Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The June newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal • Military logistics • Brighton hotel bombing Good article nominees Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • John S. McCain Sr. • HMS Trent (1796) • Eleanor of Castile • Battle of Durazzo (1376) • Charles Upham • Giado concentration camp • The Motherland Calls Good article reassessments Galatian War • Franklin's lost expedition • Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Joe Rice Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,631) • only work on referencing and citation (43,156) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,774) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,692) • work on structure (31,806) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,174) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,796) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (658) • assessment as lists (121) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (4) • task forces added (289) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Gettysburg articles

I recently came across the following articles recently:

• Anderson's assault
• Crawford's charge
• Johnson's assault
• McLaws' Assault

I was wondering if it is necessary to include articles about the actions of individual divisions at Gettysburg. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of prose, refs and nice maps there.. well 3 anyway.. would be terrible to lose any, but they probably should be merged into the main article, which isn't terribly long, and redirect them to it. Might need to go via WP:PM to make sure no one objects, though, to avoid disputes afterwards if it's done without consensus. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I also found a few other articles here and was wondering if these places were notable enough to warrent an article:

• Big Round Top Observation Tower Foundation Ruin
• Consecration of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg - wondering if we need both this article and the Gettysburg Address.
• The Peach Orchard
• Knoxlyn Ridge (apparently its only use was a staging area for Confederate attacks).
  • • • Blocher's Run
• Guinn Run
• Rose Run
• Winebrenner Run

Apparently, most of these articles were created by Target for Today (talk). Other than they are all connected to the Gettysburg battlefield, I don't see much reason for keeping them, unless someone else thinks otherwise. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The last 5 (stubs) seem a bit scrappy and lacking. I personally wouldn't merge the consecration and Address. One is a notable event which might have been better suited at the end of the Battle of article, one is a highly notable speech which certainly warrants an article of its own. Not sure about the Observation Tower. Seems to be more an inherited notability than having notability of its own. Also probably better suited in the Battle of article, some heading like "Modern day battlefield" with details of its observation points, visitor center, tours, etc, but non-promo. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I also found these articles which look to me like canidates for deletion:

• Zeigler's Grove
• Wheatfield Road
• White Run (Rock Creek)
• Stevens Run (Rock Creek)
• Stevens Knoll
• Spangler Spring Run
• Spangler Woods
• Spangler Spring
• Barlow Knoll

Do anyone else think these should be deleted? Wild Wolf (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

All are stubs. However, I could add a substantial amount of information from my personal family website about Barlow Knoll, where two of my ancestors fought David and Thomas Moll. The source of that page being the 1909 History of the 153d Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a brief look at Target for Today's contribs. It seems he's adding a lot of Gettysburg stubs and fairly insignificant categories, which are now being nominated for deletion, by other editors, as people feel there are too many or they don't serve a purpose. Might be useful to reel him into a discussion here and plan a more objective approach: instead of a plethora of stubs, one substantial article, which might actually attain A-class and GA status, would be better. Several of these could easily be merged into the Gettysburg battlefield article to make it a lengthy, centralised article. When you tour a battlefield like that, you usually want to see it all, you don't go to one small area then done. Same for wiki. Redirect these to that one and give a bigger picture. Focusing on small zones is not really achieving anything, imo.. though the information is still valid, the splits are not as notable compared to merging them into one nice detailed article. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 15:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea if some more expert editors looked at the categories being created starting at Category:Gettysburg Campaign working down to come up with a plan of how best to fit the articles in them into an appropriate categorization scheme. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have put some of these pages up for deletion; please comment on the deletion log page. I will also alert Target for Today. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional articles have been put up for deletion on this page. Any and all feedback will be welcome. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that on some of the first round of deletions I put up, The Bushranger suggested merging some of the pages (like Zeigler's Grove, Rose Run, and Knoxlyn Ridge) into a single article like "List of minor locations of the Gettysburg Battlefield". Sound like a good idea to anyone else? Wild Wolf (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TROUT to this idea, which was provided without rationale by the article nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeigler's Grove and by the endorser who placed it here. Problems that indicate such an article is ridiculous:
  1. Scope: In what way are the areas minor, e.g., horticulturally: are we going to have the area with the tree dedicated to Eisenhower's WWII leadership (clearly a minor area) and areas not related to trees listed together? Ditto for all the other types of areas. There are probably 100,000 distinguishable areas on the Gettysburg Battlefield which spans about 4 miles north-south and 10 miles east-west (some modernists want to mistakenly include the Battle of Hunterstown battlefield), and just the ones in the borough are so numerous that it is ridiculous to try to list them. For example, the area of each monument is notable (that's why a monument was placed there), and the area of each marker is notable (Ditto), and the area of each battlefield burial site before the site's bodies were exumed… one can go on for such types in the dozens. Just the individual archeological areas (e.g., each lunette and other earthworks) are separate places and extensive enough for their own list:

List of Gettysburg Battlefield earthworks (cf. Fort Mill Ridge Civil War Trenches)

List of Gettysburg Battlefield ecoregions

List of Gettysburg Battlefield artillery locations

List of Gettysburg Battlefield sniper locations

List of Gettysburg Battlefield … [on and on]

2. Definition: What is the cut-off point for "minor"--is it where a sub-engagement of the battle was held--as by definition, the Gettysburg Battlefield is an entire specific region of military engagments over the 3 days, i.e., the major area. Is the minor definition by non-contiguous location (the areas outside of the largest area--called "Infantry area" during the commemorative era--, e.g., first shot area, area of the east cavalry battle, etc.). Will the smaller areas of the minor areas (sub-minor? areas) which are also notable (i.e., meet the wikipedia notability requirement for an article) be listed in separate list articles?:

List of military engagement areas of the Gettysburg Battlefield

List of post-battle encampment areas of the Gettysburg Battlefield

List of visitor service areas of the Gettysburg Battlefield (toilets et al)

List of parking areas of the Gettysburg Battlefield

List of Gettysburg Battlefield areas visited by presidents
…

3. Content: The size of this article will be extensive since the notable information in the articles proposed for deletion (and recommended for this list article) is extensive--just look at The Peach Orchard, which has extensive historical information. Of course the notability of each area meets the criteria for having separate articles, so of course the list isn't necessary--there's a category that lists the articles for the Gettysburg Battlefield: people, landforms, etc.
4. Notability: Having a list for Gettysburg Battlefield areas, as with all the lists of NRHPs, is by definition, identifying the areas are notable. Why not a list for the "major areas", as they are of course, more significant in some major way--clearly if that list isn't needed, then the "minor areas" list isn't needed.
5. Validity: Is expanding the "List of minor…" article/category tree also valid for the following non-places and for the following higher-level places? This recommendation opens the whole wikipedia sub-namespace for "minor" topics to include articles such as List of minor military engagements during the Battle of Gettysburg (e.g., Confederate Private Able killed Union Private Baker at the woodshed of the Charlie house on Delta street in Gettysburg on the afternoon of July 1 where they engaged in hand-to-hand combat with bayonets.) et al:

List of minor figures of the Gettysburg Battlefield

List of minor events on the Gettysburg Battlefield

List of minor places of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

List of minor places of Adams County, Pennsylvania

List of minor places of Pennsylvania
…

Category:Lists of minor places by county

Category:Lists of minor places by state
…

Category:Lists of minor places by continent

Category:Lists of minor places by planet

Category:Lists of minor places by galaxy

Category:Lists of minor places by constellation

6. Naming: Why have the extraneous "lists of…" wording -- the unreasonable proposed article is solely about Minor places of the Gettysburg Battlefield (the category tree is Category:Places, not Category:Areas, etc.
Again, WP:TROUT for proposing the list article and even moreso for deleting the notable articles. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not just toss them into Gettysburg battlefield? I doubt anyone is ever going to search for "minor locations" anywhere in the world, as the term is somewhat ambiguous and subjective, imo, and I'm not sure if it would improve their notability as much as if under the main title. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Because per WP:MOS, Gettysburg Battlefield is a main article and is not to have the level of detail of its sub-articles, which meet the WP:NOTABILITY requirements. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

With the deletion proposals, there seems to be much support with keeping the streams articles as part of the Rivers and Pennsylvania WikiProjects but there are few comments on the others. Perhaps, as MarcusBritish suggested, the other geographical features should be redirected to the Gettysburg Battlefield article, since many of these, such as the Slaughter Pen and Excelsior Field, were the focus of the actions of only three or four regiments in total, and others, such as Knoxlyn Ridge and Warfield Ridge, only served as staging areas for assaults and saw no military action. The following setup might work:
Redirect and merge into Gettysburg Battlefield:

• Biesecker Woods
• Excelsior Field
• Knoxlyn Ridge
• Lohr's Hill
• McMillan Woods
• Plum Run (White Run)
• Rose Run
• Slaughter Pen
• Spangler Spring
• Spangler Woods
• Stevens Knoll
• Warfield Ridge
• Wheatfield Road
• Zeigler's Grove

Keep but remove from Gettysburg Campaign categories:

• Guinn Run
• Pitzer Run
• Spangler Spring Run
• Stevens Run (Rock Creek)
• White Run (Rock Creek)
• Winebrenner Run

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day:

• Anderson's assault
• McLaws' Assault
• Johnson's assault
• Crawford's charge
• Battle of East Cemetery Hill

Any comments? Wild Wolf (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're happy doing that, I'm happy to support it! Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 08:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be increased interest in deleting some of the Places of the Battlefield entries, so I'll wait a few days to see how it turns out before creating the mergal proposals. Wild Wolf (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put up a couple of categories up for deletion here. Any comments would be appreciated. I will try to get to merging the Second Day articles later today. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added additional articles here. Any comments would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to maneuver through this blizzard of proposals and update all of the appropriate comment pages. But let me say in general that I support Wild Wolf's attempts to clean up this area and remove or merge all of the splintered articles about micro subjects relating to Gettysburg. The strategic and tactical description of the Battle of Gettysburg has already been split into an overview article, nine major subarticles (first day, second day, Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Little Round Top, third day cavalry battles, Pickett's Charge, Union OOB, Confederate OOB), and two campaign articles. This is substantially more detail than is written for any other American Civil War battle. Breaking down the description into even more subarticles does not make it any easier for the reader to understand this important battle. Furthermore, the minor streets, streams, and hills in the Gettysburg area have virtually zero notability outside of their involvement in the tactical details of the battle. The appropriate place to describe features such as Winebrenner Run or Wheatfield Road is in the related battle subarticle, not articles of their own. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -- I urge the nominator, in the strongest possible terms, to hold back from ever considering making another nomination for deletion, unless they learn how to do a web search first, to determine whether or not WP:Reliable sources cover the topic of the article. Just a few seconds showed me RS existed. I added three references. Geo Swan (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:BEFORE should have been done... --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC) The above 2 posts pasted here from the an article's delete discussion. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase Blueboar, "The question here is not whether Wikipedia should discuss this (place) or not... the issue is whether it should have a stand-alone article devoted to it. Information is always best when presented in context... the existence of this (place) is trivial, except in the context of the civil war battlefield. Placed in the context of the battlefield it is worth mentioning." This is why I nominated so many articles, since having these articles contributes nothing to the understanding of the battle or battlefield and these places didn't have any impact at all on how the battle played out. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Gettysburg categories

While we're on the discussion of Gettysburg articles, perhaps we should also talk a look at the categories of the Gettysburg Campaign and decide which ones are really necessary. There seems to me to be a case of overcategorization here. I have already nominated Category:Gettysburg Campaign military engagements in Pennsylvania for merging on this page, along with Category:Gettysburg Battlefield woods. I have also nominated additional categories here on this page. Any comments would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We are finding whole rickety category structures being created to support some of the low level categories (for example, see the mass nomination I made at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 19#Category:Military sites by country to get a picture of how one such tree sprang up) which in turn are used for some of the small articles discussed in the previous section. There is also a set of cold war categories, mostly from the same person, which look much the same in terms of excess. I've put this to AN/I as people have complained about this to him/her to no avail. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Made my views known, as there appear to some over reactions on AN/I. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In the Category:Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, there are some early 20th century military camps (mostly connected with WWI and WWII) included. Should these be removed, since they have little to do with the Civil War era sites on the battlefield? Wild Wolf (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments

I wanted to bring up the articles in this category, which seem to be mostly the work of Target for Today. I was wondering if it might be better if all of these articles were merged into a single article (perhaps entitled "Monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield"). The momument of the 11th Mississippi is just a small stone slab, while there are two other articles on the monuments of single regiments (the 72nd PA and 44th NY). This seems to be overkill on coverage of the battlefield. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It would make a certain sense, especially since some of the memorials have intertwined histories (e.g. the two Pa. memorials). The main impediment is that Eternal Light Peace Memorial is something of a monument to overcitation (and it's worse than it looks at first, because a lot of the citations are embedded links that don't appear in the references list). Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any problem to removing any unnecessary citations from this article? For example the sentence "President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived at a temporary platform[21] on his special train via the Reading RR from the North[22] after leaving Springwood at Hyde Park NY[23] that morning.[24]" has four cites, which could be reduced to a single citation at the end of the sentence. (Surely FDR arriving at a platform doesn't needed a citation of its own.) Wild Wolf (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No one has opposed this proposal, so I'm going to create the page Monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield using the three regimental monuments pages and adding tags to the other articles proposing a merge with this page. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

hi, i tend to agree with the merger of markers, but would prefer that notable statuary monuments be separate. (iconic enough for coinage) especially when they are on the Smithsonian database. some even rise to the level of the national register. a comprehensive list would be nice too with gps. (might make a nice walking tour) Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ACW stubs

I've been going through some of the ACW task force's stubs and found that some of the articles with stub tags are long enough to be start class. Also, several articles which were classes as stubs on their talk pages were too long to be stubs when I checked the articles. Other pages which actually were stubs didn't have stub tags on the article page. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and edit accordingly. I find that stubs are often not reasessed when they are expanded. But also be cautious - unstructured, unreferenced material does not automatically become a start because it is longer. As the definition of a stub says "It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible."Monstrelet (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing these - it's a long-term maintenance task that takes quite a while to bring up to date. (By my estimates, at least 10% of stub-tagged or stub-rated articles are start-class.) As Monstrelet says, many people don't change the rating themselves after improvement - some don't realise they can, some don't realise there are talkpage ratings, some don't think they're "allowed" to... often, if it's a series of successive small improvements, any individual editor may not think they've "destubbed" it themselves, but the cumulative effect is there. As there's no mechanism for systematically regrading articles, it basically relies on them being caught manually. Shimgray | talk | 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going through these articles but since there are over 2,200 articles in the ACW task force assessed as stubs, it would be nice if I had some help going through all of them. Also, I noticed several articles which are assessed start class which might be better assessed as C or B class (and there are probably some C class which are actually B class). 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are 600 or so 701 articles that have already been assessed, and pretty much accurately: User:MarcusBritish/ACWR If you do review and change the class of any of these, please can you update the table by adding a tick to the new class, but please don't remove the "initial" ticks. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 15:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just ran a count and 145 of those 701 Regiment articles from Dyer's Compendium are Stubs. Well... I suppose that save you checking 7% of those 2,200 again, lol.. every bit helps. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been running through these articles in the ACW stub class category and found many to be start class, not stubs. Still got several hundred to go through. There might be a B-class backlog reduction drive in March; if so, this might be a good place to start, trying to improve at least some of these articles to B-class. (Some of the unit stubs could be improved to start class with a simple internet search. I can do some once I get through with the Gettysburg controversy). Wild Wolf (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the IP contributor there has stopped bothering with us, seems to have taken the huff over something.. so I don't know if they plan to continue with those stubs. I guess not, though. I would imagine, with the vast amount of literature available on the ACW, that books would provide better material and sources for upgrading some of the stubs to B-class; although there is a lot of good history material online, I find a lot of the references gathered from a basic Google search get challenged come ACR, GAR, etc. It takes time to sift through Google results these days.. all the commerical and amateur crap, old 404s, unsourced claims, etc, leaves perhaps one reliable site in 100. Backlog reduction drives are one thing, but if it means a lot of editors are simply using Google and referencing whatever they can find online, rather than engaging in dedicated research through books and records, and expressing their understanding by writing prose with genuine interest, I feel the effort is somewhat artificial and unproductive. To use an analogy: anyone can put a quick coat of paint over a bare wall, but it takes time and effort to properly paper one. I'd rather spend a month writing and developing one GA article than a month trying to raise 100 from Start to B with less effort per page. That's just my practice, though.. given that you have worked on a lot of ACW articles, I expect you have books and reliable sources in mind that would be beneficial rather than padding. I have about 30 good ACW books myself, and when I've finished, or need a break from, working on Napoleonic stuff, I might lend a hand with ACW material, as it's been a while. Adam and I have about 700 regiment articles to worry about also. That's a big job! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

With the internet search, I was referring to getting stubs up to start class (perhaps C), using books to get them up to B-class. (Sorry I wasn't clear on that.) I've got a collection of my own, and I live within driving distance of three libraries with good collections of Civil War books. I'm steadily working on improving articles to B-class but with other personal commitments it's slow going. Can't seem to improve articles to GA though; apparently a good B-class is not necessarily GA ready. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GA is somewhere around A-class, aiming for FA but not as close, I think. GAs are a bit more speculative than classed articles, as they don't need to meet various MOS standards or as heavily referenced, in some cases. I think, with MilHist having some of the strictest criteria of any WikiProject, that an A-class MilHist is far close to GA than a lot of other project GAs, which is why we attain them in large numbers, because there's lot less to do to round-off an article for GAN once it is rated A-class by our members. Some members do it the other way round, they attain GA, then go for ACR and sometimes find that they still have to improve the article a little to get a GA to meet ACR approval. Most MilHist members seem keen to get the double A/GA reviews under their belt, and I don't blame them. Also, one reviewer can pass a GA, ACR needs 3 supporting reviews, which makes ACR a little more involved. GA is going to be an easy process if you've passed the ACR first, I find, and a lot of GA reviewers are not experts in any one topic, they review by criteria/content alone without WikiProject interests in mind, unless the article is really involved and needs a second opinion. But being impartial does mean you get an honest GAR, I find. I would try to avoid making GAN during GA drives also.. again, there is always going to be the odd reviewer more interested in boosting their own numbers than genuinely improving content. I prefer a reviewer with the interests of the project at heart, than themselves, willing to show interest in the article's development. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. MilHist A-class is nearly FA-class in quality whereas GA is only a step up from B-class and a significant step below A-class. I have ten times as many GAs as I do A-class articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So I see. Curious.. I tend to see more MilHist members with the same A/GA titles than A/FA titles, on their userpage "articles I wrote/developed" wall of fame. Perhaps they just don't like the FAR process.. I know I don't fancy it. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Many people dislike the FAC process and don't bother. I've gone back and forth on it myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to get a couple articles to GA (Battle of Bentonville and the Wilderness) but failed both, the Wilderness because of too few references. Any suggestions on how to get these two to GA? Wild Wolf (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You already answered that one yourself: you need more references. :) Chances are that "key" information, i.e. dates, statistics (i.e. troop totals, casualties), quotes, claims are not full cited. You need to cite anything which people might be able to challenge, particularly numbers. Grab a copy of Shelby Foote's trilogy The Civil War: A Narrative, as one of the most prolific ACW historians, his massive work is bound to have such data, and he is a highly respected authority on the war. Great bloke to listen to also, if you've ever see him in Ken Burn's The Civil War, which is an amazing series, beautiful work, and the accompanying book is massive and very good too. Highly recommend all these to anyone new to the topic, or even with a lot of knowledge. There are a lot of books available on "battles of the Civil War" which would probably give some good general information, also, for citing. e.g. ISBN 978-1862274334 Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I find battle articles very hard to write for anything over a medium-sized skirmish because you really need to master the available literature on the topic and that can be daunting for the popular or well-covered battles. I doubt that that would be a problem for Bentonville, but it probably would be for the Wilderness. Another issues is that you need to cover the battle in more detail for GA than at B-class. I'd recommend that you look again at the comments at your failed GANs and try to correct the issues found by the reviewer and also to follow several GANs that are reasonably close to your topic as they wind through the reviewing process. This should help to illustrate what reviewers typically look for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish someone with a lot of experience in writing battles from scratch for Wiki would write a comprehensive "how to" for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Missing academy articles. It would be most helpful, as there a couple I would like to write about also. I have read plenty of descriptions books and on Wiki, but I'm not sure the best way to approach describing one without it coming across like something semi-fictional, e.g. a Sharpe novel battle. I wonder if others feel the same way. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try placing Bentonville and the Wilderness up for peer review in the near future. But I have a few other projects to clear out of the way first. I'm still trying to wrap up all of the article deletions, mergers, and category discussions from Gettysburg, which will probably take a couple weeks. I'm also doing research on several articles to expand them to B-class, and also several orders of battle. So I might not get to Bentonville and the Wilderness for several weeks. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2011 now open!

Military historian of the year 2011

The time has come to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project should be awarded this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award. Which editor in our project, in your estimation, contributed the most to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the course of 2011? Any Milhist editor may nominate up to ten editors – this is to prevent any of our resident geniuses from nominating the entire membership list! – but can vote for as many editors as they like. Self-nominations are frowned upon. The top three get the gold wiki, the silver wiki, and the bronze wiki respectively. All other nominees will receive the WikiProject barnstar.

Please nominate in the following format, with brief comments (twenty words max). Nominations are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 January. There will then be a one week long voting period. Please do not vote yet!

• [user name] [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Thanks, and good luck!Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs), for his phenomenal output of high quality articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Adamdaley. For his work behind the scenes at WP:MILHIST, completing B-Class check-lists, assessments etc. Not the most glamorous of tasks, and he may not have had an FA on the main page, but he has not gone unnoticed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Second; nominate Adamdaley. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7, for his quality articles on high-profile subjects, including J. Robert Oppenheimer, Manhatten Project, Relief of Douglas MacArthur and Thomas Blamey. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Nick-D, for the broad range of his quality articles, including air, land and sea engagements, biographies, and unit histories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to second this individual as he assisted in the elevation of one of my project articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ed!, for his gargantuan efforts on Korean War articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wild Wolf, for improving dozens of American Civil War articles to B-class. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ian Rose for tending articles on blue orchids, including featured articles on Ian Dougald McLachlan, John McCauley, Valston Hancock, Alister Murdoch, Frank Bladin, Peter Jeffrey and Ozzie Watt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Second. Ian is our resident Renaissance editor, performing such a multitude of tasks so well for the project–FA articles, assessments, Bugle editor, and on and on...Georgejdorner (talk) 15:22 15 January 2012, (UTC)
• Sturmvogel 66, for his constant stream (should I say river, or ocean?!) of quality articles on British, Japanese, US, Russian and Australian warships. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll decline your kind nomination, Ian, as I'd prefer to rest on my laurels.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, we'll strike but leave it here so no-one renominates you by mistake... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• MisterBee1966, for his dedicated work on German officers and recipients of the Iron Cross and its variants. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• HJ Mitchell, for his quality articles on modern British military history, particularly Iranian Embassy Siege and senior army officers (go the biographers!). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Anotherclown, for excellent work on Australian battles of the Korean War, Australian military history more generally and lots of wikignoming and other contributions to this project Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert, for excellent contributions to articles on Australian Army units, many other Australian military history topics and substancial contributions to the project through reviews and 'behind the scenes' work Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Jim Sweeney, for remarkable work on articles about British airborne and commando units of World War II and general contributions to the project Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline nomination, but thank you for placing me amongst such illustrious company. Jim Sweeney (talk)

• The Bushranger, for huge 'behind the scenes' contributions to the project as well as fine work on many articles Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria for a major contribution to reviewing articles within this project's scope (especially FACs), as well as other contributions to the project. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Cliftonian for authoring high quality articles for Rhodesian military history. Especially the Geneva Conference (1976) --MOLEY (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• MarcusBritish For coming back from a shaky introduction to the project and rapidly progressing to become a valuable and consistently helpful editor, both within Milhist and Wikipedia as a whole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Seconded. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• User:Bahamut0013 (posthumous) I'd like to nominate Bahamut0013. Not because of some need to recognize a passed Wikipedian, but honestly because my participation in this project was strongly enhanced by this member. He was always very helpful, knowledgable, and dedicated to WP:MILHIST. His contributions have greatly improved Wikipedia and had his unfortunate passing not happened, he could easily have been a contender against these other well suited candidates.--v/r - TP 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC) tweaked - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to second this nomination. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, in honor of "the fallen". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• The ed17, for excellent work on articles on battleships and putting a huge effort into the project's newsletter and many administrative tasks. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And seconded also. I've found him a good guy & a genuine pleasure to work with. So I'm split on who to prefer... :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German formations

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military_history/Archive 106#German formations,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military history/Archive 107#Single country-military ?, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military history/Archive 107#A question regarding categorisation

I came here because of an edit to the Battle of Berlin which altered a link from German Second Army to 2nd Army (Wehrmacht) that was done because of a move with the comment: 14:16, 13 January 2012‎ Hamish59 (moved 2nd Army (Germany) to 2nd Army (Wehrmacht): German 2nd Army in WW2 was distinct to that of WW1.)

I understand why Germans for political reasons wish to keep a cut-off point between former German formation and those of the Bundeswehr, and because many English language sources also go along with that split, I can understand why it may be desirable to have two articles for post 1945 and pre-1945. Years ago I knew a young junior German officer who was court-martialled for writing about such an historical linkage between his regiment and earlier incarnations of one from the same geographic location.

What I have never understood is why editors of Wikipedia who would never agree to placing an an article Democratic United States for the country involved in the World War II conflict think it OK to put Nazi Germany instead of "Germany" for their enemy. This type of POV is one pushed by the current German state to distance themselves from the actions of the German state from 1933 to 1945 while still claiming legally that there was no debellation at the end of World War II (it seems like tying to have their cake and eat it).

So while I understand why it is convenient to 2nd army (Bundeswehr) for such a formation if it exists as the Germans do not claim that any of the current Bundeswehr unit has any link to the past. That is not true for units that existed up until the end of World War II, where like other military forces there is encouragement for a unit to have a military tradition based on similar numbered units in the past. Therefore I do not think that the split of 2nd Army (Germany) into 2nd Army (German Empire) and 2nd Army (Wehrmacht) is desirable any more than it would be for Second Army (United Kingdom) to be broken into Second Army (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and Second Army (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (which was a change of nation state that took place interbellum as well).

If one wants to argue that there really was a big change in the state that governed Germany, then that is not a cast iron reason to separate out the articles, for example the Indian Army does not do this for its units, instead it treats the history of units that existed pre-1947 as part of the history of the current units (Indian Army historyBall of Fire Division both those are government documents ( Remembering 'Ball of Fire' it is the 5th Division's insignia like the Big Red One )).

So anyway I think that the split of these German Army articles into two is a mistake and is not justified in either military history, or political necessity. There may come a day when the articles are big enough to warrant an overview articles and more detailed sub articles but such a content fork should not be done for other reasons. -- PBS (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the other militaries you mention, units of the modern-day German Army do not claim lineage from pre-1945 units of the same name. As such, it's appropriate to use different names for the units, as they are in fact different. I think that I agree with your point about the pre-1945 units though. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Key question is whether the Wehrmacht units in the 30s consiously traced their history from German Imperial units. Did they? Can anyone help here? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion on "German Field Armies of WWI & WWII" above. I think the point made was that while smaller units may have traced their lineage back to Weimar and Imperial times, Armies did not.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@PBS: I only read until you wrote the thing with the german officer and the court-martial. There is no court-martial in the Federal Republic of Germany, only Truppendienstgerichte, which are federal courts. And second I dont see any reason for a conviction of the officer for research the linkage between pre-1945 and post-1945 units because such research is explicitly wished in Germany. Please explain this or present some sources for your statements. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea which court he was up in front of, it was of little interest to me at the time and I don't remember the details. It is of little relevance to this conversation, other than my own personal experience of the German authorities are twitchy over something which other countries encourage. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is of extreme relevance for this conversation because this challenges the free democratic basic order in Germany. The only non-free law in Germany is Volksverhetzung and that would only have been used if this officer would have claimed that a german unit which has murdered civilians (especially Jews) in the war has not murdered them and that it was a lie, this means if he would have claimed the opposite of what he said. You used this as an example that we cant trust the german sheme of name giving so it is important when your example is possibly wrong. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As a user from the German WP, I would like to clarify certain points in this discussion:

• armies (or army headquarters, if you prefer) were (in Germany) created only in times of war (or in similar circumstances),
• there is absolutely no lineage between these armies (neither for corps nor divisions) of WWI and WWII,
• in effect, we are talking about completely distinct entities in all cases.

I therefore highly commend the effort to sort these things out and hope this approach will be applied to the other armies as well. Sincerely, --Prüm (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Many military units are created and disbanded, (that was the whole point of seniority in the British Army for regiments the higher the number the sooner disbanded at the end of a war). As for armies are they in principle any different from other military units? The logic of different articles for every creation would lead to half a dozen articles on Army Group A and Army Group Centre. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can only tell you what we did, which is describe all Army Groups of a given name in sequence in one article (which is by no means a perfect solution, but a workable one). What you cannot do, imho, is describe imperial army units and Wehrmacht units in one and the same article, because, as I said armies are created only for a war and cease to exist afterwards. The corps and divisions were formed along different lines too, btw. No comparison to British regiments, which keep their colours, recruitment districts etc. --Prüm (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

At which period are you referring to with British regiments? Armies can also exist in peace time and may not be in existence for all of a war, it depends. As I said above the logic here seems similar to that of arguing that British armies should be listed under different dabs depending on the state under which the fought eg instead of Second Army (United Kingdom) having two articles: one for "Second Army(UKGBI)" and one for "Second Army (UKGBNI)". Why should German army articles be treated any differently from other countries' articles. For example France likes its republics it has had three in the last century (see Fourth French Republic) should the article First Army (France) be cut up by states or wars or both? If not what makes the German example different? -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the imperial army ceased to exist after WWI when the Reichswehr was formed. And this goes from regiment up to army group. Regimental traditions were taken over by Reichswehr batallions, for example. Corps didn't exist at all and there were only 7+3 divisions, none of which had anything to do with previous divisions. There also were numbered German armies before in the wars of unification and we have individual articles for them (let's say, some of them) as well. --Prüm (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The army of the Fourth Republic of France ceased to exist when the Fifth Republic came into existence, but the army of France continued to exist, in the same way the army of Germany continued to exist in the interbellum. I do not see the difference between the two. -- PBS (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Question on List-class

Quick question, as I was under the impression that WP:MILHIST didn't have the List-class assessment, as stated in the Assessment FAQ: Has WP:MILHIST changed policy and allowed articles to be assessed List-class? I only asked because an editor recently changed the assessment at Talk:List of castles in Japan. Much obliged. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That edit was from me. MILHIST recently added List Class as a possible assessment. I reassessed the article as a list because it was in the List Backlog. The change over happened not too long ago. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. I was unaware of, though pleased with, the policy change. I never quite understood why there wasn't a List-class. Now, should the FAQ section be modified to explain the recent change? Boneyard90 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is it in the FAQ that needs modification? I'm seeing both Class=List and Class=FL described there. However, it was my understanding from the proposal at WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 105#Proposal to add List-Class that there would also be additional rankings between List and FL classes forthcoming — anyone care to comment on the status? Mojoworker (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The additional assessment levels should be forthcoming sometime in the next few weeks; we still need to finish preparing the documentation and implementing and testing the automatic assessment code. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure, but I think we were waiting until a "build up" of List-class, to sort of justify going through the process of creating a List rating scale. Whilst there was a fair amount of talk and support for the idea, proof, of course, comes from the doing. There are now 428 List articles in the Category:List-Class military history articles, so I definitely think we're rounding up a generous number and the matter needs looking into soon, in more detail. I have a copy of the main Assessment table from the section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Instructions in my userspace in preparation to create a draft List-scale for MilHist members to approve and Kirill to hopefully incorporate into our pages, in due course. I don't think any new system will be published without discussion and consensus first, of course. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer User:Mojoworker, I refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#FAQ, Q#12, which states:

12. What about lists?

Lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status.

The conflict of information between the FAQ and the Assessment scale, in light of past policy, prompted my initial question. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to update the FAQ only when we have the List criteria laid down, for now we don't get that many for review anyway, so better not to open up the project to List reviews until we know how exactly we intend to assess them uniformly. Those members in the know about the proposal can still help by updating current {{MILHIST}} banners where appropriate, so that once the criteria is ready, they can either be reassessed or left for people to work on as they see fit. I'm also changing Start and C-class articles to List, but have left a few as B/A for now. Either way it's good, as we can return to them later and make a firm reassessment without appearing to have lost a lot of higher class articles somewhere.

Quick question: I've changed the assessment for a couple of ACW articles to list class a while back but on the task force page I don't see a seperate category for list-class articles. Will these articles continue to be listed under start-class for the time being? Wild Wolf (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

More discussion

Moving on.. I have a page here User:MarcusBritish/Sandbox/MHA where I've pasted the List, C, B and A-class, and Featured List criteria. This is how the system currently works, except that we probably still have a lot of lists tagged as stubs, Start or C/B/A. What we need to do, is consider the main List to FL jump, and fill in the gaps with criteria approximating C/B/A but more suited to lists rather than prose.

We also need a naming convention for the MILHIST documentation and Assessment tables, as we going to be the first Project to do this (note B+ class exists in some Projects, as additions are possible). Do we go with:

1. List → CL-class → BL-class → AL-class → FL
2. List → C-List (CL) → B-List (BL) → A-List (AL) → FL
3. List → C-class List → B-class List → A-class List → FL

• Note: A stub could either become a List or Article depending how it shapes-up with added content, so I've excluded this from the track.

In terms of content, I think it's safe to say that in most cases, a basic "List" will just be bullet-pointed and very light on data, but as it moves closer to FL is likely to be a table-format list, or set of comparable tables with a lot more data, rather than just wikilinks or a line of minimal information. The more data a tabular list includes, the greater the need for citations.

Because lists and tables are often the result of complied data, or WP:SYNTHESIS, I think it important to make reference to Lists not being used to draw conclusions without the usual reliable, independent, neutral references to support them fully.

Further comments, thoughts, ideas, suggestions for criteria, etc welcome.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The level of citations necessary to support each grade needs to be detailed. IMO, B-List or whatever we call it, should have every data cell in a table cited, with page number. Alternatively, a general cite with a (small) page range can be used. I'd not appreciate trying to track down one fact in a hundred pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In the list assessment criteria, we might be able to advise editors roughly what standard of level of referencing is required, but I do not think it is necessary or prudent to detail how it should be cited, as that it more of a MOS thing. I don't think it's practical, in most cases, to cite every cell, as rows usually embody one combined "result". In cases where one table provides a data-set drawn from one or two sources, it shouldn't always be necessary to detail every page per row, when a page range will suffice, per WP:OVERCITE; complex lists can be hard to follow without cramming them with a mass of refs. Citations serve a few purposes, the primary purpose is to indicate that the content being shown on Wiki is supported by a reliable source elsewhere, the secondary purpose is allow readers to go verify or study that source further (third purpose is to avoid claims of plagiarism, it should be noted). It isn't necessary to detail every ref, page, paragraph and line per data cell though. If a reader feels the need to refer to the source, then a page range should do the job. WP:CITE covers this, as a guideline, rather than policy, because it really comes down to common sense and referencing lists on an individual basis, than trying to create a blanket policy, which wouldn't work well in many cases. Current WP:MILMOS#Sourcing and citation defines a minimum standard expected of an article, and reviewers are expected to determine whether they feel articles meet that minimum, based on content rather than a set quota. I think it better to stick with that general format for lists also, and keep things reasonable, and also comfortable to work with, rather than imposing requirements that makes the assessment criteria become impractical or unmanageable. The list criteria will highlight the necessity of comprehensive citing where lists are more involved, however. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as names are concerned, my impression is that we're going forward with "CL-Class"/"BL-Class"/"AL-Class" unless someone comes up with something brilliantly creative. The other two options ("C-List" and "C-Class List") won't actually work; the assessment bot expects all category names to take the form "X-Class ...", and only uses the first portion of the name (i.e. the "X") to determine assessment level, so both options would result in the lists being flagged as "C-Class". Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay.. thanks, I wasn't aware of the way the bot functions and naming limitations, but I suppose by using option 1. we still get the parenthesis short versions from 2. so CL-class = CL meaning "C-List", etc. I think that should be understandable. I'm think ahead here to the use of new versions of icons, combining with and for the "visual" side of things, also. I have a few simple ideas in mind which I'll try to present later. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, when assessing, you apparently have to type { |class=list |list=yes } in the WP:MILHIST template. Seems redundant, but I suppose this is one of those bot-things that will be worked out. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Icons are like favicons. Once they shrink down to 16px, they look uncontrollably naff. That said, here's are 3 draft icons:

File:Symbol AL class.svgFile:Symbol AL class.svgFile:Symbol BL class.svgFile:Symbol BL class.svgFile:Symbol CL class.svgFile:Symbol CL class.svg

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Are we actually planning to have (and use) icons for all three new classes? Currently, only the A-Class icon sees any real use; while B-Class and C-Class icons exist, they're not used in the assessment templates, and haven't gained much currency elsewhere. If we follow that approach, we'd only really need a new icon for AL-Class, in which case it may make more sense to mirror the A-Class icon rather than the List-Class icon for the base design. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, of course.. I've just made the full range because some people like to highlight the current class of articles they've written or are working on in their userpages, so having the full set just gives people that option for the usual "show off" or tracking purposes we all like to do. If the project only wants to display AL icon, that's fine. Given that the icons are only 2kb each, having all 3 wouldn't pose any issues having them all available for personal use. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course; there's certainly no problem with having icons for editors' personal use. My question is more related to the overall look and feel of the designs; should we aim for "horizontal" consistency (i.e. the AL icon resembles the A icon, the BL icon resembles the B icon, etc.) or "vertical" consistency (i.e. the AL, BL, and CL icons resemble each other rather than their article-class counterparts)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I didn't design these as such, I just took:

and

I removed some of the • — (because letters are unreadable against them at 16px) and pasted the letter from the class icon, same colour, plus an L, and some darker trim to make it easier to see against the lilac background. So they mix the 2 existing styles.. primarily the "List" icon, with the "class" colour letters. If the design is not suitable, we can always com up with something else, I suppose. These are just draft ideas, that I put up for comments on.

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

One alternate approach would be to keep either the list or the class icon but change the colour of the outer ring - so we'd have a lilac list-symbol surrounded by a (slightly thicker than usual?) band of blue (A), green (B) or yellow (C); or an A/B/C symbol surrounded by a lilac band. It may well show up more clearly at 16/20px - the current draft involves text changing colour, which is quite hard to make out at that scale. Shimgray | talk | 13:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Standard "lilac" list icon, plus draft colour versions matching A/B/C icons for AL/BL/CL:

File:Symbol AL class 2.svgFile:Symbol AL class 2.svgFile:Symbol BL class 2.svgFile:Symbol BL class 2.svgFile:Symbol CL class 2.svgFile:Symbol CL class 2.svg

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Those look quite nice. Perhaps we could also add something akin to the faded yellow star background from the A-Class icon to the AL-Class icon? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree look good with or without the yellow star and if we are voting support adopting them. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Star added. Unnoticeable at 16px, but doesn't pose any issues. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 20:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Those look good. Is there any chance of having a 'faded'/'behind the lines' A/B/C or would that be too much? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried doing that originally, but at 16px it's just a blob, the lines and letter weren't distinguishable from each other. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Question - Why is there not a Good List (GL) class? Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

GA is handled on a Wiki-wide scale by one central GAN page and impartial reviewers. Articles classed under WikiProject banners are independently reviewed by its members who specialise in the topic, so we can't add GL because we don't have GA, although we will recognise GA rated articles. At the moment GAN does not accept lists under its criteria and asks that lists be taken to FL status. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

I've tried to take existing B-class and A-class and adapt it to List format, with a few alterations, working it towards FL class, which I've added below to indicate how the criteria steps up from being a basic List-class to CL to AL before FL, and fills the current gap. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 03:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

CL-class criteria

The article is assessed against the BL-class criteria and meets BL1 or BL2 as well as BL3 and BL4 and BL5 of the remaining criteria.

BL-class criteria

The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets BL1 or BL2 as well as BL3 and BL4 and BL5 of the remaining criteria:

1. BL1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
2. BL2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
3. BL3.
   • (a) It has a defined structure, including a lead section and meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists.
   • (b) It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
4. BL4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
5. BL5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

AL-class criteria

The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets all five:

1. AL1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
2. AL2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
3. AL3.
   • (a) It has an appropriate structure, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists.
   • (b) It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
   • (c) It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
4. AL4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MOS-compliant.
5. AL5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

FL criteria

1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
3. Comprehensiveness.
   • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
   • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
   • (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
   • (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.
6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

Comments

It will probably be necessary to introduce a new section to WP:MILMOS to go into specific details regarding list/table structure and layout. The criteria does not go into specifics, and relies on editors/reviewers to refer to MOS and anyway, regardless of what class is being targeted in any area of Wiki. Given our high standards, a MILMOS#lists section could carefully detail the standards we expect. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 03:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject History: the second beginning or the second end?

I'm not sure that WikiProject History is getting revitalized, so I'm making one more suggestion. Perhaps the entire, dormant project could be scrapped, and replaced by a parent directory of other child-projects and managed by WikiProject volunteers, in a mini-WikiProject Council? It'd be better than leaving the project to sit around, cold and dormant, I think. DCItalk 00:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to this debate, but that seems sensible if the situation is as you describe. "History" is probably too large a topic to be anything other than a sort of meta-project anyway. EyeSerene^talk 11:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove a reference used in the Australian frontier wars article and associated material

I have posted a proposal at Talk:Australian frontier wars#Frontier History Revisited by Robert Ørsted-Jensen - not a reliable source to remove a reference and the material its been used to cite due to concerns over the reliability of this source. Comments from other editors on this would be great. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Voting for military historian of the year for 2011 now open!

Military historian of the year 2011

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. All editors are welcome to vote, and you may vote in favour of as many of the candidates as you wish. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 28 January.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Adamdaley (talk · contribs) For his work behind the scenes at WP:MILHIST, completing B-Class check-lists, assessments etc. Not the most glamorous of tasks, and he may not have had an FA on the main page, but he has not gone unnoticed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Buistr (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. EyeSerene^talk 11:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Anotherclown (talk · contribs), for excellent work on Australian battles of the Korean War, Australian military history more generally and lots of wikignoming and other contributions to this project Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
4. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support --MOLEY (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs), for excellent contributions to articles on Australian Army units, many other Australian military history topics and substantial contributions to the project through reviews and 'behind the scenes' work Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Buistr (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support — Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support --MOLEY (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support --Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) (posthumous) I'd like to nominate Bahamut0013. Not because of some need to recognize a passed Wikipedian, but honestly because my participation in this project was strongly enhanced by this member. He was always very helpful, knowledgable, and dedicated to WP:MILHIST. His contributions have greatly improved Wikipedia and had his unfortunate passing not happened, he could easily have been a contender against these other well suited candidates.--v/r - TP 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC) tweaked - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support DCItalk 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support --v/r - TP 01:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support --Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Cliftonian (talk · contribs) for authoring high quality articles for Rhodesian military history. Especially the Geneva Conference (1976) --MOLEY (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. As nominator --MOLEY (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ed! (talk · contribs), for his gargantuan efforts on Korean War articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
2. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
4. PMG (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs), for his quality articles on high-profile subjects, including J. Robert Oppenheimer, Manhattan Project, Relief of Douglas MacArthur and Thomas Blamey. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
4. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), for his quality articles on modern British military history, particularly Iranian Embassy Siege and senior army officers (go the biographers!). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
3. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ian Rose (talk · contribs) for tending articles on blue orchids, including featured articles on Ian Dougald McLachlan, John McCauley, Valston Hancock, Alister Murdoch, Frank Bladin, Peter Jeffrey and Ozzie Watt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
4. As nom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support — Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
9. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support --Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support Zawed (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) For coming back from a shaky introduction to the project and rapidly progressing to become a valuable and consistently helpful editor, both within Milhist and Wikipedia as a whole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support DCItalk 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. EyeSerene^talk 11:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs), for his dedicated work on German officers and recipients of the Iron Cross and its variants. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
3. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
4. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nick-D (talk · contribs), for the broad range of his quality articles, including air, land and sea engagements, biographies, and unit histories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. There are some great articles here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support — Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
7. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
10. PMG (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) for a major contribution to reviewing articles within this project's scope (especially FACs), as well as other contributions to the project. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Buistr (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. EyeSerene^talk 11:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs), for his phenomenal output of high quality articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Hard to get over the work that has gone into Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battleships of Germany and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battlecruisers of Germany. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support--Rskp (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
8. PMG (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• The Bushranger (talk · contribs), for huge 'behind the scenes' contributions to the project as well as fine work on many articles Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support -- Boneyard90 (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The ed17 (talk · contribs), for excellent work on articles on battleships and putting a huge effort into the project's newsletter and many administrative tasks. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Farawayman (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support DCItalk 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support — MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
6. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
8. PMG (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wild Wolf (talk · contribs) for improving dozens of American Civil War articles to B-class. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments and discussion

• I could have voted for all nominees, but restricted myself to five votes. Those I did not vote for don't take it as a snub. You are all worthy. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Abstain. I think to pick people would to miss the point - I'd prefer to reward individual achievement with my personal thanks when I cross paths with another editor. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we all try to do that. This is just one more way to honor those who have done a lot in the field of military history – it's supposed to be an honor to have been nominated, much less get first, second, or third. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand, my abstention was not to make a point, but just to put it on the record that I'd noticed and wasn't deliberately overlooking the field, or something else. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Like Jim, I've gone for a deliberately stingy number of votes; I'd happily vote for you all. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ditto. Have supported 2 nominees, looking to support 3 tops, but it's a tough choice. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Query: What happens in the case of a tie in any of the places.. do you present it as joint-winners or is there a deciding vote process? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd wondered something similar myself, though having "too many" excellent candidates is a good predicament to be in! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The usual procedure for tied votes everywhere on Wikipedia seems to be to declare joint winners, and I imagine that's what would be done here. User:Roger Davies has volunteered to close the voting and hand out the awards though. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC
        • Sharing the award is the easy way out and dilutes its value. Would it not be more appropriate to have a second round of votes to decide the winner between the tied candidates? Farawayman (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
          • That could complicate matters. For example, if three people came joint-first, technically they should be taking 1st/2nd/3rd. A revote would simply take more time and effort and could cause another draw. What if there are 2 firsts, 4 seconds, and 3 thirds, for example? Do we revote the top 2 for 1st/2nd and the revote 4 for 3rd, and everyone else runner up? Just gets far too messy and tactical voting can result which causes animosity. Better diluted, it's the honour that counts, not fighting over the title itself. Maybe in future years we should adopt a Eurovision-style system, in which every voter can award 5-points to their fav, 3-points to second fav and 1-point to a third fav, no more-no less. We tot up the points at the end and have a better chance of clear-cut positions. Something like that.. we could worry about the details later, if members think shared titles have less impact. Personally, I don't.. it's all just a bit of fun, in the end. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
          • It's worth noting that there is precedent for a tie in this vote; the 2008 awards saw a tie for third place between TomStar81 and Skinny87, and the end result in that instance was that both editors shared the award. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, interesting how we're self-imposing vote limits here, isn't it? I feel the same way a bit and I think I've done that in previous years. Well, I can't fail to support the five I nominated -- after that we'll see... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's a nice gesture. I find that MilHist is a very modest WikiProject, members here are very professional and discreet, despite covering a vast and involved topic with very high standards to maintain, and a lot of academic scrutiny to contend with. I'm sure there are "lesser" WikiProjects would sooner run their own flag up a pole than adopt the same principles we have here. T'is a good team, with a good "aura" despite that we all work in different areas of the project. The fact that we're each choosing to limit our votes and be discriminate, rather than patronising and vote for everyone, is a positive attribute, imo. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• I could easily have supported all the candidates. I only supported five, but it was tough! It's great to see such a good candidate pool—it's a good indicator of the health and strength of the project overall. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• As usual every nominee is a fine editor and worthy of recognition for their amazing work. Others have already said it, but it does make it very difficult to narrow down the field. This year I've not voted for any project regulars—you all know how good you are!—but confined my votes to those I believe to have been outstanding newcomers in whatever area they've chosen to work in. Congratulations to everyone nominated and thank you for making Milhist a great place to be. EyeSerene^talk 11:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• As with several others I also found it hard to choose just a couple but I mostly restricted mine to the editors I have worked with most frequently over the last year or so. --Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Palmerston Forts Society information now members only

The Palmerston Forts Society whose FortLogs provided much detailed technical information about forts in the UK, especially Victorian ones, has moved its information into a members only area. The society's pages were frequently quoted as external references for fort pages, and presumably those links now need to be removed. I have informed the society that Wikipedia will probably have to remove their references, and pointed them to this page. Vicarage (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily - they may be mirrored on an archive site, for example. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems much of the useful information has been moved to the Victorian Forts site. I have contacted them about referencing their site. Vicarage (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

One obvious change would be to add all the fort data sheets from http://www.victorianforts.co.uk/fortdata.htm to the entries in category Category:Palmerston Forts. Vicarage (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A wikipedia search shows that many of the links here are to www.palmerstonforts.org.uk, while the society has changed the URL to www.palmerstonfortssociety.org.uk. There is a redirect in place, but the deep links are broken. Any attempt to resolve the situation should use both addresses. For example all 49 links given by [this search] are broken Vicarage (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

David Moore, the author of the fort data sheets, current Victorian Forts admin, and ex-admin of PFS, confirms that the content was moved after the PFS decided it clashed with their charitable status. He is please for the the content to have wide visibility. I will go ahead with the changes to External Links. I will not be changing References. Vicarage (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The historical content that previously appeared on the Palmerston Forts Society website has been moved in its entirety to the Victorianforts website due to constraints imposed by the current committee on the use of links to trading website Amazon for the purpose of deriving income. This fell foul of their charitable constitution which forbade generating an income by trading. All links to the fact sheets on the old Palmerston Forts Society can be changed to the corresponding pages on the new website. Whilst the original facts sheets have been placed inside a protected 'members only' page on the PFS site they are now out of date and are not actively updated by the author. The ones on the new site are actively maintained and are being expanded.David Alan Moore 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the data sheets are also referenced from the Island Eye website, but are outdated and unmaintained, so also need to be changed to Victorian Forts ones. Vicarage (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

All the above changes complete. Vicarage (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Battles by location?

Looking at Category:Battles, I don't see anything about battles being categorized by the location where they took place. There is Category:Battles by country, but that's organized by the countries that participated in the battle, not the location where the battle took place. Is there a categorization of battles by location? And if not, has that been specifically rejected before, or is it just something that has not been gotten around to being done? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems uncovered for the most part. Category:Battlefields includes sub-categories Category:Battlefields in the United Kingdom and Category:Battlefields in the United States, plus Category:Vietnam War sites which I assume does the same, but that's about it. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing battles—by which I mean the actual historical events—by location has been explicitly rejected since circa 2005; see WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Battlefields are a slightly different matter; the categorization there is location-in-location rather than event-in-location, which neatly avoids the historiographic problem involved with categorizing the battles themselves in such a manner. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Abraham Lincoln proposal

Hello editors interested in Abraham Lincoln. I just created a proposal for a new WikiProject with a focus on Lincoln, which overlaps with the Civil War military history task force. This project is intended to be similar to the WikiProject that exists for Barack Obama. Please feel free to comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Abraham Lincoln‎. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

List class assessment

I had a quick question about the list class tag: I have changed to class assessment for several ACW articles to "list", but on the ACW task force page the assessment statistics skip the list classification. Will articles assessed as list still be included in the start category? Wild Wolf (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No. You need to change |class=Start to |class=list|list=yes, for now. That will update the main MilHist Assessment table. Hopefully, the Task Forces will be updated at a later date, once we develop criteria for a range of List classes, like A to C. That's being discussed several topics above.. scroll up, you can't miss it. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your military history newsletter – Issue LXX, January 2012 Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Article news: The month's new featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D flies with Australia and looks behind Nazi Germany Interview: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles • Published by the Military history WikiProject • • About the project • Newsroom • Subscribe • Archives •

A-Class review for Priscus (general) now open

The A-Class review for Priscus (general) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Farmington

I just came across this article, which covers two differant battles. Should this be split into two articles? Wild Wolf (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally you'd expect "First battle of..." and "Second battle of..." and a disamib. page with the two listed. Odd how the creator here has not. If there is enough material available to split into two, go for it.. at the moment if you split them as they are you'll get two very short stubs, and given that this one is unsourced already, seems pointless unless you're able to expand and reference, even a little, them once split. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The two battles occured to differant states, in Tennessee and Mississippi. Perhaps Battle of Farmington (Tennessee) and Battle of Farmington (Mississippi) would be better? Wild Wolf (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if it's standard Wiki practice to name battles that share a place name but in different states like that. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, to name it First and Second would imply that the battles occurred in the same location. I don't know that this is a particularly common phenomenon (cue links to numerous examples) so it's unlikely to have much precedent. Disambiguating by states is probably the best option. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried to find you numerous examples, but in doing a quick look at List of American Civil War battles the only two examples I found were Battle of Jackson, Tennessee / Battle of Jackson, Mississippi and Battle of Waynesboro (Virginia) / Battle of Waynesboro (Georgia). And those two examples don't follow the same naming pattern …Mojoworker (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the battles could be disambiguated by year. There should probably be redirects and disambiguation pages from various other naming schemes. Magic♪piano 23:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think disambiguating by year would imply same location, as with "First" and "Second". I think "Battle of Farmington, Tennessee" and "Battle of Farmington, Mississippi" (like the Battle of Jackson example) would be the way to go, as it avoids that confusion and follows the convention for geographic locations. -- saberwyn 00:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"First", "Second", "Third", etc., implies the battle happened at the same place. This is two battles at two locations that share the same name. Best to disambiguate by state (if there is enough material to justify separate articles) Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Commas are usually used to disambiguate place names whereas brackets are used for other types of dab. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that covering two separate subjects that only share a name violates some policy somewhere, but I can't remember which. Separate by state or year would work. 70.24.251.194 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the FAC for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Help Requested with bug on new article.

I've just started an article on Brigadier Denis Ormerod but my reflist isn't showing and I'm getting a warning saying it isn't there. I can't fathom out if I've done something wrong or if it's a bug in Wikipedia, Could an experienced editor please look at this and see if they can figure out what is wrong please? Thank you in advance. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fixed to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye, it was a dodgy endref Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what a dodgy endref is but I'm grateful to the Kernel for his help. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

this was the fix. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotted it now. Why on earth did that cause a problem? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your second reference was opened but not closed 'cos of the effectively missing </ref>. That's generally enough to confuse the parser. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to miss. I still do sometimes, too. :( Preview is your friend. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A-class review of Battle of Radzymin (1920)

The A-class review of the article on Battle of Radzymin (1920) needs your help. The article is now a GA and it's been reviewed and copy-edited countless times, but the previous assessment timed out due to insufficient voters/reviewers. Current assessment (check here) is also likely to time out unless one more person drops in. Pretty, pretty please. //Halibutt 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance v Paraguayan War

There is a move discussions which may be of interest to this group and some fresh opinion would be of help in keeping discussion along the right track. A lot of passion seems to have been aroused by the move. See Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 2012. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How to bring war articles to FA standard?

Hi, I'd like to know if anyone has suggestions on what is needed to an article about a war become a FA, beyond the FA requisites, of course. Does it need an overview on all sides' armies, equipment, tactics, etc?? Or just the story of the war is enough? Any other idea? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, FA level articles on wars need to provide more than just a narrative of events. They also should also put the war in context and provide some analysis. As such, background on the political and military factors behind the war is necessary, as is an explanation of why things turned out the way they did. Specific details on how the opposing armies were equipped and the specific tactics they used generally aren't necessary unless this was an important part of the war, however. If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest that you look at the FAs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase for inspiration. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. I'll write an article about a war that occurred in the 1860s. Do you have specific suggestion of articles that I could use as a model? --Lecen (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Without knowing what war you're planning to write about, not really. I'd suggest that you look at all the FAs and A class articles on wars and see what elements you think would work best for the article you're working on. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. Further, if and when you've found a few articles that have elements in common with the war you're researching, naturally try to take guidance from those most recently promoted to FA, as they'll be the most up-to-date in terms of MOS (both military and general), etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll take that in account. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession may be a good model to go off of. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've reviewed a few over the last year or so; the good ones have a clear story, explain the background so that you don't need to read another article to understand what's happening, give just enough detail about the weapons, units and terrain that a non-specialist can make sense of it all, and end with a decent "so what" section (i.e. the consequences of the war). Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bardanes Tourkos now open

The A-Class review for Bardanes Tourkos is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

This article has been at FAR for a month: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Medal of Honor/archive2. It really doesn't look to be in that bad of shape to me, and I'm surprised no one is able to take on the work to salvage this star. Or at least let us know if it's so bad it needs to be defeatured. Is there no one here who has a minute to spare to help keep an important FA on board? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal at Communist Romania

Title says it all. Just a note to inform interested parties in our project that there is currently an RM on Talk:Communist Romania. The proposed new title is Socialist Republic of Romania. -- Director (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Ohio class submarines now open

The A-Class review for List of Ohio class submarines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Restricting Forts category to Artillery forts

I'd like to suggest we restrict the 'Forts in' category tree to artillery forts, as there are separate trees for 'Hill Forts' and 'Roman Forts', and there is a clear difference in type. This would mean that Forts in Cumbria would go, but most other examples already follow this principle and would be unchanged. Vicarage (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Add new category Forts on the Thames

This would have some 11 members, and while overlapping with the Kent, Essex and Medway categories, is significant as the forts were built to address the common goal of defending the river. Vicarage (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove Category Napoleonic Forts in Dover

The category only has 2 items, Dover Castle and the Western Heights, better to move things to the higher category Napoleonic Forts in England, which isn't overcrowded. Vicarage (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Medal bars and styles

I seem to have stumbled into an edit war at David Richards (British Army officer) over two different types of sections in biographical articles. One is the old row about re-creating an officer's chest decorations (often based on original research) at the bottom of the article (like so). The other is over whether or not to list every combination of titles and post-nominal letters the officer has held along with the dates that they held them (often based more on guesswork than original research), like so (sourced to unithistories.com in this case). These sections are randomly added periodically (often by IPs without edit summaries, example) to British Army officer biographies, and I routinely remove them when I work on an article that contains them. That they are unsourced and more than likely unsourceable amply justifies their removal. I also fee they lack encyclopaedic value and are redundant and duplicative of the prose (and, in the case of significant awards, the infobox). Can we have a discussion about the value of each type of section, and could folks keep an eye out for he restoration of unsourced/poorly sourced material to Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I've said my piece on the first before :-). This debate has been running for some years and I don't think we've ever had a consensus - perhaps some kind of widespread RFC and an update to the MOS to clarify how and where it's appropriate is in order?

As to the second, I think this is bleed-over from the "general" articles on peers, where it's been common for some time. I'm not sure they're really necessary, but especially with people whose names visibly change on taking a title and who continue to have active careers under the new name, a short index of who they were when can be useful. We sometimes do similar things in articles on companies, or military units, or other institutions with sequential name changes. Shimgray | talk | 13:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with HJ Mitchell on most of this - i think for someone of Field Marshal rank or similar a summary of their ranks and when they obtained them may be useful but not for a bog-standard general Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I did kinda start this debate (again) I should firstly mention that the second (being the so) is something I did'nt read throughly first and will admit this particular type of section is picarius at best and I would like the fist mentioned by HJMitchell to be discussed. I'm not going to say my bit again but it can be found here. I must apologise to anybody including and especially HJ Mitchell for anything I have said in bad taste. Nford24 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2012 (AEST)

No apology necessary. The Internet has a way of frustrating us (myself very much included) that we don't get in real life! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts on this, which I've been prepared to air whenever this comes up, are pretty well identical to HJ's. Anything of this sort not referenced should be removed on sight, and even when references are provided, the rows of ribbons imitating they way the medals are worn or the tables listing every medal with an image beside it are, in a biographical article, unnecessary from an informational point of view and unencyclopedic in appearance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete them they serve no purpose. However this does seem to come back like a boomerang every few months. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I find the appearance of ribbons in these articles to be unsightly, unnecessary (as usually the medals are referred to the text/infobox) and usually not in keeping with the tone of a biography article. Zawed (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course if the Medals and or ribbons cannot be referenced then they shouldn't be there. With that said ribbons and medals are an important aspect of the military and IMO should be displayed on the article somewhere even if they are suppressed in a show/hide box as they are on some articles. Deleting the ribbons and medals would be the same as making no mention of the ranks they achieved or wars in which they fought. I realize that its hard for folks not in the military to understand this and many think that having the colored bits of cloth is rather pointless but its part of the culture. --Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to display ribbon bars, even for the most eminent of military men. Not least because many, if not most armies, have lots of medals/ribbons that really don't mean very much. A quality article will cover the acts for which the significant medals were awarded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ian Rose and Sturmvogel. If the honours and awards are listed in the text (often with links to the article on the individual award) and sourced, these ribbon bars are superfluous and unencyclopedic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue arises with awards given to vessels, etc. For instance, there is the set of awards shown at USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#Awards which not only is not completely necessary, but which differs from the actual awards board carried on the battleship, as discussed on the article's talk page. There appears to be too much of an element of original research when arranging the awards. For me, that is reason enough to put a project-wide stop to the practice. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So for example; 'in 2008 I was awarded the Community Service Medal for 10 years service to the RSL, it has no post-nominals and it therefor would not be note-worthy as it is considered much like a jubilee/coronation/centenary medal etc, (which is awarded for community service and other etc.)' and would not appear within a biography at all?. I seem to have a problem with that. Nford24 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2012 (AEST)

Agreed. There are many decorations that otherwise would not appear in the text. David Richards (British Army officer) shows an image of the officer, and the reader might well be interested in wanting to know what the ribbons represent. (Was he mentioned is despatches?) There is a debate at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#These.3F_in_notable.27s_articles at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board about this.

While the medal ribbons came from the American articles, the styles arose from the British editors. In fact, the Duke of Wellington has an entire article on his styles and honours: Arms, titles, honours and styles of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington! The reason is that for some British people their actual name changed over time due to the receipt of titles, so that George Grenville became Lord Temple and then the Duke of Buckingham. It mainly affects British articles, so really is up to you guys to sort out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any debate about mentioning awards for acts of gallantry or conspicuous service, even if they don't have post-nominals, like an MoD. These should not only be described and cited in the text, they can and should be listed in the infobox. For me it's the ribbon images, which belong in the medal articles only, and the lists of service/campaign medals that were awarded to everyone who participated in a particular war/theatre/etc, that are over the top. I say this will full respect for the guys who were in those actions (which should be described in a bio anyway, obviating the need to mention the associated medals) and as the son of a pilot who received seven such medals for service in WWII and Malaya, as well as the Air Force cross for achievements above and beyond the call -- the latter is the only one what would/should feature in a WP bio. Now, Nford, if you had a bio in WP mentioning/citing your Community Service Medal in the text it wouldn't be an issue as far as I'm concerned -- not everyone gets them, do they? What I wouldn't expect is to see it in a list at the end of the article with a ribbon device next to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for John Balmer now open

The featured article candidacy for John Balmer 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! Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Voting for Military Historian of the Year about to close!

As a quick reminder, voting for the military historian of the year award will close in just over 50 minutes. Please vote now if you haven't already done so! Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 28 January" – is 24 hours away.. it's 23:59 of 27 January in 35 mins. ;) Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 23:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, yes :0 (it's 28 January here, and the GMT ticker at the top right of my screen says it's 23:30). All the better though, as people actually have just over 24 hours to vote ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did wonder at the time why the nominations were closed a day early. Makes sense now; working from an Aussie timezone.. lol Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Face it, mate, with the clear domination of Antipodian editors in the vote count, that's the only timezone you need to know... ;-) Cheers, 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it that your always upside down and unlike the rest of the world have nothing better to do with your time. LOL Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Australia has a rich and diverse culture, unlike that of certain European islands. The coffee is also a lot better. As is the weather. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you think we get that Stiff upper lip. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Australia makes good coffee? Hmm, never tried it.. although I doubt it.. if the wine is anything to go by.. yuck – rat poison! Taylor's make some lovely coffee, but Italian coffee is nicest, imo. Any good Aussie ground coffee brands spring to mind? I might try to get some. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 10:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm partial to French red wine -- and Japanese beer -- but I fully agree with Nick on the coffee front, and that's after spending three fantastic weeks in Italy 18 months ago... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Anzac Mounted Division

An application to move the name of the ANZAC Mounted Division to Anzac Mounted Division had been made. If anyone wishes to add their thoughts to the requested move of this article, closing arguments are now being made. --Rskp (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Laser and Qantas are still acronyms, but are no longer treated as such, so I have no problems with the move. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN Article Scores?

How do articles that are assessed as "GAN" get the result of the "score"? What is the "score" based on? Because I compared one above mine and the only difference I could notice was the size of the article. Adamdaley (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit to being confused by the question. GAN means Good Article Nomination, and those that pass become GA. I am unaware of any score; potential GAs are reviewed based on criteria just like ACRs and FARs. Whilst each reviewer may have their own system as to how they review nominated articles and determine if they meet the criteria, at the end of the review the article will either simply pass or fail, no one keeps a score, so GAs can only be compared by how they meet the criteria, not by size or appearance alone. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 05:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You weren't talking about scores in the monthly article writing contest, were you Adam? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Arawe now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Arawe 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) 04:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of a new name for the Action of 25 January 2012 article

There is currently a discussion about the most suitable name for the Action of 25 January 2012 article on a recent United States special forces operation in Somalia. Comments on this would be most welcome at: Talk:Action of 25 January 2012#Article name Nick-D (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to raise it again, but are we sure either incident is notable? I'm not against articles on recent news items but do we need to ensure that our guidance makes clear how we define notability in recent cases - in neither of these cases is there time for considered expert review to be published (which is a prerequisite in earlier periods) so we will be relying on press reports. Do we define what press coverage is considered reliable and what isn't? Monstrelet (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is notable, but other editors have raised concerns that it might not be. The best option might be to either propose a merge and/or start an AfD discussion to clarify this. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I think it touches on a fundamental about WP, about how much it is a digest of the recent and how much a reference encyclopedia, which is beyond the scope of the project. All we can control is a consistent approach in project.Monstrelet (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for 7 Independent Company (Rhodesia) now open

The A-Class review for 7 Independent Company (Rhodesia) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)]]

Task forces (periods and conflicts)

I would like to start a discussion since the "Task forces (periods and conflicts)" end with the "Cold War" in 1989. Of course there has been many conflicts since 1989 to the present (2012). Is there a possibility to add another period to cover 1989-2012? Adamdaley (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)