Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The July newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Brighton hotel bombing Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured list candidates List of Eureka Stockade defenders Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • Lockheed YF-22 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023–2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Udagbedo • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Black Hills National Cemetery • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) Good article reassessments Joe Rice • Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City • 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,846) • only work on referencing and citation (43,197) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,055) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,778) • work on structure (31,827) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,174) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,823) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (4) • project tags fixed (13) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (1) • task forces added (145) • attention to task force coverage (656)

News and announcements An incubator for new initiatives within the project has been launched. The October newsletter is now available! A discussion about adopting C-Class has begun; comments from all editors are welcome! If you are in need of a quick response, please feel free to ask your question on our IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist). Counterparts to this discussion page also exist in several other languages, including Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Polski, and Русский.

C-Class adoption revisited

In March 2009 the Military history WikiProject decided in a referendum not to make use of C-Class within our project quality scale.

Further to recent discussion at the Strategy think tank, we believe the time is right to revisit our position. It has been suggested that one way our project could adopt C-Class, if we decide we want it, is by automatically assigning it (via our template) to articles that meet some, but not all, of our B-Class criteria. We would therefore like to put the following discussion points to our members:

1. Should Milhist adopt C-Class, perhaps by assigning it to articles that meet a subset of our B-Class criteria?
2. If so, which of the B-Class criteria should we use?

Discussion

This proposal is at the early consensus-gathering stage and intended to prompt discussion rather than garner "support" or "oppose" !votes. If you do !vote, it would be helpful in judging consensus if you could also leave a detailed rationale. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For something less than B but greater than Start: Meets B1 - cited, B3 - structured. Failure to be complete seems okay, but should be well along the way to covering the most encylopaedically interesting point. Infoboxes and writing seem okay to ignore. I'm not sure that MILHIST needs a C class... it encourages people to take Starts directly to B. Other opinions? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to implement C class - it's hard to see what the difference between a C class and a start class article would be in most cases. I agree that it could also encourage some editors to aim lower than B class, which in my view is the minimum for an article to be genuinely useful. I can't say that I feel strongly about the topic though. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done a lot of assessment for another project and I found my main criteria for differentiating between B, C & Start was if an article meets B2, B3 & B4 only, then more than likely I'd rate an article C. Not meeting B5 wasn't really an issue. Any less than meeting B2-B4 and it would be Start. I'm fairly neutral about whether this project should use C class but I lean slightly towards using C class. Putting a lot of work into an article to see it classed as Start can be discouraging for (new) editors and using C class is at least a recognition that things are mvoing in the right direction. NtheP (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Everybody above has made thoughtful, reasoned comments and I can't really disagree with any of them. Personally I don't think we need to graft another class onto our present grading system but, like Nick, it's not something I feel incredibly strongly about right now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've been able to deduce, the WP:AVIATION automatic system slaps a 'C' on articles when they're assessed as meeting three of the five B-class criterion. I personally would say B2, 3, and 4 makes sense for C, myself. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's ludicrously easy to make C-class by meeting criteria 3, 4, and 5 which have very little to do with the quality of the article. 1 and 2 are the hard ones to meet and I could see a valid use for C-class if it was 4 out of 5, strictly defined as either 1 or 2, plus the other three, as that would be a significantly better article than one that only met the three easiest requirements. 5 is pretty easy to meet, IMO, with either a picture or an infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sturmvogel. I think C-class is appropriate for articles that have been worked upon more than a simple Start class and are satisfactory in part, but not in whole. In practice, they are either mostly complete but lack citations and/or have grave style problems, or are well-written and referenced, but do not cover the subject as fully as possible. Constantine ✍ 17:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

At least use B5, is subtlely useful to understanding the subject, especially when discussing weapons and vehicles, i.e. battleships and aircraft. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support the introduction. While I might lean towards giving it to articles that have any three of the B class criteria met, I would be OK if it were more along the lines of requiring one or two specific ones and two or one of the other four or three. – Joe N 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My view is that we do need an intermediary stage between start and B. Our start class can vary enormously from literally just started piece to a wideranging and well written article which is only partially cited. I'd like to see a waypoint on the article development of 3 or 4 B criteria are met. I don't think it will be a dis-incentive to go for B - lets be realistic, our B criteria are tough and many don't aim for them (especially B1). I don't see it affecting people in the contests - they'll still press on for B's and A's. Setting an intermediate stage might actually be an incentive to aim higher and might help us target B-class improvement drives. For C, I think B2,B3 and B4 are the basics of a good article. I can take or leave B5, but acknowledge it is an easy one to fix so I'd be happy if it was in. That said, I think Sturmvogel's either B1 or B2 idea also has merit.Monstrelet (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that an intermediate classification might encourage others by giving recognition of effort, and if it can be done programatically from the B checklist then it should be fairly easily achievable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the issue, howver, I do think that the adoption of C class might have some benefits. There is indeed sometimes a large variation in what consistutes a start class article given that as a project we are usually quite strict on handing out B class assessments. The awarding of C class might have benefits such as encouraging new editors who might be disappointed with a "start class" tag, as well as identifying articles that need limited work to bring them up to B class. I would support the banner auto assigning C class to articles that fall down on certain B class criteria (probably B1 and B5 for me, as I think a C class article would need to have coverage, structured and have reasonable grammar). I'm open to other ideas about this, though, and ultimately if the project decides not to implement, I don't think it is a big deal. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(od)I guess this is where I start to respectfully question some of my colleagues' reasoning, mainly about the "encouragement" aspect of C-Class. Yes there is a significant gap between Start and B-Class in MilHist, and that B-class bar is set quite high. Do we have any real evidence however that offering C-Class will encourage more editors who feel slighted by a Start-Class assessment of an article they've worked on? I ask out of genuine curiosity, not rhetorically... ;-) Instead of encouraging a user to aim for B-Class, C might just become the new, lower, benchmark for editors, when they might have been prepared to push themselves further to B-Class in our current "C-less" system. Just a thought... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ian, its a fair question and to be honest, I couldn't provide you with any specific examples, but having spent the majority of last year trying to reduce the number of articles with an incomplete B class checklist, I have had a number of "conversations" by users who've felt slighted by a Start class rating that I've put on their article when assessing. Some of these editors took it quite personally to the extent that upon completion of the "conversation" I have had cause to question whether or not assessment was what I wanted to do on Wiki. I also think that there are editors out there who have found the B class rating too stringent and thus no longer bother asking for an assessment, and simply slap a "C" rating in the Milhist banner themselves (thus showing as an incomplete Start class assessment), but again this is just a personal observation and I couldn't really point to any diffs that show this off the top of my head. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've had that conversation once or twice in the past six months as well. MILHIST has the highest B-class criteria out there, remember it used to be more stringent than the rest of the wiki until they adopted a modified version of our checklist. If we adopt C, it should follow the same idea and be very stringent and in-line with our B-class stance. I think an acceptable C in this regime would be criteria 3, 4, 5 and either 1 or 2. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in line with you here, with the rules for 2, 3, 4 and 5, since coverage and accuracy is probably and arguably (sorry if I'm POV :P) more important than refs. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought. If we convert to C, somebody is going to have to run through the working groups, special operations and start-class lists. This is going to be prodigious work, and if somebody is not going to make a bot, I propose another Tag & Assess. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to be convinced that we have a genuine need for C-Class in the project (or in Wikipedia as a whole for that matter), though if consensus is that we should adopt it then that's fine. I find AustralianRupert's comment re disappointed editors quite compelling, though I suspect the disappointment is as much a function of the class name as anything else. In the original V1.0 C-Class adoption discussion I argued that instead of introducing an additional class we might simply rename "Start" to "C". Although this idea didn't carry the day then, something similar might be a compromise possibility for milhist - we could choose to adopt C-Class and simultaneously retire Start-Class for our own use. This wouldn't address all the issues with article downgrading, but it should remove any perceived stigma over the name "Start" and, if we set our C-Class criteria sufficiently carefully, might help more meaningfully differentiate the bottom end of the quality scale (maybe just B3 and B5?).

Alternatively, if we decide to add C-Class to our existing scale via the B-Class criteria, I think we should be aiming for those that reflect most closely Wikipedia's fundamental site content policies (ie WP:NPOV and WP:V). I guess these would be B1 and B2 at a minimum, though I'd be happy with a weak B1 (ie relaxing the inline citations and accepting a general reference instead). EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't a "weak B1" mean we would have to do this manually, rather than automatically? Monstrelet (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would. For me this is the main potential problem with filtering via the B-Class criteria. It's a huge jump between completely unreferenced (current Start-Class) and inline cites for all major points (B-Class). I'm thinking about the sort of article that maybe has a couple of general references at the end but nothing inline. EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't that be handled by changing the definition of stub i.e. to get a start, there need to be some references, general or inline? There is an "unreferenced" bot which is used for BLPs which could be co-opted to automatically review the multitude starts.Monstrelet (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think changing the definition of "stub" would just cause more confusion; it's a fairly established term in Wikipedia parlance, and editors will expect it to have (roughly) the same meaning wherever they encounter it.

As far as the "all or nothing" problem EyeSerene points out, it could be resolved by using something like the new public policy assessment method, which allows for finer resolution of how well the B-Class criteria are met; but that would require restructuring our assessment infrastructure to work with those numerical ratings across the board. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to change the definition of stub, or even of start and I'm not a fan of the assessment method being tried out by WP:USPP. There may be some reaction to the name "start" as Ian pointed out as I've run into other editors who've objected, mostly, it seemed to me, because of the name, even after I'd pointed out that they didn't meet the B-class requirements. I have no real objection to introducing C-class provided it's implemented roughly as I outlined above, but I'd oppose Wiki's current any three requirement as that's effectively meaningless, IMO. If we decided to introduce it a bot should be able to track them based on completed B-class checklists, so no manual work should be required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "inflating" the definition of a stub would be pretty ineffective - it would take the main problem trying to be addressed here (a fairly heterogenous mass of articles with the same quality rating) and just shift it onto a different set of articles. Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sturm, if we use 3, C will be ridiculously easy to attain. B3, B4 and B5 make for a stub with grammatical and spelling correctness, an image and infobox and one or two sections. If we introduce C with the requirements I listed above, I have no problems with introducing C-class (maybe even into the contest scoring ). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My experience with C-class in other projects has been that it's loosely used to designate a deficient, but potentially B-class article. I concur with the concept of a fairly high bar for C. with 3, 4 and 5 plus 1 or 2. The high bar for a B-class article has served the project well, and a high bar for C would be a spur to push an initial rating of C up to B. I see no reason to alter start or stub, although I personally feel that a start really ought to have some form of reference, even if it's a token effort. Acroterion _(talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2, not 1, per my comments above. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the less convinced I am that it's useful to introduce C-Class based on our B-Class checklist. For me the sticking point is B1. As has been mentioned we rightly have quite a high B-Class bar; our B1 is substantially the same as the Good article referencing criterion.

To illustrate and looking only at verifiability, if we exclude B1 as a potential C-Class criterion our quality scale will be:

• Start (completely unreferenced) → C-Class (completely unreferenced) → B-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations)

If however we include B1 we get:

• Start (completely unreferenced) → C-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations) → B-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations)

Neither of the above seem to meaningfully differentiate levels of article quality no matter which of the other B-Class criteria we include. B2 is important and I understand why it's been suggested as a criterion for C-Class, but B2 without B1 is content without verifiability; maybe acceptable (barely) in some Stubs or Starts, but at variance with Wikipedia policy (especially WP:BLP) because we can't tell if the article is WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, or just unsourced. As has been pointed out, B3, 4 and 5 are more about cosmetic presentation than actual quality content and shouldn't form the sole basis for C-Class. I think the only policy-compliant option we have is B1 plus some combination of the others, and whatever combination we choose would be so close to B-Class anyway as to be not worth creating an additional class for. EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What if the hypothetical C1 was less strict? Instead of requiring "all major points cited inline" to mark off B1, a C-class article could either have a reference list but no inline citations (low end), or some facts with inline refs, but not all (high end)... some effort has been made to meet WP:V, but its not 'good' enough to warrant a B. For the record, I don't care either way if C-class is adopted -- saberwyn 10:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that would solve the issue, but it would also defeat the point of an automated assessment based on the template B-Class checklist. I think I posted somewhere above that if we use C-Class I'd be happy with a hypothetical C1 that only looked for, say, verifiable references and not inline cites (unless required by WP:BLP). I realise it's outside the original proposal, but maybe we ought to widen to discussion to include manual assessment as an option? However, I'm aware doing so might also increase opposition to adopting C-Class due to the added overhead.

My preferred option, as I posted above, would be to retire Start-Class for milhist use and replace it (at a slightly higher level) with a C-Class which would include some sort of minimal referencing requirement. I think this might balance out the levels rather more evenly while avoiding introducing an additional class. EyeSerene^talk 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While I find the idea interesting and I agree there is a key quality step between no and some verifiable sources, I think whatever solution has to be automated. We have over 55,000 starts. If we were to scrap start, we have a huge re-assessment task.Monstrelet (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If a automated solution is not found, try a reassesment drive, or put the coords to work ( not really). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the first thing about automation/botting, so I have no idea how easy or insane this will be to apply, but I have a couple of ideas. Would the automated assessbot thingy look at the talkpage only to determine "Start/C/B", or will it look at the article as well. If the latter, could it be programmed to look at the article and say "There are more than two lines of text in a "References/Sources" section, but a distinct lack of <ref> bla bla bla </ref> formatting, </references> or {{reflist}} tagging, so I'll make this a C", or "Multiple entries in "References" and a {{reflist}}, so I need to cast Summon Human to see if it meets B". It might also be able to pick up on article cleanup templates like {{unreferenced}} or {{citation needed}}; articles carrying these kind of templates probably don't meet B1. Secondly, would there be any merit to splitting assessment criteria B1 into two parts: part B will be the one we know and love, but B1-a would be something along the lines of "Multiple reliable sources are provided". Anything that meets A but not B (i.e. several sources listed, but not cited inline) would be a C, anything that meets B but not A (all cited inline, but only a single source relied on) is probably shy of B class anyway. -- saberwyn 20:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The story so far

I think the discussion is in danger of running out of steam without us reaching a conclusion, which would be a shame because we've actually moved forward. In the hope of moving us on, I'll attempt a summary. If it doesn't fit your summary, please engage with it so we can agree where we are at and where we are going. While some remain to be convinced that a new class is necessary, there is a general view that the wide range of levels in start class is a problem. Some would tackle this by using an automatic C class assessment based on 3 or 4 B class criteria. Others have suggested we might scrap start and replace it with C class with the bar at a higher level but less than B class. There is a potential problem with this if we can't automate the process, because of the large number of starts. A particular issue concerns the B1 citation criterion. All are agreed that its current high standard is a good thing but it is a problem that we have no way of distinguishing between unreferenced articles and each paragraph in-line cited articles in quality terms. This lack of an intermediate state seems to be a sticking point in setting C class criteria, whether as an additional class or replacing Start. Further comments/proposals are invited Monstrelet (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to scrap Start, especially since it's used project wide. But I rather think that people are getting a bit too ambitious in trying to breakout various levels of referencing. Most of the articles that I've reviewed have either had some inline cites or none if they don't meet B-1, but almost all have had some list of references if they have any pretension to being a quality article. If we can get a bot to check for the presence of refs then we can use that as one of the criteria, but if we can't then I see no need to worry about it as I have no intention of manually assessing so many articles to see how they rate. Let's not get wrapped around the axle here over B1; any of the proposals above are stricter than the C-class criteria used by any other project as the vast majority of C-class articles Wiki-wide are based on 3, 4, and 5 only. At C-class I'm not worried about verifiability per se; it's recognition of an article that needs a bit of work to get to B-class. It's kinda aggravating to fully reference and expand an article that I can't complete for lack of sources and have it remain a start, just like the ones with only two sections and 15 lines of text. So I'd prefer that we adopt C-class with the criteria of 1 or 2, and 3, 4, and 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sturm, and strongly oppose any notion of scrapping Start. Personally, my idea of a C-class article is one that meets 3, 4, and 5 - the odd unreferenced half-paragraph isn't a big deal for C-class, nor is not having all the details (or, for that matter, a picture, but an infobox or something should be required. Basically, yeah, 3+4+5=y=C is an equasion that works for me. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

3, 4, 5 is one of those 2 paragraph, 15 line articles that looks pretty, but has little substantive information. A start, in other words, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair point, I guess. 1/2+3+4+5 works then. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tentatively support that as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I could also support that (1/2 + 3, 4, 5). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also support 1/2 + 3 + 4 + 5. NtheP (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also be happy with this, especially if Sturmvogel's idea of being able to except completely unreferenced articles by a separate process could be done ( I don't see why not - there is a bot for UBLP, so it should be technically similar)Monstrelet (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This looks sensible to me. (For those watching at home, (1/2)+3+4+5 is an article which is structured, clearly written and has supporting materials (infobox, images), and which is comprehensive but badly referenced, or referenced but does not fully cover the topic. In other words - B but not sourced, or B but missing some aspect of the topic.) Shimgray | talk | 15:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War vs. World War II

Seriously, the term "Great Patriotic War" is the common way of expressing World War II in Russian and some other countries. Using "World War II" is meaningless seeing that it means nothing in those countries. In English literature when writing about the Soviet Union in World War II they usually use the term Great Patriotic War! or of course, the Eastern Front.... But seeing that the Eastern Front wasn't a war, but a front in a war, its not the right way of expressing World War II. This essay should be overturned and we should use the term "Great Patriotic War". --TIAYN (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the essay does not correspond to the outcomes of both previous discussions of the term. It seems to have been agreed so far that we may use the term "Great Patriotic War" in the limited scope of the articles related to the Soviet Union and the post-Soviet states. GreyHood ^Talk 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that what was decided was that we referring to things such as books or statues we could use Great patriotic war. But not when referring to wider events (such as campaigns).Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. I'm not sure that the current essay is too dissimilar from the result of the last discussion is it? Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that essay linked above is the result of the last discussion, IIRC. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to quote users who supported my point of view on this discussion when it was last discussed, which can be viewed here: --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Well, the fact that it is used only by Russians should be ample enough evidence that it suffers from NPOV. If you disagree with the use of "Second World War", why not opt for a more neutral term like Russo-German War, or Soviet-German War?"

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

"From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link. Using Great Patriotic War is the equivalent of referring to the Pacific War as the Greater East Asia War in any articles about Japanese subjects. It just doesn't strike me as particularly clear."

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

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

"For something like a sculpture, inscription, or quote, GPW makes sense. It just isn't appropriate for use in general articles describing military operations. I think that's basically what Steve and EyeSerene said above, although in fewer words.

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

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

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

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

---

(edit conflict with above post) I wrote the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Nomenclature for the Eastern Front of World War II or the Great Patriotic War, based on my personal understanding (which admittedly may be wrong) of outcome of the previous discussions. The essay contains permalinks (so we don't have to worry about archiving) to two previous discussions, with the [Discussion opened 30 September 2010 being the more populated. (If there are other older discussions that anyone knows of, please add those permalinks to the essay also, thanks.)

A main concern for me when I wrote the essay was to put an end to warring and sniping over the issue. This is more important than which "side" gets its way. Both sides made reasonable arguments, but - speaking as someone who came into the discussion favoring "Great Patriotic war" - I found the "Eastern Front" advocates' arguments to be more convincing. I think that the argument "This is the English Wikipedia, for English speakers, and most every English speaker understands what is meant by Eastern Front of World War II while many English speakers who are not specialists or experts don't even know what Great Patriotic War refers to" is an extremely compelling argument. We are here to enlighten, not to confuse, and you shouldn't have to be an expert to read the Wikipedia.

We don't generally pay to much mind to counting heads, but FWIW I think - without actually counting - that the "Eastern Front" people outnumbered the "Great Patriotic War" people. If anybody wants to take the time to count, maybe I'm wrong. But as User:WorldWarTwoEditor shows above, strength of argument is with the "Eastern Front" folks, in my opinion.

By the way, does anyone know what term Britannica uses? This would be a useful data point, I think, Herostratus (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as we use latin phrases for articles regarding the Roman Empire we use Russian phrases when needed.... It is also incorrect to call the war the Eastern War seeing that it was part of a bigger conflict, second in Russia "World War II" doesn't ber any meaning, therefor using World War II instead of "Great Patriotic War" is idiotic and even worse, "incorrect".

To compare the naming process of the American Civil War is ridiculues, seeing that "Civil War" is the most normal term when naming the American Civil War, and not the "War on Northern Aggresion". --TIAYN (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Britannica uses Eastern Front. Perhaps "Civil War" is the normal name for the conflict in the northern US, but there are a number of other names for it in the south. See Naming the American Civil War for examples. It's the exact same situation with regards to the Eastern Front. That is the name most commonly used in English sources and countries, which is why we should use it.

You're also missing a very basic point: articles on Eastern Front battles/etc. include not just Russia but also Germany. It would be incredibly POV to structure articles from the Soviet perspective. We must always be neutral in our articles, and that includes the choice of names for specific events. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per most of the comments above, we generally follow WP:NC and the other guidance that states that we should use the most common English-language terms to refer to things. I appreciate that to a Russian, "Eastern Front" means something else entirely and the war with Germany was their Western Front, but most English-language sources refer to it as the Eastern Front and so must we. As I said in earlier discussions, there's nothing wrong with using "Great Patriotic War" when referring to how Russian sources treat the conflict, but as a general term this isn't common. As a rough-and-ready comparison (and excluding Wikipedia results), "Eastern Front" gets >8.3 million Ghits whereas "Great Patriotic War" gets <1.5 million hits. EyeSerene^talk 13:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Parsecboy and EyeSerene, and there's no reason we can't throw in "called the Great Patriotic War in Russia" (and give the Russian in Cyrillic) once in the major articles. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding a data point which may or may not add info to the discussion: The German Wikipedia refers to the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War as the de:Deutsch-Sowjetischer Krieg or German-Soviet war. The Germans also translate the term "Great Patriotic War" as Großer Vaterländischer Krieg which literally means "Great Fatherland War". I don't speak Russian but I would like to know what better reflects the true nature of the term "Great Patriotic War" in its native Russian language. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Great Fatherland War" is actually a fairly precise (if somewhat unidiomatic in English) translation of the Russian term, since "оте́чество" does mean "fatherland". Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Essay

I have modified the essay, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Nomenclature for the Eastern Front of World War II or the Great Patriotic War

The things that fall outside the rule of "most common in the English-speaking world" and where the term Great Patriotic War should be used are the following:

1. Issues that fall outside the scope of WikiProject Military history:
   • Articles about Soviet culture
   • Articles about Soviet society
2. Biographies of Soviet people, including service histories of military people

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure there was agrement to this change, and would ask that its reverted back. I have reverted back. There was no consensus for that chgange so leave it alon untill on is achived.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any discussion on this on the wording of the essay anywhere.< What your version is doing is extending MilHist naming conventions beyond the scope of the project. I find this totally unacceptable. My preferred version was here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it had been discused, I said it had not been agred to. You made the change without waiting for other opinions. The that the version I restored to was the agreed version the last time this mater was discused. How are generals beyond the scope of the MilHist (or other "military people"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can see above the general agrement is that the wording of the essay refelcts the consesnsus as the how and when the term Great Patriotis war shojuold be used." think that essay linked above is the result of the last discussion" "I'm not sure that the current essay is too dissimilar from the result of the last discussion is it?" " I wrote the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Nomenclature for the Eastern Front of World War II or the Great Patriotic War, based on my personal understanding (which admittedly may be wrong) of outcome of the previous discussions". So it has indead been mentioned.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You wrote it? How come I do not see your name in the edit history? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Their quotations.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Ok, Let's discuss the essay here. I believe my wording reflects the consensus and the outcome of the last discussion. What it adds to the previous version is that it does a far better job in specifying the exceptions. I have listed the three exceptions above. Is there any one of these that you object to?

As to the examples, they were crap. No Soviet composer honored Operation Barbarossa. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I get the sense that you think that Military History people are overreaching and wrong; pardon me if that's wrong, but if so, then arguing with us here won't resolve the issue for you. Wikipedia's policy page on naming things ... specifically page titles, but the page carries a lot of weight on naming things in general ... is WP:TITLE. Best would be to post over on that talk page asking a question or making a statement. If you don't like the answer, you can even suggest a change to policy yourself that's more in line with what you want, as people do all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What WWIIEditor was originally doing as an IP editor was targeting instances of GPW in articles outside MilHist. Maybe we should not be discussing those here, but the essay make it clear that they are excluded. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry they may be implictly excluded (but not having it mentioned) but theyt are not specicaly excluded.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I object to the inclusion of millitary personel in your list of exclusions. They are clearly coverd by MilHist and any artciel about them will likley cover the war in grreat detail. As such it should refelect the most common English language name. In otehr words for millitary matters we should use WW2 or Eastern front. I woulod also argue that as this is the MilHist board any material that does not relate to MilHist should not be discused here. So you line about matters outside WikiProject Military history is not for us to decide upon. If you wish to write something like

"When writing articels that fall under WikiProject Military history events on Eastern Front in World War Two, even when viewed from a Russian or Soviet perspective, the term "Great Patriotic War" should not be used. Instead, terms such as "Second World War" or "Eastern Front Campaign of the Second World War" or (when context is clear) ""Eastern Front Campaign" or ""Eastern Front" or other similar appropriate terms should be used. (In all the examples shown, the link would be piped to Eastern Front (World War II), e. g. Eastern Front (World War II).)"

Exceptions:

Titles and quotes are not not to be changed

For certain descriptions that closely mimic titles, either style may be used. The style used by the editor originating the material should be respected, and edit warring over this is not encouraged.

and we leve non MilHis topics to otehr boards. By the way the RN do not call it the Great Patriotic war.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your latest change does not alter my objection, and in fact strengthens it. You are now clearly saying that MilHist material about soviet solders should be exempt As an example [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to your edit warring here. Please stop! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit warring here? is that what you meant to say? I do not see an evidacen of my edit warring on this page, please provide an example>?Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I updated my list of exceptions to only include "service histories". In practice this covers the "battles" field in the info-box template. I believe service histories of US military personnel likewise list the American names of the operations, i.e. Desert Storm instead of Gulf War – although I have not checked. What I know for certain is the most articles on US ships use the US names for operations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – You have again included your symphony examples. I do not think they fall into Wikiproject MilHist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Norman Schwarzkopf: First Persian Gulf War

Ricardo Sanchez: Operation Desert Storm

Chester W. Nimitz: World War II

So no real consistency.

As for US names for navel actions, well as this is the English language Wiki english language names would tend to be used. But on would like to see some exmaples.

As for teh Symphony examples, they are there just as examples of the kind of wording we could use. But I will take them out thus leaving no examples of Exsemtions.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

"When writing articels that fall under WikiProject Military history events on Eastern Front in World War Two, even when viewed from a Russian or Soviet perspective, the term "Great Patriotic War" should not be used. Instead, terms such as "Second World War" or "Eastern Front Campaign of the Second World War" or (when context is clear) ""Eastern Front Campaign" or ""Eastern Front" or other similar appropriate terms should be used. (In all the examples shown, the link would be piped to Eastern Front (World War II), e. g. Eastern Front (World War II).)"

Exceptions:

Titles and quotes are not not to be changed

For certain descriptions that closely mimic titles, either style may be used. The style used by the editor originating the material should be respected, and edit warring over this is not encouraged. Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I extensively re-edited the essay. I didn't make any substantive changes. I added a "reasons" section for the benefit of future generations. It's not as concise as it was, but whatever. Of course, it's a wiki, so any changes to my changes are welcome. On thing I am not sure of: when using the construct "Andropov's monument to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War...", should this link to Eastern Front (World War II) (which redirect to Eastern Front) or to Great Patriotic War (term)? Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Where we stand

OK, here is the situation as I see it. We have threads on this subject started on September 26, on September 30, and on November 14. I note that in the November 14 thread we are starting to see mostly the same people going over mostly the same arguments, so let's see if we can get a picture of where we are before continuing this.

Numbers

The September 26 thread contained a lot of interesting discussion about various cases and exceptions and situations and reasons. Good discussion. It wasn't the kind of discussion that lent itself to comments that can be clear labeled "Support" or "Oppose", but taking each comment and placing it in a category as best I can, and bearing in mind that most all positions taken had various nuances, I get (and excuse my rendering of the usernames, which I just scribbled, and if I put you in the wrong category please accept my apology and fix it):

• Favor Eastern Front: 1 (Ocaasi)
• Favor Great Patriotic War: 3 (Paul Siebert, Nick-D, Petri Krohn), + 1 who in a later thread made comments putting him in the other category (this is EyeSerene).
• Other (no opinion, opinion impossible to categorize, etc): 1 (Diannaa) + 3 who in a later thread made comments putting them in a category.

In the September 30 thread it's also hard to categorize many comments, but it's a little easier a positions are getting a bit more hardened. This only adds people not already listed above.

• Favor Eastern Front: 9 (Herostratus, HonCatalan, Slatersteven, Parsecboy, Ranger Steve, Joe N, WorldWarTwoEditor, YellowMonkey, EyeSerene)
• Favor Great Patriotic War: 3 (Fifelfoo, GreyHood, TREKphiler)

And in this thread (November 14), so far I get (only listing editors not already listed above):

• Favor Eastern Front: 3 (Dank, Bushranger, Edward321)
• Favor Great Patriotic War: 1 (TIAYN)
• 'Other' (no opinion, etc): 2 (MisterBee, Kiril)

So adding this all up we get:

• Favor Eastern Front: 13
• Favor Great Patriotic War: 7

"Eastern Front" has a pretty solid majority, just short of 2-1.

(N.B.: there is a considerable "swing vote" around the issue of entities that are not artifacts of the Second World War itself but of Russian remembrance of the Second World War, viz., Andropov's monument.) Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC) + edits Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

i may ask, of course, to put me again into GPW camp, but I think that this bipolar count of numbers isn't of much use. Obviously, both EF and GPW may and should be used on English Wikipedia, but each term should have its appropriate scope and contexts. So if we start to vote, we should choose not between a pair of terms (there is also Soviet-German War btw), but between a number of pairs "term + context". For example, I'm against the usage of GPW in global, German, American and Western/Central European contexts, I'm inclined also against its usage in infoboxes, but I found it perfectly acceptable not only in the quotes and art descriptions, but also in the main body of the articles about Soviet military personnel and Soviet/post-Soviet locations. GreyHood ^Talk 15:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument above (by GreyHood) is the most convincing of all. I do agree that titles and infoboxes should use "common names", but otherwise there should be no constraining policy. Redirects like GPW are completely valid when utilized in proper context, and often prove superior to "common names" by providing nuance, flavor, and a respite from repetition. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Strength of argument

Obviously this is subjective. As someone who has been on both "sides" of this issue, I'll try my best to summarize.

Let me say that both "sides" have reasonable arguments. I don't think I saw one single comment that was not reasonably cogent, and all participants are to be congratulated.

OK. There were various discussions about technical issues (how to refer to Continuation War events? What about Poland in 1939?) but these are not core issues, and it's easy enough to solve these cases by proper wording.

The point that "east" is "west" to a Russian, and so forth, is nitpicking. It's not core argument either way. The point that referring to (say) the Warsaw Uprising as an event in the Great Patriotic War (which it technically was, I guess) would be inappropriate is true, but no one is going to do that, so issues like this are not insurmountable whichever term is used generally. Not a core issue.

The argument that "Great Patriotic War" is biased is not really accurate. It may have started out as propaganda, but the fact is that today even non-political and anti-communist Russians use the term. It is the proper term of art for the war, in Russia. And on the Russian Wikipedia I would expect that they use this term.

The point that it's silly or wrong to assign participants in a campaign to a name which would mean nothing to them is not a strong point, in my view. If you used the term World War I to someone in the trenches in 1916 they would look at you blankly, and this applies to many many wars and campaigns.

Really, when you get down it, the core argument boils down to this:

"From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link"

versus (I don't have an exact quote I can use, but something like):

Great Patriotic War is the term used in Russia. And we are writing about events in Russia. And we should use the term that is appropriate to the context in which we are writing.

Again, both views are reasonable. In my view, the principle expressed in the first argument (the Wikipedia is accessible to everyone) is stronger than the principle expressed by the second (we should use terms preferred by the subject rather than imposing our own). "The Wikipedia is accessible to everyone" is pretty close to a First Principle or High Principle, while the second principle is an important principle and one with wide (although not universal) application, it isn't really a First Principle.

So where do we stand? We have a 13-7 majority for "Eastern Front" combined with (depending on whether you agree with me or not) a somewhat stronger strength of argument for "Eastern Front". So now what?

Two acceptable next steps would be:

• The "Great Patriotic War" proponents could graciously concede, recognizing that they have not won the day, and let's all get back to being good colleagues and writing some articles.
• Or we could go to an RfC to get some fresh blood.

One next step that is in my opinion not OK would be:

• Continued rehashing of the arguments with the same participants, fighting over the essay, calling my work "crap", making haughty demands on editors' talk pages, edit warring on article pages, and so forth.

So what's it gonna be? Just let it go, or an RfC? Ball is your court, Great Patriotic War proponents. Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the strength of arguments, please put me in the Favor Eastern Front Camp. It's clearly the most recognizable term to the majority of English speakers and its consistent with the term used for this front in World War I. Edward321 (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence, but I'll say that, in general, Eastern Front (of World War II) gets my vote. In context, as has been mentioned - with regard to statues and monuments and such - GPW could be used. E.G., '...the Battle of Kursk was a major battle fought as part of the Eastern Front campaign of the Second World War...' would be preferred to GPW, but '...this famous statue memorialises the heroism of Ivan Ivanovich during the Great Patriotic War...' would be an acceptable useage of GPW. Does that make sense? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes great sense. And you, I, and several other editors are in agreement on this point. And I think its a good compromise. And it should go in the essay, carefully written to make the cases as clear as possible. If anyone wants to do this, it's OK with me, or I will do it anon, but not right away. (N.B., I edited the "Numbers" section above to reflect the above comments.) Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What about articels people, would it be sonsiderd acceptable to have (say in the info box) Ivan Vasalinov General commanding the 211th Gaurds panda division during the Great patriotic war?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They had a panda division? No, I would say it would have to be "Ivan Vasalinov General commanding the 211th Gaurds panda division during World War II". (or "World War II (Eastern Front)" or "Eastern Front campaign of World War II" or like that.) Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to be F***ing with me right? --TIAYN (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For a page on a Red Army officer?! You're not serious, I hope? This is taking the allegedly "best known" name to an absurd extreme. It's not actually "best known", just "best known in Western English-language sources", 'cause I'll wager not one Russian-lanugage source so much as mentions "Eastern Front". It also IMO shows a certain pro-German bias, since it's not an Allied "front", either, but a German one. This is an extreme case of imposed bias. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, it was known as the "Eastern Front" in the First World War and in the Second (eg House of Commons Debate 14 October 1941 vol 374 cc1239-41 1239

"Mr. Shinwell asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the war situation on the Eastern front") And it was an Allied front since the USSR joined the Allies. That there was not in the Second World War a matching Western Front until mid-44 does not make the phrase any the less accurate.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The thesis that we have to chose between Great Patriotic War and Eastern Front, and, after choice has been made use one of these two terms doesn't seem fully correct. Firstly, these terms are not fully interchangeable. For instance, Russian Wikipedia has two separate articles "Bосточноевропейский театр военных действий Второй мировой войны" [2] (Eastern Front (World War II)) and "Великая Отечественная война"[3] (Great Patriotic War), the later is restricted only with the period from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945. Secondly, the term "Great Patriotic War" is hardly acceptable in, e.g., the article about Friedrich Paulus: can we seriously claim that this German general had been captured during the decisive battle of the Great Patriotic War? That would sound odd for a German, French or British reader (-3 to GPW). However, it would be equally odd for the ex-Soviet reader to learn that, e.g. Dmitry Shostakovich's 7th symphony is a musical testament of the 25 million Soviet citizens, who lost their lives in Eastern Front of World War II due to the German invasion? (-1 to EF) Moreover, taking into account that more people live in the Eastern hemisphere that in the Western one, this Eastern front sounds odd for them. (-0.5 to EF) More precisely would be to write "Eastern front of the European theatre of World War II", however, this term is awkward, and, importantly, it is used very rarely. Thirdly, the term "Eastern Front (World War II)" reduces the GPW to just one of many WWII sub-theatres, thus reflecting the Cold war propaganda, that for decades consistently tried to understate the importance of this theatre (see, e.g. Ronald M. Smelser, Edward J. Davies (II) The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture. Cambridge University Press, 2008, ISBN 0521712319, 9780521712316) (-1 to EF). In actuality, by its scale and strategic implications the EF exceeded all other theatres of war taken together. I would say, it was a separate war, a war between the USSR and Nazi Germany, which eventually decided the fate of the whole WWII. Importantly, both for Germans and for ex-Soviet people the term "Soviet-German war" causes no cognitive dissonance, because it correctly reflects the essence of those times events. Importantly, this term is comparatively common in English literature [4], including the books of such notable authors as David Glantz. Interestingly, some authors directly combine the two terms, e.g. "Eastern front: the Soviet-German war (John Norton Westwood. Hamlyn, 1984. ISBN 0861241509, 9780861241507)
In connection to that, my proposal is to think about the following name: Eastern Front (Soviet-German war) as an alternative to EF and GPW. The advantages of this name are obvious: by contrast to GPW, it is not a local name and will cause no idiosyncrasy in Germany or Anglophone world. From other hand, it is acceptable for the ex-Soviet peoples, because they see this conflict as a war between the USSR and Germany (for instance, in Ukrainian WP the article's name is "Німецько-радянська війна", literally "German-Soviet war"). This name emphasises the role of this conflict in the WWII as whole, thereby compensating for the consequences of the Cold war mythology. And, finally, this name allows us to clearly distinguish this conflict from the Eastern Front (World War I), because the later was a conflict between Germany and Russia, not USSR . The absence of the direct reference to WWII can hardly be a counter-argument, because Pacific War also has no such reverence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument it was an effectily seperate war casues the oddity that the Murmansk convoys would have to be WW2(Eastern Front (Soviet-German war)) As both the RNB and USN as well as MM were involved in supplying supplies and equipmnet to the red army. THe USA sent more lorries to the USSR then the USSR produced 400,000 and opposed to 197,100 in 1945 something like 60% of all soviot trucks were lend lease.This also seems to ignore that the soviots (during the war) kept on talking abut the western allies launching a second front, thgus they saw their war as part of the sem war (when convieniance suited them). Perhaps Soviot front might be better.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a separate war. My point was that it was something greater than just a sub-theatre of one of WWII theatres.

The immense American economic aid during the second part of Soviet-German conflict is a well known and indisputable fact. That does not make Murmansk convoys (and, e.g. sinking of Scharnhorst) a part of EF.

"Soviet Front" is hardly acceptable, because it implies that it was a German Soviet front, therefore, is Germano-centric.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think calling it eastern front implies its some kind of sub theatre (unless your trying to say that its not part of the European theatre at all, in which case we have Europe Asia (you do now that more Chinese died then Russians so we would also have to include China as a separate theatre as well), and Russia as theatres. As to the Murmansk convoys, what front were they part of then? They are certainly not part of the western front (artic perhaps, another separate major front?). Perhaps we should call it eastern European theatre.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Added Odd as personnel serving on the Murmansk convoys were awarded the Order of the Patriotic War 1st and 2nd Class Included among them was LCDR John Corbus, USN. So why would the Soviets issue an award for participation in a conflict if those recipients wer not part of it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Chinese. Firstly, Soviet losses were greater than Chinese ones. Secondly, and more importantly, the Axis losses during the Soviet-German war were greater than the all other Axis losses taken together. Thirdly, the 1941-45 situation in China is better described with the words "stalemate", and Chinese theatre played no decisive role in the defeat of Japan.

Re Murmansk convoys. They belong to the battle of Atlantic, I think.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Arctic convoys of World War II are linked with the Eastern front, eg Convoy PQ 16 ran from Iceland to Archangel and Murmansk. The Battle of the Atlantic is about stopping materiel from reaching the UK and the Middle East and other staging posts then passing on to the USSR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The British Government treated the Artic as part of the Atlantic - sailors were awarded Atlantic Stars for their service. There were no separate naval administrative divisions as one would expect if the RN considered the theatre to be separate - the convoys were protected by the Home Fleet. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should just use whatever is most appropriate in the context of the article text, reflects the sources, and will be best understood by the average (English-speaking) reader. I don't think we should try to be too prescriptive, other than absolutely prohibiting blanket replacement of one term for another. If we can agree on some general guidance (such as the essay linked above) that would be great. If not, I guess we agree to disagree and treat each occasion on its individual merits :) EyeSerene^talk 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with your opinion. GreyHood ^Talk 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely do not agree. That is a prescription for endless edit warring, and an invitation for a user(s) in the future to begin mass-converting articles from one form to another. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if we call it the Late Unpleasantness, but I do care if there's needless turmoil. The fix for that is a clear guideline. Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This indeed is a kind of topic which will always be an attractive ground for edit warring... A scheme for a guidiline is proposed below, and it is based on the presupposition that all variants of the name have its own merits. While we should be prescriptive on specifying thes merits, we shouldn't be excessively prescriptive on limiting the usage of some variants. GreyHood ^Talk 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I'd be happy to see something along the lines of Use "Eastern Front" as a default unless there are compelling reasons to use a different term (which should be evident from the context). I guess this is a shorthand way of stating what Greyhood has laid out below - ie, what those compelling reasons for deviating from "Eastern Front" might be. I'm not sure we should be introducing novel terms to try to find a catch-all solution though. EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Terms and contexts

Actually the issue is not between two terms, the Eastern Front (World War II) and the Great Patriotic War, but between a wider group of pairs "term + usage contexts". I see it this way:

• Eastern Front (World War II):
  • should be used: in context of general articles discussing World War II, where we must speak about its fronts or theatres (e.g. World War II, History of Europe)
  • may be used: biographies of non-Soviet military personnel (e.g. Friedrich Paulus), descriptions of non-Soviet/non-post-Soviet locations (e.g. Warsaw), history articles which scope is different from Russia and post-Soviet states (e.g. Warsaw Uprising, Nazi Germany)
  • should not be used: in context when it is stylistically unacceptable (eg. during Eastern Front Soviet-German War); in contexts when the Great Patriotic War should be used (e.g. The Motherland Calls, Dmitry Shostakovich's 7th symphony)
• Soviet-German War (Eastern Front) or Eastern Front (Soviet-German War):
  • should be used: infoboxes and lede sections of articles on non-Soviet military personnel (e.g. Friedrich Paulus), non-Soviet/non-post-Soviet locations (e.g. Warsaw)
  • may be used: main body of articles on non-Soviet military personnel (e.g. Friedrich Paulus), non-Soviet/non-post-Soviet locations (e.g. Warsaw)), history articles of various scope
  • should not be used: in context when it is stylistically unacceptable (eg. during Eastern Front (Soviet-German War) Soviet-German War (Eastern Front)); in contexts when the Great Patriotic War should be used (e.g. The Motherland Calls, Dmitry Shostakovich's 7th symphony)
• Soviet-German War:
  • should be used: in case when the Great Patriotic War shouldn't be used and the Eastern Front is stylistically unacceptable (eg. during Eastern Front Soviet-German War)
  • may be used: infoboxes, biographies of Soviet or non-Soviet military personnel (e.g. Georgy Zhukov, Friedrich Paulus), descriptions of Soviet or non-Soviet/non-post-Soviet locations (Warsaw, Volgograd), history articles of various scope
  • should not be used: in context of general articles about World War II, where we must speak about its fronts or theatres (e.g. World War II, History of Europe)
• Soviet-German War (Great Patriotic War) or Great Patriotic War (Soviet-German War):
  • should be used: infoboxes and lede sections of articles on Soviet military personnel (e.g. Georgy Zhukov, Vasily Zaitsev), Soviet/post-Soviet locations (e.g. Prokhorovka, Volgograd), history articles which scope is mostly limited to Russia and post-Soviet states (e.g. History of the Soviet Union)
  • may be used: main body of articles on Soviet military personnel (e.g. Georgy Zhukov, Vasily Zaitsev), Soviet/post-Soviet locations (e.g. Prokhorovka, Volgograd), history articles which scope is mostly limited to Russia and post-Soviet states (e.g. History of the Soviet Union)
  • should not be used: biographies of non-Soviet military personnel, descriptions of non-Soviet/non-post-Soviet locations, history articles which scope is different (e.g. Warsaw Uprising, Nazi Germany) or much wider than Russia and post-Soviet states (e.g. World War II)
• Great Patriotic War:
  • should be used - quotations, descriptions of Soviet/post-Soviet war memorials (e.g. The Motherland Calls) and works of art (e.g. Dmitry Shostakovich's 7th symphony)
  • may be used - biographies of Soviet military personnel (e.g. Georgy Zhukov, Vasily Zaitsev), descriptions of Soviet/post-Soviet locations (e.g. Prokhorovka, Volgograd), history articles which scope is mostly limited to Russia and post-Soviet states (e.g. History of the Soviet Union)
  • should not be used - infoboxes, biographies of non-Soviet military personnel, descriptions of non-Soviet/non-post-Soviet locations, history articles which scope is different (e.g. Warsaw Uprising, Nazi Germany) or much wider than Russia and post-Soviet states (e.g. World War II)

There may be disagreement between the editors about the specific contents of this scheme, but I think that the scheme itself is among the best ways to formalise the usage of the terms discussed. GreyHood ^Talk 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Which would then produce the interesting effect of meaning that Von Paulus is a veteran of Soviet-German War whilst potentially Nikita Khrushchev would be a vetran of the Great patriotic war. I thougth we supposed to impart knowegde not confuse the hell out of non-experts.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, but Von Paulus indeed was a veteran of Soviet-German War whilst Nikita Khrushchev indeed was a veteran of the Great patriotic war OR Soviet-German War in other terminology, and you can do nothing with that. Note that I've proposed not to use GPW in the infoboxes and in other such formal descriptions. But when it comes to less prescriptive parts of an article, I see no strong enough reasons why should we totally exclude one of the terms when both of them are present in usage and in the literature. Even if someone is get confused, he can sort the things out by few clicks and a bit of reading. GreyHood ^Talk 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with GreyHood, although it would be more correct to say that "Von Paulus indeed was a veteran of Soviet-German War (Eastern Front) whilst Nikita Khrushchev indeed was a veteran of the Great patriotic war (Soviet-German War)". If multiple names are used by the sources, Wikipedia should reflect that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems an interesting idea. Perhaps using the GPW or EF always in pair with the Soviet German War may be a bit excessive sometimes, and not always stylistically good, but certainly this is a step towards less confusion and more uniform usage. I think that this way it may be rendered in infoboxes and when it is mentioned in an article for the first time, but there is no need to use brackets in every instance of reference to EF/SGW/GPW. GreyHood ^Talk 23:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Using Sov-Ger War is unusual to me, but it does solve the problem. I also agree, using "GPW (SGW)" or "SGW (GPW)" makes a lot more sense than either alone for the non-expert. (I can picture even some not immediately recognizing "SGW". I wouldn't.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to insert the combined terms proposed by Paul Siebert and their usage into the scheme. GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found that Soviet-German War is almost unused in English-language literature and that Eastern Front (WW2) is far more often used, so I doubt that I'll be using the former. I do agree that GPW has some merit for Soviet-oriented articles, just not the ones discussing the war itself. It's fine for discussing how the Soviets/Russians remember the war and other types of cultural history, but not as a generic term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Make this simple please... Just use WWII and Eastern Front, if the russians want Great Patriotic War, goto the Russkie Wikipedia. GPW is leaning toward the Russian and Soviet point of view, while WWII is generally accepted everywhere except there. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please retract your racist offensive comment. Besides, they are not in line with Wikipedia's core policies of WP:Neutral point-of-view and WP:Anyone can edit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

World War II and Eastern Front are accepted in Russia as well. But their meaning is different from the Great Patriotic War, both in Russia and elsewhere. The Eastern Front includes the German invasion of Poland, and actually this is one more argument why the German-Soviet War or the Great Patriotic War are better terms. GreyHood ^Talk 13:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But the invasion of Poland was part of WW2. Just becasue the Soviots wnat to pretend its not does not mean that no one else should.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That was more occupation than invasion, not much fighting there. And no one pretends it wasn't a part of World War II, and geographically it was a part of EF. GPW, however, is a different period of WWII and the history of EF. GreyHood ^Talk 15:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I do like the way the suggestion has been laid out. I like the good thought that has gone into it, and it basically makes sense. I'm not certain that it's not a bit too complicated, don't much like "Russian-German War", and am very leery of "may be used..." constructs, as this doesn't prevent edit warring. At any rate, I'm not sure how to go about getting consensus for this. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not "Russian-German War", but "Soviet-German War", which is proposed to use in combination with EF or GPW, like some of the authors already do (see Paul Siebert's comments). And I think that the first thing about which we should reach a consensus, is the recognition of the fact that both EF and GPW are present in the literature and on the internet in huge quantities, and we shouldn't be too much prescriptive on their usage and we shouldn't try to eliminate one term in the favour of the other. GreyHood ^Talk 13:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But which is more common in English langiage sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Google hits on the "Eastern Front" - about 993,000 results. This includes, however, Eastern Front (World War I), Eastern Front (Sudan) and Eastern Front (video game). So, I do think the Eastern Front (World War II) is used 2 to 3 three times more often then GPW.

Google hits on the "German-Soviet War" - about 468,000 results. "Soviet-German War" gives additional 28,000 results.

Google hits on the "Great Patriotic War" - about 253,000 results.

These figures don't say anything about contexts of usage. However they clearly do show, that while GPW and GSW are at least two times less popular each than EF, they are still used very often and shouldn't be disregarded too much in the favour of EF. I believe the scheme proposed by me will reflect the proportion EF:GSW:GPW = 2:1:1. It ensures that EF is preferable in the highest-hit general articles, such as World War II. EF is also preferable, may be in combination with GSW, in the articles about non-Soviet military and locations. The rest goes to GSW, GPW (GSW) and GPW. GreyHood ^Talk 15:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I quick look at those results showed that about half the hits for "German-Soviet war" were down to Gary Grigsby's book "War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945". 3,000 down to webpages using wikipedia, and using -torrent another 4,000 disappeared. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, on the "German-Soviet War" Google gives 468,000 results now. And there are 139,000 results on the German-Soviet War Gary Grigsby. So the balance seems to remain the same or even improved towards more significance ow GSW, if we take Google as a representative source at all. As for the pages using Wikipedia, I believe there is the same situation with EF and GPW, this doesn't change much. GreyHood ^Talk 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And doing the same thing throws up 990,000 for “eastern front” http://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22eastern+front%22&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1152&bih=648&prmd=ivnb&ei=E0npTPL8E8OChQf35PgO&start=190&sa=N&fp=77d6be66f75eb368 So it stays about 2 to 1 in favour of Eastern front, the most popular English language name.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the point of this your comment. I've already wrote about 993,000 ghits on the Eastern Front above. GreyHood ^Talk 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out it stays at about 2 to 1. Rather then beiong an improvment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Using "eastern front" with "-wikipedia" I got over 8,000,000. I think the ghits need to be carefully examined rather than depended on. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I wuld agree, but even if we accept a wide margin of error that would apply just as much to German-Russian war (which will trow up WW1 hits and Great Patriotic war (which I beleive has been aplied to otehr wars as well). But we don't really have any other way of dertetmingn it, oterh then books searches.Goggle books hits 291,000 results "Eastern front" http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22Eastern+front%22&wrapid=tlif12903591473211&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep. "GERMAN SOVIET WAR" 6,630 http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22Eastern+front%22&wrapid=tlif12903591473211&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep#hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&tbs=bks:1&&sa=X&ei=yFHpTLOYH4mChQfitLwP&ved=0CCkQBSgA&q=%22GERMAN+SOVIET+WAR%22&spell=1&fp=877e0732892b3382 "GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" 89,900 results http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22Eastern+front%22&wrapid=tlif12903591473211&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep#hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&tbs=bks:1&&sa=X&ei=_1HpTKDPB9O5hAfjuqSODQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQBSgA&q=%22GREAT+PATRIOTIC+WAR%22&spell=1&fp=877e0732892b3382. Goggle Scholar hits 19,600 results "Eastern front" http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Eastern+front%22+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0WAR" 431 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22GERMAN+SOVIET+WAR%22&wrapid=tlif12903594650341&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps "GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" about 8,940 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22GREAT+PATRIOTIC+WAR%22&wrapid=tlif12903591967041&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps. Of course this is not scientific after all the same cite will appear more then once. But if we only look for scholar then Eastern front wins by a margin of about 2 to 1. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

GSW might create another giant discussion (sorry for my offensive comment, i was trying to get something agreeable and fast onto the board.) over which should go first, GSW or SGW. Figure that out. Sticking to my previous comment, EF of WWII is best, since it is more commonly used. I still don't approve of GPW, except on the USSR and Red Army articles. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Black Friday (1945) now open

The featured article candidacy for Black Friday (1945) 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) 10:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relatively few comments have been made about this article's nomination - any and all would be much appreciated. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

KIA/Surrender/Executed typography

The choice of typography of the following templates should be revisited. Marcus Qwertyus 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:KIA

I don't think there is enough wide-spread recognition of the dagger symbol for KIAs. The average reader just thinks it's a cross. (KIA) should be used instead. It sisters  (DOW) and  (POW) both use an acronym.

Template:Surrender

Depicts a white flag. Pretty hard to see. Suggestions?

Template:Executed

Depicts a skull and crossbones. Arbitrary image selection and still very hard to see. Noose or something would be better if it's available in unicode.

Re {{surrender}}, its only used in three articles, so I'd TfD it.

Re {{executed}}, not used in any articles, TfD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Surrender doesn't even display on my machine, it should be noted. So it's not very universally accessable anyway. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - TFD. Neither of the last two display on my work PC, and in any case I'm not generally a fan of graphical symbols where a text label is less ambiguous. Also... the KIA symbol isn't a cross? EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I was quite surprised about that myself when i found that earlier this year!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with deleting surrender and executed, but I've opposed deleting KIA for reasons already outlined on the talk page. I don't think that KIA is a suitable replacement for pre 20th century battles. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with getting rid of {{surrender}} and {{executed}}. {{KIA}}, I'm not so sure; it's widely used, and it doesn't really make sense to me that we'd delete just that one but leave the POW and DOW ones in use. On the other hand, I have no particular objection to getting rid of all three across the board, as the usage is admittedly somewhat esoteric and probably doesn't provide much (if any) value to the average reader.

There's a parallel discussion for {{KIA}} going on at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 18#Template:KIA, incidentally; anyone interested in this matter is invited to comment there as well. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy if we killed the lot. -- saberwyn 02:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that KIA provides an interesting addition to the infobox. The death of a principal commander is often an as important outcome of a battle as the actual result - as in this example for instance. This is an example of where I don't feel that KIA is a suitable alternative to the dagger as well - KIA is too modern for such a period. I'm not set in stone about this, but I don't really see any compelling rationale to get rid of it. Surrender and executed are OTT though. Saberwyn, are you including POW and DOW in 'the lot' (just wondering)? Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a "thin end of the wedge" argument to be made for getting rid of as many of these templates as we can. If KIA and DOW, why not "Wounded"? If that, how badly? Or how about "Switched sides" or "Ran away" or any of the other myriad things that might happen to a commander during a battle? However, although I wouldn't be much concerned if all of them were deleted, from your argument I accept there may be a value in retaining "Killed" in some form. Is there a more widely useful tag that we could use in place of "KIA" or the graphical cross/dagger? EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We had a head scratch last time this was discussed on the template talk page, but didn't come up with much. I'm less worried about the others, but as I said, a commander's death in battle seems to be one of the useful things we can indicate in an infobox. DOW isn't really something to summarise in an infobox to the same extent, neither is POW really. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I did ponder a bit as to whether, even when indicated in the infobox, an explanatory footnote is advised to explain the situation. More so when I followed up the surrendered/PoW links and got to General Gamelin in the Battle of France who is marked as PoW but no reading of either article showed that he was taken prisoner. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to regular footnotes, we also have a "notes" field within the infobox itself; perhaps we could use that in some way?

I wouldn't mind simply using regular footnotes to mark KIAs and so forth; but that does have the minor disadvantage that some readers won't bother to follow them. (I'm not entirely convinced that those readers would care about KIA status in any case, of course.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion but I feel the terms KIA, POW etc. are too modern for earlier historical articles. The dagger/cross symbol has some merit as it is used in other literary contexts and therefore its meaning might quickly be grasped by a general reader (which AFAIK is why we have info boxes rather than just rely on the main text). I'm not sure there are similar symbolic convention for other terms, though.Monstrelet (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the nom's been withdrawn, but I still think that this is a conversation worth having. Especially as Surrender and Executed are barely used. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could TfD those two but, as Kirill suggested, alter the KIA template to something more suitable? If the dagger is the best symbol then fine, though until this thread I thought it was a cross (and that it indicated a footnote until the first time I clicked it). EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC) (edit: just noticed they're already at TfD :P EyeSerene^talk 10:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Inter-Service Training and Development Centre

• Inter-Service Training and Development Centre (Convenience link added EyeSerene^talk 08:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Dear Community, I have begun a page for the above ISTDC. My first page started from scratch. Please look and see that it follows all the WikiProject Military etiquette. Any critique or corrections are most welcome. Do people just up and make pages? Thanks for your attention.AmesJussellR (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a decent start. Good work. I've made a few presentation tweaks, but I don't have any content knowledge or sources. Can anyone help with possible expansion? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Military_bases_and_facilities

A few more third opinions might be helpful here. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Australian women during World War I

Hi, can anyone help clean up and expand Australian women during World War I? It is a new article created only a few days ago, which has numerous issues. I've been trying to help tighten up the writing and find references but, to be honest, I am finding it difficult to penetrate some of the hyperbole and don't really have many sources or (I'm sorry to say) even content knowledge. Any help would be greatly appreciated as it seems like reasonably important topic. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed some outright nonsense from it (such as a rather odd claim that only 'some' Australian women were unable to fight on the front line of World War I!). I suspect that the article started life as a school essay or equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It contains copyvio. Notified; rewrite from scratch. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was struck with the same thoughts when I was trying to clean it up, but didn't find anything on my searches (as I was looking mainly at Google books), so I ploughed ahead with trying fix some issues. I'd like to clarify though, are you saying that you are rewriting it currently, or are you asking someone else to do this? As I spent probably three hours in the early hours of this morning trying to fix the many problems the article had, I am not really keen to devote any more time to it. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to input into rewriting (and I know, its horrible, I saw your edit count), but maybe blank and stub is the best way forward at the moment. "Australian women's primary involvement in the first world war was in terms of military nursing. Secondarily, Australian women played significant roles in the homefront, including mobilising support for the war, fighting for and against the conscription referenda, and in the great NSW strike."? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes that might be a solution. I'm not sure if it is possible, though. Based on what the tag says, it seems to require some sort of admin action. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They need to magic the copyright problems out of the database's permanent diff record first. (Ie: superblanking) Fifelfoo (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the subsequent versions of the article were derivative of the original copyvio I've deleted the whole thing. I'm really sorry to have to do that in the light of the amount of work AustralianRupert and others put in with cleanup, but I think on balance it was the right way to go. I didn't delete the talk page because I wasn't sure what you want to do with the page, but that can go too if necessary. EyeSerene^talk 10:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was the right thing to do. Copyright violators have developed into my least favorite category of editors during this year (though the editor in question here was probably rather young based on their contributions). Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree too, but I won't be rushing to work on it again, so unless someone else wants to have a go, I'd suggest deleting the talk page too. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo has kindly added some text for a stub. Cheers, everyone. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

...and it's been CSD tagged :( EyeSerene^talk 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another reason why my enthusiasm for Wiki has been waning. Nevertheless, I've added a couple of refs and some cats. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye, it's unfortunate but it happens (the editor has apologised btw). Thank you once again for all your work :) I dropped some additional potential sources on the talk page - they may be of use to someone at some point. EyeSerene^talk 12:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your help with sorting this out. Seriously though, this is just one of a long list of things that have been making me question my time here recently. I think I need a break from Wiki for a while. Sorry if this sounds jack. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I've come close to burnout once or twice myself, especially earlier in my wikicareer, and it's perfectly natural to hit the troughs as well as the peaks. I avoid it now by trying not to edit WP at home (and never at the weekends). It seems to work for me, though I'm fortunate in that my job allows me time to edit during the day. There's certainly plenty here to dislike, but there's also much to celebrate and for me the balance is firmly on the positive side of the equation. However, if you do need a break I think the important thing is to get away before you get completely fed up with Wikipedia as a whole - once that point's been reached, in my experience with other editors I've known it's difficult to find a way back. I hope you don't mind me saying that you're one of the most decent, honourable and level-headed editors I've had the pleasure of encountering here and for my part I'd be very sorry to see you go permanently. No pressure though mate :) EyeSerene^talk 13:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I too wish it weren't so. But take a break before it is too late. I'll look forward to when it is the right time for your return. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, gents. Thanks for the encouraging words, both of you. I'm back now. Just needed a little time away from it. I will probably be limited in my contributions for a while, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio by author of own material?

Slightly unusual this. User:Lecutas has made loads of additions today to several articles on 3rd Regt RHA and it's constituent batteries, a lot of which seem to come from this publication Cairo to Berlin: The 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery 1939-1945 In June this year this user claimed to be the author of this work, J H Dey, (see User talk:Nthep#Breach of Copyright) and demanded that material from his book be removed as it was used without his permission. I'm not totally clear on the copyright position but I don't think he can choose to re-add his own copyrighted material without giving the appropriate permission i.e a Creative Commons licence, can he? Also there are references to other sources The Pride 'O' Them All and A Regiment at War to which he is ascribing his name but I can't find these books by this author. Any advice on how to proceed? NtheP (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ism the book used as a source or does it quote verbatum?Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hard to say without a copy to reference against, but read the articles yourself. From the style it certainly reads like extracts to me. NtheP (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This looks like it could be back door promotion. If you want to check you have to buy my book. I would say its down to him to demonstrate that the materail has been copied from his work without his permision. It also seems to be an SAP, maybe the usere needs banning.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

He's not complaining about it now but he was in June when it had been added by someone else. NtheP (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but can you provide the links for the original addition of his (alleged) copyrighted material. It seems to me the only addition in June was not of his material, but in April he appears to have added large chunks then added the copyright notice [5][6][7]. So it seems to me the user is playing promotional games.Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the self additions you mention I thin its this version [8] from June 2009. My reference to June this year was when he made a complaint to me of copyvio but I didn't know which article he was talking about, it might have been one of the articles on the constituent batteries rather than the main article. NtheP (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right Nthep - if he wants to reproduce his own work here he will also need to release it under the appropriate license. If his book has been published this will cause issues with his publisher, who presumably expect him not to release the text for free. However, I agree with Slatersteven that there seems to be a promotional element here, but those diffs are redlinks (have they been deleted?) We obviously welcome the contributions of experts in their field, but there's a fine line between applying your general expertise and appearing to plug your books by quoting them as sources. EyeSerene^talk 10:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The redlinks were just because double square brackets were used instead of single ones -- I have fixed them (and have so confused others that read your comments!). The major problem with using copyright material in this case is how do we know that the author and the Wikipedia ID are the same person? We can not just take the word of the user of a Wikipedia ID that they are who they say they are. The solution to this is to use the method used on the Richard Lindon article and an OTRS supplied by the Wikipedia:Volunteer response team. James Temple was an article where text had been copied from british-civil-wars website (James Temple), but the copyleft licence is not the same as Wikipedias, because british-civil-wars prohibits commercial redistribution. I had already deleted a dozen or more articles with text copied from that site and recreated them without the copyright infringement, but the article James Temple had been developed a long way from the original, but as a derived work it was not permissible to keep it. David Plant the author of british-civil-wars has a USER ID on Wikipedia called User:Digweed, but we were faced with the same problem as here how do we know that the USER ID is an account operated by David Plant? The use of OTRS solved the problem. Self promotion may be the motive in this case but there is no reason we can not use that to our mutual advantage providing the copyright issue is solved with an OTRS. In the mean time the text should be deleted while the OTRS is sought. by a user id called PBS 20:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a link to this section on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems in a section with the same name "Copyvio by author of own material?" -- PBS (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, OTRS is the way to go. Point the user towards Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Yoenit (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the copyright issue was raised here, there have been no contributions to the conversation by User:Lecutas either here or on User talk:Lecutas. So as the text placed in several articles is said by User:Lecutas to be copyrighted to J. H. Dey, and as we have no way of knowing if User:Lecutas is an account operated by J. H. Dey, I have reverted the contributions as we will need to follow the procedures outline in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials before we can input the copyrighted text. -- PBS (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks eighth, with 18999 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Its only because of the amount of conversations and traffic this page draws. Comments and talk strings are archived constantly and currently this page is only 130k. --Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Interstate TDR now open

The peer review for Interstate TDR is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We Need Your Help Please

We have begun an RFC at the Gibraltar article. The section for discussion is here. We really need a wider audience to help us with suggestions. Since this is one of the articles in your project area we would appreciate your assistance. Thanks! JodyB _talk 11:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Kapitänleutnant

I just found Kapitänleutnant redirects to Captain Lieutenant. This strikes me very odd: German rank redirecting to a Rus Navy rank? IDK how to fix it... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RFD? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have changed it to point to Lieutenant Commander, but I wasn't (& am not) certain just blindly changing it was a good idea. There had to be a rationale for pointing it as it is now... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the rationale is that Captain Lieutenant is the literal translation and to be fair that article does go on to cover the rank in services other than the Russian Navy. Perhaps, and not a decision I would want to make, most of Captain Lieutenant ought to be merged into Lieutenant Commander leaving just the historical (17th/18th C) land forces term under Captain Lieutenant. NtheP (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. I deny, however, sufficient ability to make such a move, :) so if it gets done, it'll be by somebody else. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Its probably better not to do that.

The C-L page is one of a series of pages on naval ranks which are different to those in English eg "Frigate Captain", "Ship of the line Lieutenant" etc. Various navies use these, and they all have their own names for them. Lumping them together under the English translation of the word is more economical than having separate pages for each one of each nationality, and it avoids putting, (for example) a French rank in an article under an Italian name (or vice versa).

As to your question about the article, Trek, its probably because we seem to happily use the German word, but baulk at the Russian one.

I’ve tried to rectify that, here. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Help building Judaism in the United States military, Sikhism in the United States military

I realised there isn't much coverage of some of the US religious minorities whose service in the military is affected by cultural/religious factors. So I've started Judaism in the United States military, and will also be starting Sikhism in the United States military. Any help building either of these articles would be much appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members

Given that the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members, including all transcluded pages, has a size of 90,000+ bytes, would it be wise to add a notice at the top warning people about potential lags and whatnot? (Kind of similar to the note at the top of Template talk:DYK, but perhaps a bit more detailed, maybe make it a bordered box?) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, maybe test it out on IE, Safari, Firefox, Chrome and Opera and then put the results into something like the editnotice for this page. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Front (World War II)

Hi, I have a few questions regarding this category tree:

1. "World war II" is a subcategory of "Military history of <Country>" (via "Wars involving <Country>"). This results in, say, Poston War Relocation Center being part of "Military history of Romania" Is this a bug or a feature?
2. "Military history of Bulgaria during World War II", "Military history of Poland during World War II", "Yugoslavia during World War II", "Eastern European World War II resistance movements " are included into "Eastern Front (World War II)" and again into "World War II Eastern European Theatre". Can anyone explain the need for two of these cats (EF(WWII) and WWIIEET)?
3. What purpose serves the "Soviet–German War" category? It is redundant with "Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II" and currently contains some copies of other branches of the tree. --illythr (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above (#Great_Patriotic_War_vs._World_War_II) may be relevant here. It certainly looks like there is some duplication and redundancy in the cats, but I don't think anything has been agreed yet about naming so it may be best to wait on the outcome of the project discussion. EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

UAVs at CFD

Just a heads-up for everybody, Category:UAVs and drones is up for discussion at Categories for discussion, more comments if anybody feels like it would be appreciated (and see also this. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Motor Landing Craft

• Motor Landing Craft (Convenience link added)

Dear Community, I have begun a page for the above Motor Landing Craftof 1926 (I believe the first purpose built landing craft to land a tank. My second page started from scratch. Please look and see that it follows all the WikiProject Military etiquette. Any critique or corrections are most welcome. Thanks for your attention.AmesJussellR (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me - great work. I've just removed the placeholder blank image coding as it was causing the infobox to expand. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Battles by people

I suspect that this was proposed or discussed before, but why aren't there categories by people? Such as "Battles involving Napoleon", "Battles involving Alexander the Great", "Battles involving George Washington", "Battles involving Simón Bolívar", etc. MBelgrano (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was ever really discussed at any length, but the obvious reason would be the fact that there's no clear divide between military leaders who ought to have such categories and those who don't. "Battles involving Napoleon" is easy; but would we take this down, to, say, "Battles involving Richard Winters"? If we do, then we're setting ourselves up to create hundreds of categories, particularly for WWI and WWII battles where participation by lower-ranking officers is well-documented; if we don't, then we're going to spend a great deal of time arguing over which personnel "deserve" such categorization.

Keep in mind, incidentally, that we do have some elements of this in the template system; see, for example, {{Campaignbox Alexander's Persian campaigns}}. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We can choose to categorize only by commanders. In most battles, the specific commanders of a given battle are two (one for each side) or a very short number of people. If we set aside lower-rank officers, or people who was at a battle as a mere soldier and became a commander later in his career, and consider as well the already written guideline that does not allow categories of very few elements and no potencial to grow, we could easily set a clear and objetive difference between the Napoleons and the "unknown soldiers". MBelgrano (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that still leaves the question of how far down the chain of command one goes. Particularly for modern, large-scale battles, do we list only army commanders? Corps commanders? Division commanders? For something like, say, the Battle of the Bulge, we could be looking at dozens of important figures involved. To make things more complicated, in many cases military leaders are known in large part for the subsidiary commands they held, so limiting the categorization only to the top-level commanders in each battle would create bizarre scenarios as well; for example, Nelson's role in the Battle of Copenhagen would be omitted, as would Jackson's in the Battle of Chancellorsville.

On a slightly more pedantic note, if we're going to limit this to command staff only, "battles involving X" doesn't seem like the best wording, since mere soldiers are also involved. I'd be tempted to go with the more traditional "battles fought by X", but I'm not sure how clear that will be either. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Project incubator launched

As part of our ongoing efforts to make the project's infrastructure simpler and easier to use, we've set up an incubator within the strategy think tank. The incubator will act as a central host for new initiatives—such as proposed task forces, special projects, and other groups—as they gather interest and evolve into more permanent elements of the project's infrastructure.

Over the next few weeks, we will be rolling the remnants of the existing "working group" system into the new incubator page model. In the meantime, anyone who has an idea for a new group, or who has been running a small group out of their user space, is encouraged to make use of the incubator. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Black Project report

I apologize for the tardiness in this report, but as they say better late than never. I have taken another lap around the black project pages and I make the following findings related to them:

• We need to establish some sort of criteria for determining at what point a black project ceases to be black; for example, the B-2 was born as a black project but is not longer black, therefore should it still be included in the list or should it be moved to a more appropriate area of coverage?
• The article Nazi UFOs has disappeared from the category, and the article now postulates that the craft in question are more science fiction than science fact, but its still tagged as being within our scope, and therefore I am going to retain the article on the list since I feel that the article is better tracked from our angle as a black project. Objections?

Also, I would like to ask for input concerning the following sources currently in use:

• From our own black project pages, the external links in the references section could use fresh eyes to make sure that they still meet WP:RS standards by current criteria.
• Atlas Carver 2 links, both from flightglobal.com: [9], [10]
• Aurora aircraft forum.x-plane.org, bisbos.com, aerospaceweb.org, aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk, abovetopsecret.com, area51zone.com
• Black project dangerous travel.blogspot.com, thestealthblimp.com
• Blackstar (spaceplane) robotpig.net
• Corona (satellite) theblackvault.com
• KH-13 zen32156.zen.co.uk, satobs.org
• KH-7 GAMBIT thespacereview.com
• Lacrosse (satellite) satobs.org, heavens-above.com
• Lenticular Reentry Vehicle designation-systems.net, english.pravda.ru
• Lockheed D-21/M-21 vectorsite.net, museumofflight.org, muller.lbl.gov, designation-system.net, wvi.com,
• Lockheed Have Blue home.att.net, area51specialprojects.com
• Manned Spaceflight Engineer Program epizodsspace.testpilot.ru
• Nazi UFOs nizkor.org, german-discs.net
• Project Silverbug abovetopsecret.com
• TR-3A Black Manta w2.eff.org, area51zone.com

For the Black Project working group, TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to very highly state that both designation-systems.net and vectorsite.net are Reliable Sources - they both state their own sources very clearly. abotetopsecret.com, however...I've heard tales that it's rather more a "lunatic fringe" type of site... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the Atlas Carver was ever really a 'black project' given that it's development was reported in the international press. Flightglobal looks like a good source to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Flightglobal should be considered a RS as well. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with pravda.ru ? It's a regular Russian newspaper. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It was also the official newspaper of the Soviet Union's Communist Party until 1991, and many of the same writers who worked for them went on to found the online Pravda. The words "tabloid" and "sensationalist" also pop up. At least according to the Pravda article...) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean we can't use Fox News as an RS? 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In my view, yes. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree, unless we're using it as a source for what Fox News itself said about something. It has a fairly well-documented conservative bias and has been criticised for spinning stories. EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And MSNBC spins them the other way. Beware the media, regardless of what "side" they are on, for they tell you what they want you to hear! (Plus, they think you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Space Review is fairly reliable (editorial oversight, etc). Certainly this specific article is fine - Dwayne Day is a pretty good writer on the field. Shimgray | talk | 10:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict categories by year

Has there been some discussion here as to when conflict categories should cover a single year, and when they should cover longer time periods. For example, I notice there is a parent category called Category: 1410s conflicts which only has about 20 entries when a number of the individual year sub-categories (e.g. Category:Conflicts in 1412) have only one entry, and these are unlikely to grow in number, so are all the individual year categories needed? Eldumpo (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they're primarily there as part of a cross-referencing to the overall by-year category scheme (Category:1412, etc.). They probably wouldn't be necessary simply to subdivide the conflict categories themselves, but they do seem to provide some useful navigation across the entire category structure. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Crimp now open

The A-Class review for Operation Crimp is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Sangju (1950) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Sangju (1950) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Ebelsberg now open

The peer review for Battle of Ebelsberg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Partner peer review for MUD now open

The peer review for MUD, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OR on the Blitz - second opinion appreciated

Hi all.

My daily reading today threw up this post critiquing our article on the Blitz, which seems to me to be pretty to the point. I've removed the offending section pending discussion, but a few more eyeballs wouldn't hurt. Shimgray | talk | 21:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Korean War -- is there an end in sight 55 years later?

With the recent (November 2010) skirmishes between nK & sK, a flurry of edits has taken place. One thing I've noticed is how these various incidents get added to the Korean War templates, categories, and articles, 55 years after the s:Korean Armistice Agreement was signed. Part of the situation revolves around the fact that the Korean War ended with Armistice, which certain editors interpret as a ceasefire and which, in turn, leads to a conclusion in their minds that the Koreans are "technically" still at war with each other. Their biggest argument is that no Peace Treaty was ever signed between the two Koreas. True, the Koreans have had fighting and provocations along the DMZ and NLL for years. At the same time, there is ample WP:RS to say the Korean War ended in 1953. They have had diplomatic visits & talks, trade & tourism, and sports (Olympic) cooperation over the years. This is ample evidence to support the "truth" that the Korean War ended with the Armistice. (Much discussion has taken place in article edits and talk pages, and rather than continue to rehash that discussion here, I invite WikiProject Military History editors to look at those talk pages.) SO I ASK -- shouldn't WP:MIL be involved in this process? In my very quick review, I don't see KW articles as part of the main concern for WP:MIL. (Yes, I see there are huge backlogs!) With this in mind, I ask for a WP:MHPR of these concerns. (And I'll probably be tagging some articles asking for WP:MHPR.) Please help -- establishing an end to the KW will do a lot towards preventing this mess from getting worse. (Or has KW become the forgotten war in more than one sense?) Thanks for your help in this regard. --S. Rich (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There's also plenty of reliable sources to indicate that while de facto the war ended in 1953, de jure it is still in progress. Despite the lack of open hostilities, legally, the two Koreas are still at war. Which, to be completely clear how I stand, though, does not mean more recent incidents should be considered "part of the Korean War"! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

looking for a reference on Third Reich military batons

I just did a fair amount of structuring and copy editing at baton (symbol). The article lacks references and is mostly details of the bejewelled field marshal Nazi batons. If you all have any refs or know how to find refs describing these objects, would appreciate adding them to the article. I tried and came up empty. TCO (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tracked vehicle up for deletion

FYI, Tracked vehicle has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)