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 Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The October 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 German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Otto Hahn • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge • Khalji Revolution • Teddy Wynyard • Siege of Breteuil Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. Peer reviews 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Chunj • War of the Antiochene Succession Good article nominees Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • Mongol invasion of Khorasan • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Ian Morrison (RNZAF officer) • Charles the Bold • James Alexander Ulio • Central Powers • Mordechai Schlein • Short Sunderland in New Zealand service • Te Pōrere Redoubts • Aromal Chekavar • Edward W. Gantt • Tumu Crisis • Tamara Bunke • 1838 Mormon War • Mseilha Fort Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Haile Selassie Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,971) • only work on referencing and citation (43,224) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,423) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,912) • work on structure (31,918) • only work on structure (339) • work on grammar (8,176) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,997) • only work on supporting materials (1,290) • assessment (9) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (0) • task forces added (3) • attention to task force coverage (654)

AFV identification

Can anyone correctly identify the AFV on the right hand side of this picture: File:Mont Ormel tanks.jpg The picture has been classified as M4 Sherman and Panzer V, but the superstructure just doesn't seem right for a Panther, even a badly damaged one. I think it's some kind of wheeled armoured car, but I can't find the model -- perhaps a Puma with an unusual turret? (Hohum ^@) 00:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been staring at the photo so long all the grey tones are beginning to merge into a single mass. The perspective might be a bit screwy, but to me, it looks like the front end of a 250 or 251 half track variant of some kind pointing at the camera, immediately in front of a panther with a dislodged turret. There is a mass behind the gun mantlet that looks like the main body of the panther. Zawed (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're correct, although the turret appears to have been partially displaced onto the top of the 250/251.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The size and configuration of the turret are that of a Panther, the distinctive glacis plate etc, but I think it looks like a smashed up and turretless Sdkfz 231 or something in front of it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the "fenders" & shadows, I'd say a 6-wheeler. Puma? With a long 50? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's almost certainly two vehicles. The front is a dead match for a 251 (but slightly different from a 250). The sides make it look like multiple wheel arches, but I think the rearmost one is probably damage. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Would go with the eight wheeled Puma. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that the article this image is ussed in, Hill 262, already identifies it as a Panther and a 251 in the caption. Might be worth asking User:EyeSerene or User:EnigmaMcmxc if they wrote this caption and how they got that conclusion (it might be in an After the Battle or a publication like that). Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Which I've just done. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Turret is all wrong for a Puma. It looks like the Panther was to the right of the armored car and likely hit from that direction, pushing the Panther turret over onto the armored car. The vision blocks don't look right for a Puma, either. More like those on the 232. Intothatdarkness 17:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, check out this better res photo I found on the net: link

The AFV is deffo not a puma. To me it looks like a HT with the MG gun shield pointing to the left. If it is a long or short HT, I ccant tell. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice find. There's also more pics from different angles on pages 1 and 4 of that thread. To my mind there's no doubt it's a 251. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd also go for a 251 or just possibly a 250. The issue to me is it seems very short for a 251 but this could be an optical illusion, similar to the impression that the Panther turret is on top of it.Monstrelet (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That extra image clears it up - great research! (Hohum ^@) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Collective terms for combatants/military forces from the British Empire/Commonwealth since 1707

Following recent reversion of changes I have made to World War II (inter alia), I think this is good time and place for me to (again) raise an issue with far broader relevance and implications: historical changes to the official names for, and relationship between, Britain and its external territories, including the military forces of those entities.

Much misuse of these collective terms results from a lack of awareness of three events, in 1926, 1931 and 1949 respectively (see below); these all represented profound changes to political/constitutional and, hence, military command structures – in spite of their obscurity these days (or even at the time). For instance, the political changes of 1926–31 terminated the supremacy of the British (or "Imperial") Parliament over Dominion parliaments and, consequently, over Dominion military forces. (For example, while it would have been completely unlawful for, say, Australia to stay out of WW1, the UK government could not raise any objections to another Dominion, the Irish Free State, being neutral throughout WW2.)

If this all seems like a trivial concern (or one that flies in the face of allegedly popular/common/normative terms in military circles), I would merely suggest that they check out Wikipedia:Systemic bias. This is especially insidious if one is an editor/reader of the English Wikipedia who is not British or American. Or, to put it another way: "British", "British Empire", "British Commonwealth" etc are all collective terms that emerged at different times in the interests of accuracy and avoid causing offence to particular countries. The same logic made Ferdinand Foch the first Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies, in 1918. (And imagine the outrage had Foch, hypothetically, become "Supreme Commander of the Franco-British Armies". Similarly, it isn't possible to imagine Eisenhower as heading up the "Supreme Headquarters American Expeditionary Force".)

I would also like to urge the use of some non-anachronistic and technically correct collective terms and their adoption as official style for military history articles.

(If anyone would like external/non-WP references for any of these particular points I can provide them.)

1. Between the Act of Union (1707) and 1926, "British Empire", "Imperial", "British and Empire", "British and Imperial" (etc) accurately reflected the constitutional/political/military command relationship between Britain and the separate, subordinate military forces of its Crown Colonies/Dominions/Presidencies/Indian Empire etc.
2. At the same time, "British" has never been an accurate or adequate term for British Empire forces that originated outside the UK, except in proper names like (e.g.) British Pacific Fleet. (While some such proper names lingered until the late 20th century, I would point out that the members and commanders of joint, so-called "British" formations generally referred to themselves as (e.g.) simply "the Eighth Army".)
3. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 recognised the "equality" of the UK and Dominions (but not India, the Crown Colonies etc) and the official, collective name for Britain and the entire British Empire became the British Commonwealth until 1949 (and the source of names such as: British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, British Commonwealth Occupation Force, 1st British Commonwealth Division, etc.) Hence:
   1. the only accurate usage of "Empire" or Imperial" after this point is in proper names that are older in origin (e.g.) Imperial General Staff and Australian Imperial Force;
   2. since 1926, formulations like "Empire & Commonwealth", "British and Commonwealth", "UK and Commonwealth" etc have been outdated and tautological (in spite of their persistence in a few proper names) and;
   3. thereafter, references to "British and other Commonwealth forces", or "the UK and other Commonwealth countries" (etc.) are correct.
4. With the Statute of Westminster (1931) the UK government recognised the ability of the Dominions to have independent foreign policies, distinct from that of the UK, including the ability to make/not make war.
5. All of the above are even more true after the London Declaration of 1949, when the current official, collective name was adopted: Commonwealth of Nations. (Hence the 1st Commonwealth Division etc.)

I look forward to any comments, qualifications, minor quibbles, objections etc to any of the above :-) Grant | Talk 08:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My concerns were first no source and second editorial ("incorrect and tautological") in the text rather than the talk page or edit summary. As to the content, what were the forces called then and what do the reliable sources call them? Britmax (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A variety of names were used historically, including "British Commonwealth forces" and "British and other Commonwealth forces". And as I suggested above (point 3), such terms also have the advantage of reflecting: the official name of the entity at the time; the realities of political/military command during WW2 (relative to previous and later conflicts), and; greater acknowledgement of non-UK contributors to the Allied cause. Grant | Talk 11:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Duncan Crow's Profile Book No. 2 is British and Commonwealth Armoured Formations (1919-1946) there is also the 1986 Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As reliable as sources like Crow may be, it doesn't mean that their books have concise, elegant and technically correct (i.e. encyclopedic) titles? As I say in my point 3, that "and" is tautological because it distinguishes "British" units from the rest of the "Commonwealth", a technically invalid distinction in terms of politics and military command. It is like saying (by way of analogy) "US and UN forces in the Korean War". Grant | Talk 06:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from a Canadian POV, in (frex) the North Africa context, I've always taken "British" to mean "Brit & Commonwealth", unless there's reason to be specific, I don't oppose a more accurate usage, but I find myself thinking it will introduce some tortured language that gets in the way of good writing. So, presuming we do get a settled usage, I suspect we'll later need to resort to "British & Commonweatlh (hereafter British)".... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Long time no see TP...sorry, I cannot agree. British Commonwealth is accurate in WW2 and less torturous than "British & Comonwealth". "British" means ..... British and nothing more. I have had similar argument with a New Zealand editor who tried to convince me that because most RNZAF sqns were in the habit of using the short form e.g. "488 (NZ) Sqn" etc we should refer to all Article XV squadrons in the same way, thus creating the impression that they were part of the RAF and completely ignoring how RCAF and RAAF units and personnel in Europe saw themselves and more importantly, how and why they were actually constituted and controlled. He relented when I quoted at length, from a book by a Canadian author, demonstrating that they were not RAF squadrons, although some Dominion politicians/senior officers were very passive in their dealings with the British Air Ministry. Grant | Talk 17:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that the squadron thing was a bit of revisonism at the time they looked and behaved as RAF squadrons, personal moved between squadrons and the others without noticing the difference. I also suspect at that time they they would not have flinched at being called British. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We are getting off track here, as the issue is not how individuals assumed to be the relationship at the time, but the use of historically-accurate, concise, official terminology that reflects the realities of political control/military command. But since "revisionism" has been raised, I can't resist quoting the WP article on Historical revisionism: "Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., in contrasting the United States with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, wrote:

But others, especially in the United States ... represent what American historians call “revisionism” — that is a readiness to challenge official explanations. No one should be surprised by this phenomenon. Every war in American history has been followed in due course by skeptical reassessments of supposedly sacred assumptions ... for revisionism is an essential part of the process by which history, through the posing of new problems and the investigation of new possibilities, enlarges its perspectives and enriches its insights.

In other words if any written history is not "revisionist" to at least an extent, it is not doing its job.

Re. the relationship between the RAF and Dominion air forces: it varied greatly, especially at the sqn and individual level. In some cases, there was unreasonable behaviour on both sides. See, for example, the case of No. 451 Squadron RAAF, which the Australian govt wanted to retain in an "Army Co-operation" role, while the RAF wanted to convert it to a "Fighter" unit. The squadron was in limbo in the Middle East for a year or so, until the Australian authorities gave way. In Malaya/Singapore/Dutch East Indies during 1941–42, senior RAF officers' misconceptions of (and discomfort with) the separate status of Dominion personnel/units was a notable cause of friction within the (multinational) RAF, RAAF and RNZAF sqns. Likewise, the South African govt initially would not allow the SAAF to serve outside Africa, or exchange personnel with other air forces. The RCAF and RAAF attempted to ensure that their Article XV squadrons were as Canadian or Australian in personnel as possible. On a much lesser, more symbolic level, the SAAF retained army style ranks and khaki uniforms, while "RAAF blue" (chosen in the 1920s), was quite different from RAF issue, being only one shade lighter than navy blue.

In the case of Dominion armies, Churchill famously diverted the ships carrying the Australian 6th and 7th Divisions, while they were en route to the Dutch East Indies and Australia, towards Burma. The Australian govt then re-diverted them, although – as a gesture – two brigades were released to garrison Ceylon for six months.

Relations between the RN and Dominion navies seem to have been more placid in general, but I could be wrong there too.

Anyway, as I say, we are getting off track. The central issue I have raised is this: when we need to use a collective term, which one manages to: (1) convey the multinational nature of Commonwealth forces, (2) was used officially; (3) is concise and non-tautological and; (3) accurately represents the relationship between the governments/forces? There is only one in WW2 and that is "British Commonwealth". Grant | Talk 04:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The word British is used in this series in two senses : in one to denote the peoples of the British Commonwealth and the British colonies as a whole; in the other to denote the people of the British Isles as distinct from those of the self-governing Dominions . Thus, when the 16th "British " Brigade is mentioned it should be understood that it was the 16th Brigade of the army of the United Kingdom; but when the expedition to Greece is described for the sake of brevity as "British" the word is being used in its wider sense . In the war with which these volumes deal, as in 1914-1918, the lack of simple words with which to distinguish United Kingdomers from Dominioners was more than a mere inconvenience, because irritation and sometimes serious harm could be caused by ineptly-written communiqués and reports in which the word "British " was used in senses not universally understood. For example, in 1941, when much of the fighting on land was being done by Dominion, Indian and native troops, those United Kingdom officers who were compiling communiqués in Cairo, and some Fleet Street correspondents received instructions to emphasise that United Kingdom troops were also taking part; and the names of United Kingdom regiments which were in action were listed from time to time . This was a natural and desirable reaction ; but, at the same time, the custom was established of referring in the communiqués to "British Imperial" troops and the "British Imperial " army (the "British Imperial Army of the Nile", for example) . By this term the communiqué writer probably intended to denote British troops from anywhere in the British Empire, but to most Dominion troops and their people at home the term had a very different meaning—troops of the army of the United Kingdom, India and the colonial Empire—and was sometimes used in Australian newspapers in that sense . As early as November 1939 the Commonwealth War Historian, Dr C . E. W. Bean, had written to Mr Street about the need for discovering another word than "British" for covering English and Dominion and other troops referred to in communiqués. He pointed out that great misunderstanding was caused in the last war because "British" to Australians meant "not Australian" whereas the writers of communiqués included Australians when using the term . However, no solution to the problem was sought, except that the still-more-misleading term "British Imperial" or "Imperial " was more often than not substituted for "British " in the sense of "belonging to the British Empire".

— Gavin Long, To Benghazi, p. 72

While I'm a fan of Gavin Long (and To Benghazi still holds up very well), he was writing over 50 years ago. It would be best to focus on the usage in recent sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick, good to see you again. I agree, and what strikes me about that quote is that Long mentions the obvious word, Commonwealth, but seem to think it only means "the Dominions" (i.e. he distinguishes "Commonwealth" and "colonies"). I suspect that because we had been the Commonwealth of Australia since 1901 (whereas Canada and NZ were "Dominions" and S. Africa was a "Union" at the time), "British Commonwealth" was slow to take off here because after the changes of 1926 and 1931, e.g. the name British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (from 1939) never took off in Australia. All the same, Long's angst is odd, because there are references to "British commonwealth" (small c) in Australian newspapers as early as 1850. John Curtin was referring to the "Dominions of the British Commonwealth" on January 1, 1940, the same day that King George VI (whose titles included "Marshal of the RAAF") was reported to have "stressed the solidarity of the British Commonwealth in the common cause. He said that all the nations of the Commonwealth belonged to one great family..." Grant | Talk 11:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What to do with A-Class Review when page was renamed?

Arrow (Israeli missile) used to be named Arrow (missile), which is now a disambig page. The A-Class review is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military history/Assessment/Arrow (missile), which is causing the talk page to show up in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging. What do I do? Inkbug (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Would moving the A-Class review assessment page solve the problem? Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it will solve the technical problem. However, what should one do with all of the text on the review page? Inkbug (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the page, but did not change any content. Inkbug (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Uboat.net

Having created or substantially edited over 300 U-boat articles, I am increasingly concerned about using 'Uboat.net' as a source. The sites' veracity must be called into question when randomly discovered gems such as those below appear [any emphasis is mine]:

1. From the U-13 section, 1st patrol - description:
"Ordered to observe the shipping in the Southern North Sea, but was recalled for a minelying operation."
2. From the U-22 section - Fate:
"Missing since 27 March, 1940 in in the North Sea/Skagerak, exact position unknown, possibly lost by a mine". (Has the mine found the boat yet?)

From the U-45 section - Map showing the route of her 1st patrol:
This map shows the boat travelling across the mainland of Denmark (outbound) and the Danish islands on her return. I know it says "You may have to zoom out to see all data. In some cases missing data may make the route appear go overland which of course U-boats never did on patrols." - This implies that the U-boats did move across country at other times.
These extracts are more than mere typos; for instance, in the U-77 entry - 9th patrol, the location of the attack on HMS Stork is indicated as off Fouka in north Africa; but on zooming-in the pointer is about a mile inland !
On the boat's 11th patrol, the viewer is greeted with an almost blank page. I say 'almost' because things like 'Legend; means a ship hit' and so-on is still visible. I have seen this phenomenon on many other pages
I often see links for maps, which on clicking them, do not react (not all of them). Nothing, not a sausage, bugger-all.
A location might be indicated thus: "Sunk West of Pillau", which I might find is in Lithuania; but often following the red line is not possible as it finishes in the middle of the Baltic. On another occasion the line terminated in Hungary, which is land-locked !

Having been rather harsh on Uboat.net, I must say there is a lot of information there, but a good spring-clean is defintely in order (even if it is December); you don't have to look far for obvious mistakes.

RASAM (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As with all sources, there may be errors. I've been using uboat.net extensively for info on WWII and WWI shipwrecks. I've found the site to be generally reliable but it must be borne in mind that English is not the first language of the owner of the website. I'd presume that French is his first language given the contact details. I believe that this website has been run by WP:RSN before and found to be useable. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad proofreading doesn't really prove much. Have there been major factual errors? Also, given the scale of the maps, I'm not sure mistakes there amount to much, either. I'd rely on it. If you're concerned, tho, do what any good writer does: confirm with another source. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Uboat.net is commonly referenced in recent books on the Battle of the Atlantic. Given its scale, it's not surprising that it contains some errors and bad wording; this is true of other works on this topic (for instance, Clay Blair's massive and excellent books also contain some mistakes, and his writing style wasn't great much of the time). While the website shouldn't be used in isolation, this applies to all the other major works on the Battle of the Atlantic and it's a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Moscow - forthcoming TFA

Hello MILHIST editors. Battle of Moscow is scheduled as the TFA for 11th December 2012 but the FAC nominator Grafikm fr (talk · contribs) has been inactive for over three years. Would one or more of you be willing to check over the article to carry out any necessary "spring-cleaning" before its big day? That would be much appreciated. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 23:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I can help. What can I do? Arius1998 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, cancel that request. I hadn't realised how old an FA this was (2006) and there's simply too much uncited material to expect this to pass without criticism on the main page in less than one week. I've removed it from the TFA queue and gone for a more recently promoted battle FA, Battle of Radzymin (1920). Thanks for offering, though. Bencherlite^Talk 00:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The first main section, "German planning" is uncited and seems to repeat what's covered by the later "Initial German advance" section. Someone more familiar with this please check on that. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I plan on removing that section unless someone raises an objection in a the next few days. Comment here or at Talk:Battle of Moscow. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested that the article go to a featured article review in light of the fact that a high proportion of its sources are to the memoirs of the senior German and Soviet generals involved. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal Australian Artillery units renamed

Should the units 104th Field Battery, Royal Australian Artillery and 105th Field Battery, Royal Australian Artillery, amonst others be renamed (moved) to their current name conventions of 104th (Observation Post) Battery and 105th (Observation Post) Battery respectively? Also does anyone know when the 104th was reraised?? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

p.3 of Army News Edition 1253 of 3 March 2011 [1] says they were re-named in January 2011, and it is also a good source for the across the board changes to the structures of 1, 4 and 8/12. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

HMS Hood

There is a discussion at WT:SHIPS re HMS Hood (51) and the list of ships called HMS Hood. You are welcome to comment on a proposal to move these articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

US military images needing categorisation

I was just doing some patrolling on Commons and saw that we have 18,210 images imported from Marines.mil that need checking, categorisation and (if possible) reuse. I've done a few but I'm not really a military buff, so I thought it better to ask here. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

HMS D5

Can someone with access to the sources named at HMS D5 please run a check for me? The things really need to be cited properly anyway but I note that the article says D5 hit a German mine. The ODNB article for Godfrey Herbert - a bio that I have just begun to create - says that it was a British mine.

If someone can verify and cite at D5 then perhaps I can incorporate it in the bio. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Colledge & Wardlow don't specify the nationality of the mine as does the British official history; only that it was floating.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a start, at least. There are other sources mentioned and obviously (well, hopefully) someone has got most of the detail in that section from somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Concert

1. The article quotes only the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense.
2. Article includes a lead and empty sections.
3. groups totalling more than 210,000 men, women, and children - did the 210,000 fight or rather were hiding?
4. Belarusian partisans quotes a non-academic source Glory.rin.ru, according to which Axis losses totalled more than 53,000 soldiers. But partisans fought generally against local police rather than Axis...soldiers'.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Belarusian resistance during World War II and Belarusian partisans

Both articles describe the same subject and contain partially the sam text. They inform about Soviet and Polish resistance, who didn't cooperate and sometimes fought each other. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Both articles use the same souces, eg. mysterious Turonek and Soviet or post-Soviet ones, which make both articles biased.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Little help here

Portal:Battleships/Selected article/2 has some kind of error and I've no idea how to fix it. 70.135.171.237 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an error. Can you point to me to where or describe it? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Convert}} was playing up earlier because of a software issue; it's back to normal now. I suspect that was it. Bencherlite^Talk 10:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Probably so. I saw errors with the Convert template in other articles and thought it would clear up soon. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible TFA dates for MILHIST articles?

Does this project have a page somewhere for editors to make a note of which articles might be good to run as TFA on particular dates, akin to Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/TFA? If so, as one of the new TFA delegates, I'd be delighted to see it! If people have a particular date in mind for an article, it only wastes my time and theirs if I pick the article "out of the blue" for a random date. In any event, a reminder that WP:TFAR is always looking for new business - it can have two nominations for "any available date" and ten nominations for specific dates. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tks mate. I've not heard of us having such a thing as a potential TFA list, I've always figured that anyone who wanted to list possibilities would add items to the TFAR "pending" page. Not that I'm against MilHist creating such a list if members like the idea. Personally, though, I kind of enjoy the surprise element when I get the message that one of "my" articles has been selected without me bothering to nominate it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is curious about making a suggestion, have a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page#Warfare - many possible candidates! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly encourage people to add possibilities to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending if you have appropriate dates in mind. Bencherlite^Talk 10:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A missing fifteenth-century article?

Hi all,

Doing some clearing up of images today I stumbled across ru:Осада Парижа (1429), a Russian featured article which has no English counterpart. Judging from the French entry, it seems to have been one of Joan of Arc's battles, though our article only mentions it in passing. I was going to add some redlinks to it, but it's not my period and I'm not sure how best to refer to it. Anyone familiar with the topic? Andrew Gray (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no expertise in the area, but I've put a couple books on hold that should include information on the subject. (in depth histories of the time period in question) NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Paris 1429 is as good as any. The Russian article seems extensive and well cited to French sources. If anyone fancies creating something from a machine translation, I'd happily help with tying it in to English wiki, as we have quite a bit on this period of the HYW, just not this episode. One thing it may have which we may have to edit back is extensive background, though.Monstrelet (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. It's referred that way in some English sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Birds used in milatery history.

I was wondering if there are any good books or other rescores of how how birds where used in milatery history. In particuler how they where used to intersept messenger pigones. Sorry about bad spelling my key board is being weird I am trying to get it repaired thogh.Nhog (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You might have better luck at the history reference desk. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian World War I edit-a-thon proposed for next June

Whiteghost.ink (talk · contribs) has proposed a World War I edit-a-thon to be held in one or more locations in Australia next year (with remote participation for those who can't make it to these venues). Editors who are interested in this event are encouraged to discuss it at Meta here. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

file up for deletion

image:Canadian Coast Guard College.png have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources needed at Crossfire

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossfire, I'm asking this forum for reliable sources discussing this common tactical term in some depth. The common usage of the term makes a simple web search virtually useless. Can some regulars here provide a quick list of online manuals or guides which discuss the use of crossfire in a tactical situation? If anyone's willing to just stick some in the pagespace, I could do the citation later. Thanks! (Disclaimer: this is not a call for participation in the procedure. This a call for sources.) BusterD (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

should cross-fire also redirect to this article? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Cross-fire (an important gait topic on its own) has an appropriate place on the Crossfire (disambiguation) page and should not be redirected as suggested. One user came by to offer a single source to the AfD, but there must be dozens of small unit tactics manuals and guides which cover the subject linked in this thread title. The deletion procedure itself has been closed as keep, but the dearth of sourcing at Crossfire needs correction. The page has existed here on WP for over ten years with no substantial sources. Thanks for helping. BusterD (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, you'll find much of our basic tactics stock is in an equally poor state - either vague or with limited referencing to one nation's practice (often US). Monstrelet (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be other articles which are little more than a definition and a bit of US-centric waffle eg Fire support. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

James A. Cody

James A. Cody appears to be a CV for a former airmen, doesnt appear to be notable to me but looking for other opinions before I prod or otherwise it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It also a direct copy of http://www.aetc.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?id=13968 his air force bio, although public domain it is probably still bad form to reproduce it word for word. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

He's listed at Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force as being the incoming Chief in February. If true, I think that's a pretty good claim to notability. AfD would therefore be the correct route, if you did want to challenge it - but I think your first task is to examine whether he is indeed the incoming Chief. In terms of copying from the page, it should be noted in the references sections, something like: "Some material reproduced here is taken from United States Air Force records and is in the public domain." (along with the full normal reference). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not notable IMHO. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable (by class). All the other incumbents have pages. If we delete this now, we get to re-create later.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That probably suggests that the other sixteen need looking at as well.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive

Does any here know much about the Finnish-Russian war? There is disagreement here concerning whether or not the offensive resulted in the Moscow armistice. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should as here or in the embassy at fi.wiki for help. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a question of RfC there, and we need more comments from other people.--Whiskey (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Militarized Interstate Disputes

Is this a proper noun? Shouldn't Militarized Interstate Disputes be militarized interstate dispute (singular, uncaptialized) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is not a proper noun. However, it may also be known in that form. So I think what can be done is do a redirect. Arius1998 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WWII Era Colored Photographs of M3/M4 tanks for restoration

I'm interested in doing a restoration of a few of these tank pictures I found at the LOC website. I don't know which ones have the most historical/military noteworthiness, and they're all in training. What differentiates these is that they are color photographs, and probably have at least some extra merit because of that. Which of these should I try to restore first? http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=ft.+knox%2C.+ky.&sp=1 NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My suggestions: [2] (a potential featured picture, I think, if you can fix the colours), [3], [4], [5] (also a potential featured picture, I think). Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check ( Media related to Alfred T. Palmer at Wikimedia Commons), File:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg is already a featured picture. (Hohum ^@) 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do the others, and hopefully get a reasonable set of FP from his color photography work. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

PD-OLD, a plea

Dear all - as some of you will know, most of the image copyright assessments done in A-class reviews and MILHIST FACs are done by a small group of people, including me. There's one basic thing that I'd like people to bear in mind, gouge into their laptop case if necessary, that would help us greatly.

PD-OLD is not a sufficient licence tag on its own. With properly historic images (pre-1800) then using the PD-OLD tag tends to be a simple mistake, without realising that it's insufficient. PD-OLD is an alias for a life-of-the-author-plus-seventy-years ("life+70") tag. For United States copyright, which all images on WIkipedia or Commons must take account of, life+100 (PD-100) or PD-1923 is necessary. So all I'm asking is that where those aren't dubious, where they are clear, then PD-OLD is not used alone, rather in conjunction with PD-1923, or PD-100 on its own.

For newer images we'll forgive you because the US copyright might not be clear and it can be confusing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I will also note that the same goes for PD-Art. PD-Art is for the photo of the portrait, the license of the portrait itself takes a second parameter, which defaults to PD-Old, but should be explicit.

Besides, an image tagged as PD-Old is not always a problem: it may an acceptable image, that someone mistagged as just PD-old, when PD-old-100 would have worked just as well. In this case, it should simply be fixed. PD-1923 is not a subgroup of PD-old in the case of non-US works, but those may be uploaded locally. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Objects needing ID

I don't usually post here, but there are 350 photos of Turkmenistan military parade at commons:Category:Parade_celebrating_the_20th_anniversary_of_Turkmenistani_independence which has units, equipment, etc needing to be identified. Thanks to anyone who can help. On behalf of Russavia.Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 18:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Some are clearly naval, air force and special forces detachments, showing a strong residual Russian influence. However the various ceremonial and mounted units would require expert knowledge. They certainly stage spectacular parades in Turkmenistan! Buistr (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

SS Tofuku Maru.png

file:SS Tofuku Maru.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not an FFD nomination, so is not covered in any section under delsort -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

HMS Warwick (D25)

Accordnig to the article, HMS Warwick (D25) was sunk by U-413 on 20 January 1944. According to Busch and Röll, U-413 was not even at sea. Busch and Röll date the sinking on 20 February 1944. This date also matches the info presented by uboat.net. Ideas? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Busch, Rainer & Röll, Hans-Joachim (2003). Der U-Boot-Krieg 1939-1945 - Die Ritterkreuzträger der U-Boot-Waffe von September 1939 bis Mai 1945 (in German). Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn Germany: Verlag E.S. Mittler & Sohn. ISBN 3-8132-0515-0.

There's some more sources and information on the National Monument Record here. I would say February seems more likely! Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Hi. I want to bring Juan Manuel de Rosas to Featured Article. However, there is an editor called Cambalachero who has been in a personal crusade to whitewash Argentine history. He won't allow anyone but him to touch the Article. Thus, I would need the full support from other editors. ---Lecen (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Both now and some months ago, as discussed in Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Something that must be told, you wanted to change the lead image for mere aesthetic reasons. Both times I kept the iconic portrait that is used everywhere to represent Rosas. That can hardly count as "not allowing anyone to touch the article".

Besides, your desire to bring the article to featured is just a recent development. Although it is correct that I left the work half-done when I worked with this article, I'm the main editor with 97 more edits than the second one, 103 more than Lecen, and with a clear improvement over the article as I first find it (see here, it was little more than a start-class article). Of course, I do not own the article, I'm simply pointing that the article is not abandoned and that big changes (such as the lead image) should be discussed in the talk page if needed. Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe instead of fighting over a simple image, to bring Rosas to FA, the article must be referenced better. I went to have a glance at it and I saw many paragraphs without citations. Surely that wouldn't even reach GA at its present state. I can help, even if I'm not that familiar in Argentine history. Arius1998 (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - only 30 footnotes in the entire article, and ten of those are for a single fact in the lead. This article has a long way to go to reach FA. If I were you, I'd set your sights on GA first and see how things work out. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as I said it is a half-done work, and it still has many things to work with before even thinking about any nominations. I guess I should complete the work I began a pair of years ago. I have several books about the topic I have not used yet. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't an image. Rosas was a ruthless dictator. Cambalachero has been attempting to whitewash Argentine history for a couple of years now. The article about Rosas is one big joke. He has done the same with Perón's article where goes as far as to try to excuse Perón's antisemitism and links to nazis. I will write the article alone. What I need are editors interested in the subject, willing to read about it and to help me out with any unnecessary meddling. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no Philippines part in United States in World War I?

As one of the active Philippine-based editors in this WikiProject, I just passed through this article and I was concerned why there were no mention of the role of the Philippines in the American effort during World War I. Even if the Philippines was just a colony at the time, I believe that the Philippines was asked by the United States to assemble a 15,000-man force (correct me if I'm wrong) for the war. My nation's fervor to help in the war effort was proven when the Philippines assembled 25,000. I hope someone helps me here. Arius1998 (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)