I assume that my hands are tied as there appears to be no way to withdraw, except speedy keep, which would not be appropriate if the page is then blanked and a prod added.

I realise that I could just wait another 5 days, and probably should to give more time for a more complete discussion, but as it seems clear to me that the merge should go ahead, I need someone to advise on which of the paths would be acceptable and correct (and indeed if there is another I have not spotted!). Chaosdruid (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to choose which version of English to use

As an attempt at my first ever article, I'm drafting a slightly bloated stub biography of Francis A. Dales. I'm the only contributor to the article thus far, and I can easily write it to be in American English, or in British English.

The subject of the article was;

• born in the USA (as far as we know) and died there, and presumably a U.S. citizen
• a member of the U.S. merchant marine
• notable only for his involvement in a British convoy relieving a British occupied island (which won him a U.S. medal)
• serving on an American ship at the start of the convoy
• rescued by a British ship half way through the convoy
• defended a British-flagged and operated (but American built) ship from then until the end of the convoy

The article itself;

• is mostly related to articles like Operation Pedestal and SS Ohio which are in Commonwealth English/British English
• uses sources which are about 50% in British English (heavy use of the Malta Times) and 50% American English (particularly the official U.S. sources about his medal etc)

I'm tempted towards the conclusion that, based on all this, it doesn't really matter if it's in British English or American English (so long as it's consistent, of course). Is there anything that would sway the decision one way or the other? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little more inclined to use AmerEng since he was on a US-flagged ship and served in the US Merchant Marine, but I'm not going to get worked up about it either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• The most relevant related articles will be about Malta operations which I presume are generally written in British English, so for the sake of consistency of user reading experience one might go for that. Perhaps also had wikipedia existed then, this article would more probably have been written by Brits and/or with contemporary British sources than conferred him wp:notability. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; it's your choice. If it doesn't read quite right one way, change it. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 05:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your call. But given he is American I would lean to AmerEng. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, AmerEng is probably the better option, though either would be fine. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the New York Times - Feb 27, 1944 has him as American as it states he is "from Augusta, GA." Chaosdruid (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone. Still very borderline, but I have decided to go for American English. And yes, there's never been any doubt about his nationality :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, when I checked nothing I found actually states his nationality - just that he was in the American forces. I do not have any published sources so cannot check, but would be interested to see something which shows whether he was born in the US or not, he could have been an Irish immigrant for example. Was it the case during the 30s and 40s that you could win a citizenship by serving in the forces? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottawa NATO Comcentre

I've marked new stub article Ottawa NATO Comcentre as needing some expert attention, as it seems to make some unusual claims with unclear referencing. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably needs to be nominated for deletion, it has no reliable sources that it is a NATO operation or that it is called "Ottawa NATO Comcentre", no indication that it is notable. Half the article is about an iffy allegation and made up opinion about somebody who may have worked there. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Prodded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be confusing a secure communications centre in a foreign affairs department for something more important/sinister. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't see an individual ComCen as particularly notable. Standard conspiracy nutter fare really.

ALR (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review, if you are interested

I was looking for a peer review of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery to get it prepared for a featured article run, and I thought this might be of some interest to those in the Military History project. While normally a bank robbery wouldn't be of interest to this project, this robbery was conducted at the behest of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and other high level Bolsheviks to fund revolutionary activities so I thought it might be of some interest to this project. So if you would be willing to take a look at this article, I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have on how I can improve it. Best regards, Remember (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Joint Theater Level Simulation

Can anyone take a look at this article and see if it might be salvagable? It smells of copyvio to me, but I can't confirm that to speedy it, and that given I'm hesitant to risk biting the newbie by slapping on a PROD... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a look over the Rowlands website (who seem to run the JTLS), and I couldn't actually find anything that looked identical; I haven't got access to the other papers mentioned. There are major problems with the article though, beyond the copyvio issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I Googled chunks of the article and didn't get any direct matches so it's probably not a copyvio (at least from a publicly-available website). The article is close to being incomprehensible though. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot believes its not a copyright violation: [6]. I googled some of the text, and received hits back to the Rolands website. [7]. Not sure if it indicates copyright violation or not, though. I agree with Nick, the article is very difficult to read. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Frigate Bezzavetnyy 811

Today's featured picture File:USS Yorktown collision.jpg shows Soviet frigate Bezzavetnyy, but we don't have an article on it. It would be good to have an article for that. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Template Gundisp

Hi all

I have just been looking at a requested copyedit of Canopus class battleship.

The template {{Gundisp}} is causing a problem though. It could do with an additional field "calibre" as it automatically defaults to the American English spelling "caliber". Whilst not causing too many problems it is the only flaw in this British English article.

If this matter has arisen before, then apologies. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know that this template existed. Aside from the spelling issue there's also the problem that the caliber should be hyphenated as it's a compound adjective. Both of these are fixable by an expert in templates, but I'd just drop using it until that happens.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Gundisp}} could use a spelling field (sp=us) like {{convert}} has. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I created it, and I could concievably do that... sometime in the future :P Besides, could not we have Canopus in American English (the REAL english)? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, Brit English as it's a British ship. Better get used to it if you want to work on the RN and its associated navies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Curiously it's only used in two articles - both on British ships. So the simplest answer would be to change the template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just remembered you have to be careful with British naval 4.5 inch guns since name and calibre don't match. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

General Etienne de Nansouty B-class nomination

Hello, just to let you know, should you be interested to participate in the review, I have nominated the article about Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty for the B-class status. Best, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment time targets?

Was going to ask this at the assessment department talk page but that diverts here, so everyone gets a look :) Do we have targets for how quickly we try to get a project article initially assessed? I'm fairly regular there looking for things I feel competent to help with but I notice that some articles in other subjects can be there for weeks. In practical mode, might it be possible to produce a bit of coding that identified items that had been there longer than a certain time e.g. moving them to a different "overdue list" or perhaps changing the colour of the entry? Monstrelet (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any data—even if it's only anecdotal—for how long articles stay in that queue? My impression was that even the worst-case lag was reasonably brief, or at least enough so that we don't really need to flag individual items.

I think the article on Tactics of the Iraqi insurgency has been there for at least three weeks. It's not something I can comment on, so I haven't tackled it. Monstrelet (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On a tangentially related note, WP:MHOT does flag the categories with "backlog" indicators when they exceed a certain size; but that's not necessarily tied to how long any particular article has been there. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Special Relationship

The article Special Relationship, concerning US-UK relations, is being turned into an anti-British diatribe by a new user. I have reverted more than once; it was outright vandalism the first time. More eyes would be helpful. Lachrie (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've rollback the last couple of changes that he made and posted a note about discussing his changes on his talkpage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've fully protected the article to prevent further edit warring and to encourage Mythbuster2010 (talk · contribs) to use the article's talk page. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles la Primaudaye Lewin

Hi, just popping over from WP:CRIN. I've been trawling through redlinked first-class cricketers who played for Devon and I came across Charles la Primaudaye Lewin, who played a single first-class match for the Royal Navy. A quick google search reveals he was a rear admiral,[8] so I thought I'd come here to see what anyone can dig up on him to expand his article. I've left out the cricketer infobox so a Military Person Infobox can be put in. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What is an army of observation? Worth having an article about?

I've seen the term "army of observation" pop up in a bunch of places; ran a gBooks search and see it used often, but not really clear on what it actually means. My vague impression is that it's kind of like big LP/OP, placed somewhere to simply keep an eye on the landscape, and if an enemy force appears they engage them and slow them down until a larger force can come and relieve them. Is that about right? Is it worth having an article about the overall concept, and then maybe list out some times/places such units have existed? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's definitely worth an article, since we seem to have references to the term everywhere (cf. Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days#Armies of observation, etc.). As far as the meaning is concerned, I think you have it more or less correct; I've usually seen it used to refer to a reasonably large force placed to watch a frontier or something along those lines. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a great topic for an article. From memory, the term 'Army of observation' was also used as a euphemism at times (when governments wanted to downplay their intentions). There's probably also a very good article to be written on the similar modern concept of 'tripwire' forces that are deployed with the express purpose of escalating the war if they're attacked (which acts to deter the war starting in the first place). Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Kirill and Nick. These armies are simply field armys - with a covering force type role. Before we set up a separate article we should expand the field army article and establish a well referenced section there. If that gets too big we can always split it off. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kevin Benderman

The article Kevin Benderman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bushranger's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, The Bushranger, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of The Bushranger's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet submarine K-222

Soviet submarine K-222 has been requested to be renamed Papa class submarine, see Talk:Soviet submarine K-222. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)