Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The 2024 coordinator election has begun with voting open until 29 September. 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 • Battle of Lake Providence • Jochi • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Robert Poore • Chagatai Khan • Boot Monument 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 Henry Biard • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS • USS Texas (BB-35) 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 • Roswell incident • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Eleanor of Castile • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Sack of Delhi (1757) • Black and Tans • Diaspora Revolt • Castlereagh–Canning duel • Ottoman minelayer Intibah • 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 Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Siege of Szigetvár • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • George W. Bush Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,570) • only work on referencing and citation (43,246) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,903) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,906) • work on structure (31,881) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,176) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,950) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (8) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (3) • assessment checklists completed (6) • task forces added (1) • attention to task force coverage (655)

If you are in need of a quick response, please feel free to ask your question on our IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist).

Inclusion of Milhist in Video Games

There was a question posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_II_task_force#WWII-based_games asking whether games such as Call of Duty fall under the scope of milhist. It's a valid question, and I don't have a good answer for it. On one hand, the theme is the same, but on the other hand these games aren't really military simulators. This question applies to all of the task-forces, and to this WikiProject as a whole. Should most military video games be included? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, its a tricky question. had some discussion on this before, and there was another instance (though I can not find it) where I supported the idea on grounds that our project is best suited to handle the historical parts of such articles. I'd be incline to add the call of duty games to the roster since they cover actual campaigns and battles that occurred in WWII, although understandably with some artistic license taken. I recall watching my brother play one of these games and it did seem to me that there was enough going for us there that we could tag them for the project, but I think that in the case of video games of this nature our project should right shotgun for, and provide support to, articles with their scope that cover events important to us. I'd wait to see what kind of feedback we get here though before going forward since this is going to be a issue on which we will need consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see in principle why not. If we admit other forms of popular culture that reflect on warfare, such as novels or films, it is not much of an extension. There are even some interesting questions raised about how computer games as part of popular culture influence soldiers, in a similar way to how films or books have influenced them in the past, which almost certainly do come under the project remit already. My query would be practical. If we don't expect to engage with the development of the articles, there would be little point in bringing them within the scope of the project.

These articles are often written to quite a high standard based on their own criteria. How would we expect them to change by being MILHIST tagged? More emphasis on the historical elements of the game? Will this bring conflict with other projects who currently "own" these articles? Monstrelet (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Last time the point I made is that while such articles are within the scope of the video games project principally the historical content they represent is within our scope, which makes our project the best one on wikipedia for checking the plot for things like historical accuracy but also for fact that we can check and add links to articles that are relevant to the time period (for example, noting that air support in a WWII pacific nature game comes principle from the fast carrier task forces, noting the campaign time period in relation to other events in the war, linking to the articles on the primary and secondary weaponry used, linking to articles about other division that were present to support/oppose players forces, etc). As for conflict with the other projects: that should not be a problem; the video games project actually works hand in hand with milhist in a partner peer review system which allows their editors to seek input from our editors on how an article within there scope could be improved. I'd think that they would be willing to listen to reason for tagging articles concerning historical war-related video games as being within both project's scopes. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm alone in this, but personally I'd rather not see video games included in our scope. They're already well-served by an active project and are a very different type of article from our usual fare. I accept that there's already some overlap if we consider military training simulations and we do have a small precedent with certain narrowly-defined types of historical fiction, but I see no need to expand this further into increasingly tenuously-linked territory. I think our joint peer review system is probably sufficient for any areas of collaboration. EyeSerene^talk 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with EyeSerene here, and with over 100,000 articles tagged by MILHIST this project is already suffering from mission creep. We should focus on historical articles and leave the rest to other projects. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree that works of fiction (or heck, even most non-fictional media) should fall under our scope. For one, there are numerous wikiprojects that are devoted to these fields (video games, TV, films, books, etc.), and their goals aren't necessarily synonymous with ours. Secondly, are we in a position to actually provide much for these articles? I can talk all day about the Pacific War battles featured on COD, but can I actually improve and article about the game itself? Wouldn't noting the historical innacuracies, anachronisms, and other artistic error be pure OR anyway? If some background is necessary to help further the understanding of a reader, then can't they merely link to the article that is under MILHIST's scope? For example, America: The Story of Us was a great miniseries, but I can't add anything there that wouldn't completely bloat the plot description. Thirdly, where do we draw the line when fiction, and especially science fiction, rears its head? Starship Troopers? The Wolfenstein series? The Lord of the Rings?

Lastly, I think this opens up a slippery slope of pop culture influence. We all have pet favorites in media, and not all of them are notable enough for an article; but if an editor could float it with a big coatrack description of the real world event, it might sneak past the filters against junk articles. And of course, we work hard to keep trivial references out of articles in our scope, would we want to be guilty of doing the reverse?

Right now, we coordinate well with other projects when our scopes intersect (WPShips and WPVG come to mind), I say that fine tradition is sufficient for our needs and thiers. If an ACR pops up that could be handled jointly, then we damn well should! Perhaps we can have the coordinators ambassador a bit to the other projects and set up some more firm agreements as to coordinating efforts. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You've set out, rather better than I did, a number of concerns that I originally included in my post but then deleted before saving the edit (mainly for tl;dr reasons). However, I very much share your concerns about OR, synthesis, trivia and pop culture. EyeSerene^talk 17:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't disagree on the "what can we add" question - see comments above - or actually on narrowing the range of articles but it should be done consistently with other popular culture material. I'm not even suggesting "all in or all out" (though that would be simplest) but being clear what criteria are being used and then applying across a range of genres (novels,plays,films, songs - examples of all of which are tagged to the project) as well as video games.Monstrelet (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Medalofhonor.com

http://www.medalofhonor.com has been sourced in a number of articles. It was a listing of Medal of Honor awardees, but as of September 2009 the site is now occupied by the game.links ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. I noticed that a few weeks ago myself and have been changing them to the Army Center for Military History site [1]. Youll ave to determine which conflict they are in but this is a better link than the Medal of Honor one was anyway cause its a better source. --Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a better source. Thanks. I'm fixing some Eagle Scout sources and there are a few overlaps. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how hard it would be to create a bot to do this sort of work. Obviously this is a small time case, but with link rot a constant problem here it seems to me that a bot for replacing bad links with good links provided by the internet archive would go a long way to maintaining article stability. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the Internet Archive does not preserve everything; some users, and some link-owners, send purge orders to the Archives and pages are then removed (and some were never saved to begin with.) Is there some mechanism that could be used to keep a copy of the referenced page(s) somewhere in Wikipedia-land that could be cited in such cases? I suppose we'd have to grab those copies when the reference was first made, rather than running about looking for them later. htom (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WebCite? -- saberwyn 21:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Internet Archive does have archives of medalofhonor.com, but the CMH is a better source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:USMCportallink

With recent improvements to the logic of the Portals this template is deprecated and I would like to recomnmend it for deletion. Before I do though I thought I would post it here and see if anyone had any opinion on it first. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Since knowone appears to have a problem with this suggestion I am going to go ahead with my recommendation that this be deleted. Once I submit the recommendation for deletion I will post the link here. --Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a copy editor

Hi the Special Air Service article is going through a Good Article review here Talk:Special Air Service/GA1. As you can see it has been pointed out it is in need of a copy edit. A request has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests but they seem to have a back log at the moment. So any WP:MILHIST editor who could assist your help would be appreciated. Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look tonight. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)  Done

Featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher 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 19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship needs attention

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship/archive1 needs some attention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Popski's Private Army

In accordance with Wikipedia:Official names, should No. 1 Demolition Squadron be moved to Popski's Private Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a Nazi?

The Helmut Lent article was featured article of day on 6 June 2010. Since this was also the anniversary of D-Day the article attracted many readers. On the talk page a discussion was initiated on whether Lent was a Nazi and Wackywace (talk · contribs) took a firm position and stated he was a Nazi. My question here is what constitutes a Nazi in the English speaking community? My definition was always a member of the National Socialist Party. But maybe my definition is askew here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, party membership is a good indicator, I would say. Apart from that there are followers of Nazi ideology who are less easily identified. In the case of Lent, Goering claimed he was an "enthusiastic follower of our national socialist movement" in his obituary (Völkischer Beobachter 12 October, 1944). That would satisfy me. Then there are others who ended up in the NSDAP, like Walter Jens, who apparently never personally applied for membership. It really depends on the circumstances. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though obviously in the case of a WP article it would depend on how an individual is characterised in the sources. EyeSerene^talk 16:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If the sources describe their membership of the party as more than nontrivial, that'd be a good sign. If, on the other hand, it merely seems to have been something they did because it was seen as the done thing at the time... perhaps not. In this case, I'm not entirely sure the obituary is a good source - it strikes me as potentially more propaganda than anything else. Given that it was the obituary of a serving war hero in a one-party state, it's unlikely that the publicity apparatus of that state would portray him as anything but an ardent member regardless of what his personal opinions or practices were. (In short: it depends, and this one is still pretty fuzzy to me.) Shimgray | talk | 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Membership of the NSDAP should only be used carefully as some were enrolled because of their occupation. Members of the orpo and even the Waffen-SS which accepted conscripts later in the war should not automatically be labelled Nazis. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A Decline in Page Views on the Main Page

I generated this graph using data generated from Wikipedia article traffic statistics. It some that interestingly enough the number of view to the main page of MILHIST project has been on the decline over approximately the past two and a half years. To what degree this reflects actual participation in the project is hard to say as there could be a multitude of different reasons for this decline such as user familiarity with the project for example. However I though I might throw this information out there so that other users might view it as well and give their take on it. I thought this might spark a discussion.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My initial guess would be that the decline is due more to the gradual movement of editor-oriented materials from the main project page to department and task force subpages; the main page is, at the moment, really just an introduction area for visitors, with most of the actual activity taking place deeper within the project. If we're trying to get a good picture of overall project activity, I think a more accurate measure would be a total of page views for (a) all the subpages in the project and (b) their associated talk pages. Unfortunately, I suspect that the grok.se tool can't easily generate that. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really my place to comment but I would agree with Kirill and although I have no data to prove it my gut tells me that actual user particpiation in the project overall has actually risen based on the number of articles that are being submitted to the various different article review mechanisms such as peer review, B, GA, A, FL and FA. The milhist project tends to have a very high number. Although I also admit that this is partially due to the same pool of active editors. --Kumioko (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on the situation, Kirill. And you are probably right that the grok.se tool can't easily compile that data, but I am a generally stubborn person, so I'll see what I can piece together in the near future. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm nt sure that would be statistically useful, considering that we've been increasing the number of sub pages exponentially over the years. Heck, I just buzzed out about a dozen for OMT last week. In addition, I think there are still a couple of unused pages still out there and a few templates under WP space. That said, it would be interesting to compare it to project membership... Any way to troll the histor of the list of members with a tool? bahamut0013^words_deeds 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable articles?

Charles Miller (US Army) seems to fail general notability criteria for military personnel - he doesn't seem to have done anything to warrant a WP article. The writings noted at the end are not published. Opinions?
Secondly, is William Richardson (Continental Army officer) likely to be notable? The article is currently an unreferenced stub. Gwinva (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• In the first case, the article should get the axe; in the second, their is insufficient information to determine notability. If Richardson held the rank of full colonel during the revolutionary war, given the notably low number of US generals at the time, her may be important enough to stay, but like I said more info is needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've listed Charles Miller at AFD. Gwinva (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Richardson (per this entry) seems to have had a relatively undistinguished career. Beyond genealogical records, searches involving "William" and "Richardson" for the time period 1776-1779 are more likely to turn up William Richardson Davie. Considering the article has been tagged for 2+ years for notability, it's probably time for AFD. Magic♪piano 13:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a shell

I'm currently working through a number of old exhibits at Eastbourne Redoubt, which have been stored in storerooms for a while, and I'm trying to figure out where all of them go in the museum. I do this by using our MODES item database...but to use that I need to know what an object is to search for it! I have here next to me two shells, hollowed out after I assume having been fired. They're obviously fired from some sort of artillery piece, but that's about all I can figure out. There are a number of shells in the database, and so I need help in narrowing down what they are. Their dimensions are as follows: Height/length approx. 28.5cm/11.5 in, width at bottom 10.5cm/4in, width at height 9cm/3.5in. Can anyone help identify them? Skinny87 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Any other identifiying features, painted marks or anything? Any codes or datestamps on them anywhere? David Underdown (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Are these actual shells or spent cartridges? If its the latter, it should be pretty easy to work out. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone. Just found a moldy piece of paper inside one of the shells that identifies them as 25-pounder shells. Thanks for the help though. Skinny87 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of armed forces flags may be of interest. Ty 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

78th Army Band

I've just AfD'd another one of these, this one... is this really notable? It needs quite the clean up regardless. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you added the AFD tag to the article? I can't see it. (Maybe its a cache issue from my end). — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for confusion, I meant that I have AfD'd another one of these band articles, and then came across this one and brought it here. The AfD for the other one is proceeding at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/156th army band and there is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/215th Army Band (United States). S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, cheers for clearing that up. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting event hosted by GOCE

The Guild of Copy Editors is holding their second Backlog Elimination Drive starting on July 1. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for No. 6 Commando now open

The A-Class review for No. 6 Commando is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC of Battle of Valcour Island could use a few more reviews

The Feature Article Candidacy of Battle of Valcour Island could use one or two more reviewers. Thanks for your participation! Magic♪piano 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Aquatint now open

The peer review for Operation Aquatint is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) now open

The featured article candidacy for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) 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! Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A Challenge

The Fort ships have very little coverage on Wikipedia. There were only 198 of them but none has an article on Wikipedia. The nearest we have is the article on the explosion of SS Fort Stikine. SS Fort Stikine is a redirect, which could be turned into an article. All the other ships need articles creating. Basic info on ships Fort A fo Fort J, Fort K to Fort S and Fort T to Fort Y is available from the Mariners website. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you approach WP:SHIPS to get help on creating a class article, which could include a full list. Do not start creating large numbers of stubs; they would very quickly be merged into an improvised class article which would be done by someone with no knowledge of the subject. Better to get a good class article going first. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, I agree about stubs. There should be enough sources available to produce at least Start/C class article on almost all ships. I'm currently working through the Empire ships at the moment. WT:SHIPS also issued with the challenge.

Update - there were something over 200 ships, some being renamed as Parks between launch and completion. Two ships have articles - Fort Rosalie and Fort Cataraqui. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Does China have a nuclear triad?

Hello, the question of whether the PRC possesses today a nuclear triad has been raised; please see the article's Talk page if you are qualified in helping to answer the question. YLee (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment about images in Infobox military person

A user has requested comments about the placement of images in the Infobox for Medal of Honor recipients here Template talk:Infobox military person. I have already made mine. --Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTICE - Editor reviewing rights

Many editors are no doubt aware that the Wikipedia community has spent literally years agonising over the conflict between our open editing policy and the need to protect the content of Wikipedia from inappropriate editing - especially in the area of biographical articles.

A system designed to address this conflict—"Pending changes"—is scheduled to begin trial on 15 June 2010 (although this date could yet change). The Pending changes system is basically an additional level of page protection that permits most editing as normal, but queues certain edits until they are approved by a "Reviewer", at which point they become visible on the article.

A limited number of pages are being selected for the trial based on "ongoing vandalism on busy articles, breaking news, high profile BLPs/companies, low profile but vandalized or edit warred biographies (BLPs), persistent targets, long term protected pages, talk/user talk/project page disputes, non-article namespaces". It is likely that a number of our articles will be affected.

Under the current proposals, autoconfirmed users should be able to edit as normal but there may be edits on some articles that are awaiting approval from users with the new "Reviewer" user right. This has already been granted to a number of trusted editors and more will follow, but any editor in good standing with a decent edit history and sound grasp of Wikipedia's core editing policies who wishes to receive Reviewer rights can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer, or contact an administrator. The standards for granting the Reviewer right are similar to those required for rollback; for more information, see Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming_a_reviewer. EyeSerene^talk 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I reposted this on the AWB talk page as well because this change may affect some AWB users. --Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole shambles has confused the hell out of me. Am I a trusted editor? Does this affect me as a long-time/term user at all? Where was this voted to be implemented? Skinny87 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but it seems WP has some dark corners left to hide. From what I can gather this only means that you have to get a "Reviewer" permission added to your profile. This additional permission basically asserts you can be trusted to not intentionally screw something up. But I may be incorrect, thats just the impression I got. --Kumioko (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to float this out there: if there are any project members that would like to have reviewer status, I (and I'm sure the other admin coords as well) can enable that tool for you. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I realise it's only a trial and probably won't affect many editors, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been very well advertised. I only found out by accident (via someone's talkpage on my watchlist). Admins automatically have the Reviewer flag set, and as far as I'm concerned any established editor who wants it should have it too. As Parsecboy said, please ask :) EyeSerene^talk 19:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Further update: pages to be included in the trial are here. As expected, it looks like some high-profile milhist articles will be affected. EyeSerene^talk 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, if you don't know if you have the Reveiewer role aready here is how you can check. Go to my preferences, then look at the User profile. Then look under Basic information for Member of Groups: If you see Reviewers as an option after that, then you already have it and you should be good to go. --Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: In addition to the above, any user who has admin rights is automatically considered a part of the reviewer group, regardless of whether the check appears or not. Therefore, if you are an admin, you need not check to see if you are also a reviewer. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion, US Air Force lawyer

• Kenneth Dickson

Relevant AFD discussion, on a California lawyer and politician. Served in United States Air Force, in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Air Force. Rank of Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, NativeForeigner, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of NativeForeigner's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Internal Military History Study and Observations Group Proposal

I would like to propose than a working group be established for the purpose of creating a forum where discussion concerning how WikiProject Military History might be improved. This working group would focus on five core issues.

• 1)Facilitating Constructive Discussion: The MILHIST talk page is not exactly the best place for brainstorming new ideas by kicking them around with other contributors. I would back up this assertion by pointing to the fact that the talk page is a relatively short term forum, especially as notifications of new articles reviews and general discussion also take place on this talk page. A dedicated forum exclusively for the discussion of ideas concerning the state the WikiProject, I feel would help the WikiProject as whole.
• 2)Distribution and Retention of Essays: A dedicated place where project members can post essays on their perceptions of the Project, essays comprising extensive suggestions for how to improve the WikiProject as whole, or their beliefs about the future needs of the project. This aspect of the project would allow for a more readily accessible repository of suggestions, potential policies, and guidelines than attempting to pour back through talk page archives.
• 3)Contribution of News Articles and Academy Articles: This group could also function as a dedicated bureau for coordinating editorial contributions to the Bugle. These contributions could be made either under the editorial section of Bugle or under the group's own exclusive section of the Bugle depending on the amount of participation. Early on it would be likely that contribution would be part of the Editorial Section and perhaps later there would be sufficient content to have a whole separate section in each monthly newsletter.
• 4)Observation and Compilation of MILHIST Statistics: This would also serve as a base for developing and compiling statistics concerning the state of the WikiProject such as page view counts, edit counts, and other statistics which are relevant or which are needed by the WikiProject. These statistics are difficult to compile on one's own, but allowing them to be researched, compiled, and analyzed in a group effort.

Well this is my proposal at the moment. What do others think of it? LeonidasSpartan (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely - this would be very useful and an alternative to this very busy talk page would be of great value. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a good idea. Anything that promotes a broad sense of milhist community ownership of the project is very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 11:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Should we host this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy to be consistent with the new recruitment WG? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense to host the the working group along the sort of lines as the Recruitment working Group. But I would prefer the group not be named Strategy, as I feel that name might be misleading considering that it would be dropped into a category alongside a number of working groups which are strictly about military history topics as opposed to the scope of this working group. While I think that the name Studies and Observation Group better suits the proposed scope of the group, perhaps something along the lines of MILHIST Thinktank or War Room might be more to others' tastes. I think that if the name of the group is slightly ambiguous at to the group's nature, it might pique the interest of users browsing the project, perhaps leading to greater traffic for the group. (Though I must also confess that I also like the name Studies and Observation Group because I think it sounds cool). Anyway those are my two cents. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I had suggested "Strategy" to echo the WMF strategic planning initiative, but I suppose something like .../Coordinators/Thinktank would also work. SOG would, admittedly, be a clever name, but one that I suspect would confuse too many people to be worth it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea; it kind of takes me back to that time I suggested we name the logistics department the strategic development initiative :) Running the working group should be easy, and we can put something in the bugle to announce this to everyone. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Strategic Development Initiative? I like that. I could write an essay concerning what MILHIST project would look like if the project was developed with a greater sense of whimsy (at some point after much serious work is completed on the workgroup). You could call the assessment department the Hall of Broken Dreams or the Guild of Nay Sayers and Articles for Deletion could be called something like The Schadenfreude League. I think it'd be fun to write, but likely accessible what would be one of the smallest audiences possible. But that's entirely besides the point.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tangential discussions of aside, I have gone ahead and created the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank and have begun filling out the necessary group internal infrastructure and page content. Feel free to help out. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Operation michael

I believe the page for Operation Michael may have been vandalized. The paragraph on March 9-29 (section 3.5) simply says "the front was quiet on that day." I can't seem to find the correct entry to undo it. Anyone want to help? Thanks.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any vandalism. but the entry was slightly more informative in an earlier version so I've restored that. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

John A. Logan

I don't know how you guys at MILHIST call attention to worthy subjects for article improvement, but John A. Logan seems to be a pretty important person that you guys might want to get up to your own A-class standards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry now open

The featured article candidacy for 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry 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 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Treaty of Ciudad Juárez now open

The featured article candidacy for Treaty of Ciudad Juárez 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 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick look request on expanded BEF article

Hi all

I have just done an extensive expansion to the BEF article and marked it as Start class.

Can someone have a quick look at it to make sure it is ok and meets standard as I am going word blind from editing for so long on it.

Thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's the British Expeditionary Force (World War II) article? Start seems a fair assessment to me; thank you for your excellent work :) EyeSerene^talk 09:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

AH B****X ! I forgot about the disambiguation page - yup it was the (World War II) one

Thanks for the scan and the kind words :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Usage of User:Xenobot Mk V

I was looking at Xenobot Mk V, and thought that it would be good to have in the scope of our project, considering how many articles fall within our scope. I can start making a page of categories, and help would be good, but I want to make sure consensus exists. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea, but I am curious if the bot would able to tag articles for the respective task forces should we invest in it; if not, then perhaps we would be better off forgoing use of the bot since not tagging TFs would make it somewhat harder for us as we would have to go through and tag for this manually. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the documentation, and it appears to be able to tag certain categories with certain tasks forces, although I'll have to look into it further. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The two things I would be interested in hearing would be the ability of the bot to handle TF tags for the roughly 50 TFs we run, and whether it has the capacity to apply knowledge of the TF parameters we have to the pages it tags. If the bot is unable to recognize which pages belong to which task force then it may create problems for us in the long run since we suffer a perpetual backlog of military history articles needing attention. If the bot is able to correctly tag articles for task force coverage then I would grant the bot the rank of Major and welcome its assistance with open arms, otherwise I'd be incline to pass on the bot or use it in conjunction with a tag and assess drive as the hammer end of a hammer and anvil attack. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it could take a while, it seems that I could define different categories for it to tag the files to. I'm busy this week and next, but I'll drop a message on xeno's talk page asking about it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, there is full support. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it should be able to handle it, so I'd be inclined to support its use. Unless there is some ghost in the machine I haven't spotted of course. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the main problem will be the same one that plagued the first Tag & Assess drive: if we descend from high-level war categories (e.g. Category:World War II), we quickly run into categories whose main topic is related to the war, but whose sub-topics aren't (e.g. Category:Radar). This makes it very difficult to descend down the category tree in an automated fashion. It would be possible, I suppose, to manually generate an exhaustive list of "pure" MILHIST categories, but I'm not sure that the effort required to do so would justify the relatively minor benefit of catching a small number of untagged articles. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You can exclude certain subcategories, but that is a valid point which would raise the amount of manpower needed considerably. On the positive side once set up it would require a relatively small amount of maintenance. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(od)Do we have any idea how many articles this is likely to catch? EyeSerene^talk 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not sure how we could do an approximation. I know there were a substantially huge number of articles caught for WP:BIRDS, but I'm not sure if they were worse tagged or something. I might be inclined to run it for certain large but obviously milhist subcategories initially, and then see how many we caught. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That might make sense, just to see if it would then be worth extending to other categories. EyeSerene^talk 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. It would be nice if we could establish if we want it to auto-tag. I have no position one way or the other, although I know we have an agreement with WP:AIR that assessments are the same, and so therefore we could probably have the bot assess it if it's assessed by WP:AIR. I'm going to start making a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Auto-tag categories within the scope of Korean military history, and assault rifles, just so we see what we get history/armament wise. Of course I won't run the tests until we have consensus whether we want it to autotag. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite busy right now, but I'll have the list up fairly soon. I'm fairly impressed with the amount of articles it caught for wikiproject olympics... [2] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Baden (1915) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Baden (1915) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Help

Can somebody please find data on Ndwandwe-Zulu War, Dominican Restoration War, and Anglo-Spanish War (1654)?

Here are their Wikipedia articles: Ndwandwe-Zulu War, Dominican Restoration War, and Anglo-Spanish War (1654). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See also the past discussion here. I'm curious, though. What are the odds, do you suppose, of two people asking for info on the Ndwandwe-Zulu War in the same month? BTW, please sign your posts. auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who made this post. Come on, we have to find information on these articles including French intervention in Mexico. This place is supposed to make war articles better. Let's make them better. B-Machine (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

well, make them better! The old link on the Ndwande-Zulu war has several articles and books. Go for it! auntieruth (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured List candidate Army of the Danube order of battle

Army of the Danube order of battle is up for review as a potential Featured List. It passed ACR here a couple weeks ago. Please feel free to visit and voice your opinion. auntieruth (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate - Portal:Terrorism

• Portal:Terrorism

This portal is currently being considered for Featured Portal status. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Terrorism. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured List candidacy of Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton

I have opened the Featured List candidacy for the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton. There are currently no featured orders of battle for land battles; the only current featured orders of battle are for naval engagements. Your comments and participation are appreciated. Thanks! Magic♪piano 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Category:Religious paramilitary organizations work as an NPOV cat name?

There's been a lot of controversy on Wikipedia over terms such as "terrorist" for various armed groups, prefering terms such as "militant". I've put together a category, Category:Religious paramilitary organizations to see if it's a workable solution to non-judgementally tie together armed non-state actors with a religious commonality/purpose. This could include some of the less-disputed "terrorist" groups, as well as "self-defense forces", "militias", etc. under an objective terminology. I'd appreciate any input, and if the cat name is solid some help populating it would also be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it can be argued that such a category could in many or most cases be called Category:Paramilitary organizations perverting religion for their cause. Perhaps Category:Paramilitary organizations claiming divine right. IMHO "religious" as an adjective is too open to interpretation: organized religion? self-professed? etc. I would have the same problem with the subcategories that would emanate: Islamic paramilitary organizations, Catholic paramilitary organizations, Protestant paramilitary organizations, and so forth. The only one to strictly fit such a category, I believe, would be the Crusaders as a paramilitary organization officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In a spirit of practical compromise, how about wording it Category:Paramilitary organisations claiming religious affiliation? I also think it should be restricted to more modern times - the concept of a paramilitary organisation is pretty meaningless in the Middle Ages when standing military forces of nation states were the exception rather than the rule.Monstrelet (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for checking article for quality etc

Hi all

I have further expanded the British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II) article. Eyeserene has already given it a going over prior to this latest expansion but I would appreciate if someone could check it now I have added some more detail to it.

The article has grown from 2,700 to 20,155 bytes so I am getting a bit blurry eyed and rather than chance missing simple things would appreciate somone giving it the once over before I start on the "Action" section

In particular the background section and the refs :¬)

thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest getting a hold of books on the British Army during the Second World War, preferably academic sources, to explain the BEFs faults and strengths. I can recommend David French's Raising Churchill's Army as a basic text, along with John Keegan's edited 'Churchill's Generals' for articles on Gort and other senior BEF personnel, as well as the various books on The Battle of France in 1940. It's a good stub at the moment, but it needs analysis of the BEF's performance, especially what it was like before and during the campaign. Skinny87 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The following may help too: HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, UNITED KINGDOM MILITARY SERIES; THE WAR IN FRANCE AND FLANDERS 1939-1940 The official history of the campaignEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the British Army during the Second World War#Organisation article provides more fuller details in regards to the strength of the British Army (regulars, TA, and conscripts) on the outbreak of the war and how it evolved during the years; it will be able to reinforce the point made at the end of the BEF background section. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that info guys - I will continue tomorrow with renewed vigour !

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the official history of the campaign is now in the public domain, so its maps and images can be reused on Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that the History of the Second World War? It was been published in stages between 1949 and the 1990s so some parts would still be less than 50 years old. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only the older volumes are PD so far. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for No. 6 Commando needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for No. 6 Commando; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation of VC Winners on Commons, et al

As part of a general tidy up and recategorisation on the Commons for the UK honours system, I have just finished sorting through all the VC recipients at Comm:Category:Victoria Cross recipients. I have separated out Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa into their own national sub-categories using the naming form 'Category:Victoria Cross recipients from XXX'. As far as I can tell I have got everyone, but if others would like to cast an eye to make sure, that would be appreciated.

I welcome any thoughts people may have as to whether they need to be further categorised by conflict.

I have also added categories for most of the UK decorations (any I have missed I will get to shortly), these take the form of 'Category:Recipients of the XXX' which better reflects the standard approach to category naming decorations and medals on the Commons (I didn't attempt to modify the VC naming format because it seemed well established). Whilst I have added the appropriate additional decoration categories to VC winners where I was able to spot them from the images, I didn't do a thorough cross-check against the Wikipedia main articles. If you are starting or maintaining military bios, please consider adding the appropriate additional categories to related imagery on the Commons. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Action of 17 February 1864

FYI, Action of 17 February 1864 has been nominated to be renamed. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)