Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The October newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge • Khalji Revolution • Teddy Wynyard • Siege of Breteuil Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. • Project Pluto Peer reviews 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Chunj • War of the Antiochene Succession Good article nominees Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • Mongol invasion of Khorasan • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Charles the Bold • James Alexander Ulio • Central Powers • Short Sunderland in New Zealand service • Te Pōrere Redoubts • Aromal Chekavar • Edward W. Gantt • Tumu Crisis • 1838 Mormon War • Mseilha Fort • Breton Civil War, 1341 Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Haile Selassie Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,990) • only work on referencing and citation (43,222) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,452) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,913) • work on structure (31,925) • only work on structure (339) • work on grammar (8,184) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (33,002) • only work on supporting materials (1,290) • assessment (30) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (3) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (6) • task forces added (2) • attention to task force coverage (654)

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 MiD. 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)

A lot of people use the ribbon displays as a guide to get an idea what people should have and how they should be displayed. Just having a list of awards is going to make a lot of people not use these biographies as much. General MacArthur also has a separate article for his awards. I also think that if the ribbon displays are going to be removed then a lot of the ribbons and medals will end up being deleted as non noteworthy. Thats going to further degrade the reliability of the articles because its going to prevent them from being accurate. --Kumioko (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying some of the medals displayed are only noteworthy because General xxx was awarded one. Has anyone ever asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals what there opinion is? Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

When looking at honours that have ribbon bars there are orders, decorations, and medals. I think that everyone knows the definition of an order, but decorations and medals are sometimes used interchangeably. A decoration is typically awarded for some specific act of service, that could likely be described in the text with a reference. A medal usually refers to service and campaign medals. Those are awarded for length of service or are "been there, done that" awards. If decorations are listed in the bio infobox and circumstances of receipt are described in the text, then there may really be no need for the big display of ribbons. Especially if we are talking about campaign medals or general service medals that were presented to a few million people, and receipt of them is hard to verify with a reliable source

MacArthur, the Duke of Wellington, or Marshal Tito were individuals who were presented a vast array of awards and honours, so that is likely why they have separate articles. Just my 2 cents for what it's worth. EricSerge (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Jim Sweeney. Well partly but I can see where some would argue that having a Sea service deployment ribbon or a NATO ribbon isn't noteworthy enough to be in the article. Even if there is a reference that says they have it. Additionally, I think that many will find that having a list of medals and decorations, especially for those with a lot of them such as Smedley Butler, Audie Murphy and the like quite difficult to look through. However having the ribbon display with a table below it removes almost any doubt what the individual has or what it is. As I mentioned in these discussions before, if the decision is made to display these in a showhide box or something that is a little less picturesque then I can live with that but to remove them entirely, to me, does our readers a huge disservice and reduces the readability and usefullness of the article to those who may wish to read it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure most readers would know what the medal ribbons are and would rely on the related link, so really they are just being used for decoration and are not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

MilborneOne; I beg to differ, I agree with Kumioko 100%. In reference to 'campaign medals' (as mentioned above), it is possible to service in a theatre and never qualify for that particular campaign medal for example; General David Hurley, AC, DSC (current Chief of the Defence Force - Australia) has served for 40 years in places like Somalia and Malaysia and has never been awarded a campaign medal reguardless of the positions he has held in the Australian Army. My point is the display of ribbons can help people understand what a person's career was kinda like whilst serving for example, if they were awarded a campaign medal, long service medal, foreign medal or a decoration like the VC, CV, SC, MG, DSC etc. In my various services i supply my local RSL Sub-Branch, I assist in medal/ribbon identification and I have also in the past instructed on rigging a medal bar with the correct order of precedence, I tend to refer people to various pages on wikipedia (such as Sir Phillip Bennett, Peter Cosgrove, Angus Houston etc.). Nford24 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, regarding Arms, titles, honours and styles of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington: It is fair to say that Wellington was one of the most decorated generals of the British Empire, but also that he was awarded a multitude of titles, honours and decorations by most of Europe and Russia following Napoleon's defeat in 1814 and 1815, which not all generals have had the pleasure of receiving. The article serves to address all those awards in one gp, because those lists would appear as clutter amid his biography, and it is also very difficult to try to slot each award, title, decoration, style and rank into the article within the chronological sequence of events and not make the prose sound cheesy or look bloated. Only his commissions and a few of the notable titles are noted, because they are critical to following his career as an officer. Within one article they are easier to put into context and cite in bulk, also. With regards to ribbons, I personally have no idea when the practice of coloured ribbons and medal bars began, but for anyone who has seen File:Phillips-Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.jpg, you can see he is plastered with decorations in a very different and more elaborate manner, and only two medals were issued relating to the Napoleonic War and aware to British soldiers anyway. So the article really aims to incorporate a lot of rather lengthy lists, more than anything, because there is no better alternative that allows for an objective overview. As Hawkeye7 mentions, some of these awards to peerage status changed a persons name.. i.e. Baron of.. Marquee of.. Duke of.. all aristocracy and pomp, which Wellington wasn't always keen on, which I will end on here by quoting: "What the devil is the use of making me a maquees?" — Wellington, 1812. A true Englishman (i.e. a moaning git!). Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 08:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 mentioned an article on Wellington's honours, after a discussion on the talk page of that article about how many field marshal batons he had, I wrote one on the Batons of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington! Wikipedia also as an article called victory title and an article there is an article called nobility of the First French Empire which also has paragraphs on victory titles dished out by Bonaparte.

Nelson being in part a showman (like many senior officers) often appeared wearing lots of decorations, I believe it was one of the things that made him a target on the Victory. There is a section in his biography on his titles and honours.

For many articles on British nobility there are sections on genealogy, it dominates some article. Clearly genealogical information is of more interest to some editors (and presumably some readers) than the notable achievements (if any) of the biography's subject. I suspect that like genealogical information, these sections on chest decorations and a list of every combination of titles and post-nominal letters, are the main focus of interest to some editors and readers. Given that, if the sections are sourced, is there any reason to remove them as a matter of course? -- PBS (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just FYI, we're chewing over a proposed RfC on this issue on the coord's talk page at the moment, to be put to the project when we've agreed the wording. Due to the frequency with which this comes up I think we should look at developing a guideline sooner rather than later. Further input is welcome :) EyeSerene^talk 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Amongst the reasons given on Talk:David Richards (British Army officer) for removing the medal ribbons were that they were unsourced and trivial. However, pictures of Richards wearing exactly the ribbons depicted can easily be found from reliable sources and, as for "trivial", these are hard-won decorations awarded by the Crown and deemed sufficiently important to be displayed on a uniform and I feel we should display them on articles. Two points of view expressed in a previous discussion with which I agree were that ribbons both add to the visual appeal of an article and could provide a unique reason for people to come to articles here. Several editors have used the term "unencyclopaedic" which I don't understand - ribbons are a summary of a serviceperson's career, and very relevant. People have also expressed concerns about verifiability, but, especially if a table is used (rather than recreating the rows of ribbons) I don't see that this should encourage speculative information, certainly no more than other aspects of biographical articles. In terms of taking up too much space, David Richards is head of the UK armed forces and only has 8 decorations, so I don't see a problem - I don't know the US system well enough, but I'm sure the less relevant decorations could easily be excluded. Antrim Kate (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So, is anyone saying the display of ribbons is "unencyclopaedic" able to give a reason for that (or those just saying "I agree with HJMitchell" able to give any reasons for their view)? Antrim Kate (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What encyclopedic value do they add to the article? And how reliably sourced can the order they are displayed in be? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On the first question thats a matter of opinion but I would say they are very relevant for a military persons ribbons to be on the page. As for the order that's an easily proved thing for most of the US ones, I can't vouch for the Non-US ones.

Here is what I think is going to happen if they are not displayed. People are going to start edit warring and fighting about why they are or aren't there. If we only display valorous ones people will argue that the article is incomplete, that the ribbon display is out of order, incorrect, etc. I also envision folks arguing that the lower rating ribbons are not worthy of being on the article. As with Antrim I believe that if they are allowed to be worn on the uniform then they should be on the article. I also think that if we remove them from biographies then we need to remove them from Ships, units and the like. Personally, if the decision is made to remove these from the articles, I would have to do some major soul searching on whether or not I should even bother using my time to update military biographies anymore. If such an important aspect of military service doesn't rate to be on the article, particularly when that's what the person is known for such as the Medal of Honor, then there's not much point in keeping the article either. --Kumioko (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Following on from some of the above comments, if the only awards mentioned in an article were ones with post-nominals for instance then for example the Australian Honours System allows for 24 awards with post-nominals and 41 without (including coronation/jubilee medals but not including the various commendations or state awards {state awards are worn on the right breast}). The UK system has even more, the US system has no post-nominals at all (including but not limited to; Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Navy Distinguished Service Medal, Presidential Medal for Freedom, Congressional Medal of Honor etc.) The reason (in my opinion) that the ribbon bars are displayed above the main awards body for example - {Major General John Cantwell, AO, DSC} is because different countries wear their medals in different ways, Australia in rows of 4 (rows of 3 for women), UK in rows of 4 (rows of 5 for the old style battledress), US rowns of 3 etc. --Nford24 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2012 (AEST)

To me, the argument that if they're important enough to be awarded then they should be in the article is an argument for including them in the text (and categorisation, where appropriate), but doesn't directly follow through to justifying a set of images. Do the images really provide any more information than the running text of the article to the reader? Is this material that any other reference work would include, and if not, why not? Shimgray | talk | 13:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. Having the awards mentioned scattered throughout the article is in my opinion rather messy.--Nford24 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2012 (AEST)

I think the reason ribbons are encyclopaedic is that they are an important part of the military system, worn on a uniform, and a visible record of a career. As for the order, in the UK system the decorations are always worn in the same order, but campaign medals are worn in order of receipt, so a published photo would be needed. In answer to Shimgray, I think simply listing decorations in the text will not have the impact of a visual display, which would firstly educate the reader as to the meanings of the ribbons and might lead them to seek further information on the awards, where a list in the text could easily be missed. We also list the appointments of senior officers in a table as well as putting them in the text. Why display these but not medal ribbons? Antrim Kate (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another factor that I think needs to be taken into consideration is that a great many articles already have a display of ribbons in them - someone has even developed a template for displaying different numbers of the US devices on the ribbons - and in many areas it appears to be the de facto standard to include ribbons, so I can foresee problems if an attempt is made to remove all the existing ones. Antrim Kate (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A possible solution

I think I might have an alternative solution, to those put forward so far. Looking at the discussion Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#These? in notable's articles I do not think that the proposed table solution suggested there is desirable because for long serving officers you end up with a large salad bar such as described in the Chester W. Nimitz article.

An option would be to use the link=link to a file in the [[File:...|link=link to a file]] and make it an option that if displayed outside a dedicated awards section that the medal bars are not over a certain size. Eg:

without gaps

with gaps

The trouble with this solution is that sometimes there is no specific article eg:

• links an an article called Royal Victorian Order, but it does not give any indication that it is for a rank of "Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO)". So we can take a leaf out of the way Latin expressions are handled: Take for example vincere scis Hannibal victoria uti nescis it can be linked to List of Latin phrases (V)#vincere scis Hannibal victoria uti nescis because the List of Latin phrases consists of tables using {{section}} (a light weight {{anchor}}) that adds a hidden section header for each table entry (some of the better known Latin phrases have redirects to entries in the table eg sub verbo). So using a table like that proposed at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#These? in notable's articles:

Ribbon	Award	Notes
	Companion of the Order of Australia (AC)	Awards creation 1961 discontinued 1988 or whatever
	Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO)
	Knight of Justice of the Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem (KStJ)
	Defence Medal
	War Medal 1939–1945
	Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal

not in each biography article, but in some articles like the List of Latin phrases, so we have an article that lists all the salad dressing for a given country/service (or whatever) and a way to link from any biography without overpowering the biography article with information that some consider trivial. -- PBS (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Chattanooga Campaign

I noticed that there are two seperate categories for battles in this campaign: Category:Battles of the Tennessee River Reopening of the American Civil War and Category:Battles of the Chattanooga-Ringgold Campaign of the American Civil War. From what I've read, the "reopening of the Tennessee River" was just an early stage of the campaign. Should these two categories be merged together? Wild Wolf (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The ACW campaigns were originally modeled on the CWSAC classification. I think we should stick with those campaigns unless there is a compelling reason to deviate. Otherwise, why not just make up our own campaign names and argue about what should be in them? To give you an example, there are some historians who count everything from Tullahoma to Chickamauga to Chattanooga to be the "Chattanooga Campaign." Or you could argue for the "campaigns of Ulysses S. Grant." I don't normally get very concerned about these category definitions and the constant churn of users and bots reorganizing them (because I have never seen any evidence that Wikipedia readers pay attention to them), but since you asked for opinions, mine is to leave it alone. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, the CWSAC Campaign list is available at the http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm URL. Mojoworker (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up because I had noticed that some campaigns for the Lower Seaboard and Trans-Mississippi theaters had been combined, so I wondered about combining the Chattanooga battles categories. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Panzer Army / Panzer Group

Resolved

Should 2nd Panzer Group (Germany) and Panzer Group Guderian be absorbed into 2nd Panzer Army (Germany)? Should 3rd Panzer Group (Germany) be absorbed into 3rd Panzer Army (Germany)? As a bonus question: do these units need the (Germany) specifier? Hamish59 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, No, and No...in that order. IMO, anyhow. I think you could lose the (Germany) tag unless there's another major military that uses the Panzer designation.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness, can you give a reason why not? Panzer Group Guderian was redesignaed as 2nd Panzer Group (Germany) and then later as 2nd Panzer Army (Germany). Is this not then the same formation under three different names? Hamish59 (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In some ways yes, but I'm thinking that many searchers will be looking for Panzer Group Guderian specifically and not necessarily 2nd Panzer Army. I'm actually fairly neutral on the subject, but I do see some value in leaving them as separate articles.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They're the same unit and should be merged together with redirects from the older names. And the disambiguator can be dropped as panzer is a specific German term not used by anyone else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, as Sturmvogel66 says, they should be merged together at the name of latest use: xth Panzer Army, no need for disambiguation. Of course, redirects should remain. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to rename 3rd Panzer Army (Germany) to 3rd Panzer Army but there is an existing article with the latter title so the system is refusing to rename. Can anyone help? Hamish59 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Same problem with 4th Panzer Army (Germany) and 4th Panzer Army... Hamish59 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting AfD

Given the recent AfD regarding Philippa Tattersall, I would like to argue that the AfD of a late PFC Angelo Zawaydeh should be reversed. It is being stated in the AfD regarding P Tattersall that she is notable due to the depth of coverage (which comes in about 1,700 or so google search hits), yet in the case of PFC A Zawaydeh there are 13,800 google searches hits of which there were significant/in-depth coverage in major relable sources (such as the San Francisco Chronicle).

I understand WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but determining notability should not factor whether the individual is alive or dead. Therefore, I am arguing that the AfD of PFC A Zawaydeh should be reversed, and other similar AfDs should be reviewed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS I have notified active editors at appropriately related wikiprojects and articles about this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the appropriate location for this if you think that the discussion was wrongfully closed. Please post a notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military if you take it there. I have to say I don't see any indications of this person meeting WP:BIO from what's at User:RightCowLeftCoast/Angelo Zawaydeh, (you could create a similar-looking article on most western casualties of recent wars, and many such articles have been created and merged or deleted on notability grounds) and the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo Zawaydeh reflected the weight of the comments, all of which were policy-based. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; depending on the discussion here I may or may not move forward at WP:DRV.

Although the majority of the reliable source references came after the subject's death, and thus why WP:NOTMEMORIAL appears to have been brought up during AfD, the subject is mentioned in multiple reliable source references, and in several in an more than trivial and in depth focus, especially in articles from the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle; additionally there are over 13 thousand mentions of the subject elsewhere.

As to rebuke the arguement that similar sources can be found to support notabiliy of most western casualties, I would like to say that the coverage of PFC A Zawaydeh was greater than most deceased western servicemembers. For instance, someone whom I have direct connection to, the late SSG R Doria, unfortunately only has less than four thousand google hits. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sheer numbers of Google hits aren't considered useful for establishing/not establishing notability - please see WP:HITS and WP:GOOGLETEST#Notability. Comments based on numbers of Google hits in AfD discussions are frequently ignored on those grounds. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also note that if you redevelop the article so that it's substantially different to the deleted version it can be recreated, but you should ask other editors to confirm that the notability problems are no longer an issue before moving it into article-space (this is probably best done via asking for comments here and at WT:BIOGRAPHY). My two cents on this is that these problems are insurmountable given that the only reason that Private Zawaydeh received media coverage was due to his death in combat (in which he's one of thousands of fatalities of this war), and this doesn't appear to have been a remarkably high level of coverage (all the news stories in the article at present are routine types of coverage for soldiers killed in combat) or coverage which has been sustained over time, so WP:BIO isn't met. But other editors might disagree with me. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If, as it is being argued, that most western combat fatalities received the same level of coverage, and said level of coverage (even if it included indepth coverage in highly recognized reliable sources) is insufficient to meet WP:GNG, and WP:BIO, then what level of coverage would then constitute meeting GNG & BIO? In the case of Zawaydeh, there were two in depth articles written in the San Francisco Chronicle, an in depth article in the Los Angeles Times, in depth articles in lesser known papers such as those based in Oakland and San Mateo, and multiple mentions elsewhere.

Do Obit articles count towards establishing notability? If they do not should other AfDs where significant coverage is meet by the in depth nature of an obit then be up for review again?

If PFC Zawaydeh is not independently notable; as there is the article List of private contractor deaths in Iraq, as those individual servicemembers who died during OIF as a group are notable, should there then be a List of Coalition military deaths in Iraq? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If PFC Zawaydeh is deserving of an article, it would be on a case basis. Moving to the idea of a list of Coalition deaths changes the goal posts somewhat. I think it would be legitimate to ask what the purpose of such a list would be (given that memorialisation is explicitly non-wiki) and whether/why that purpose would be particular to this conflict.Monstrelet (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If as stated, due to the high level of coverage (multiple in-depth articles from several highly reliable news organizations and dozens of mentions elsewhere) that NickD has stated is "routine types of coverage for soldiers killed in combat", what level of coverage then would be found for a notable non-general/flag officer or non-highest national medal for valor in combat individual?

If the argument that the vast majority of those types of articles are Obituaries, and notability revolves around the death of said individual, and thus they are not notable per WP:ONEEVENT (their death while in uniform), then the question that I have is should obituaries be used to establish notability at all, as has been done in the past? For instance, I have been involved in AfDs that have said that due to the fact that a lengthy obituary is present in a highly reliable news organization that in and of itself indicates that the individual, is at least, highly notable locally and thus are notable enough to have their own article.

Regardless if obituaries are not to be used to establish notability, it is also my opinion as a group of individuals whom are collectively the "Coalition military deaths in Iraq" itself is a highly notable subject per WP:GNG. My belief is based on the multiple stories written by highly reliable sources about them as a single subject (the group taken as a whole), and the multiple (thousands, if not tens of thousands) non-in depth mentions of the group (including nightly mentions on multiple news sources of the group (whether their total statistical number or individuals who are part of the group). As such each individuals who can be classified as part of the notable subject can be verified by a reliable source then should be included in a stand alone list. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been lots of AfDs for soldiers with unremarkable careers who were killed in recent wars and whose death didn't have significant consequences. As far as I'm aware, all have ended in delete decisions on notability grounds. Articles listing by name casualties of wars also tend to be deleted if they go to AfD. One of the sockpuppets of Top Gun (talk · contribs) did in fact create an article listing every single American casualty of (from memory), the war in Iraq by name, and it was deleted at AfD. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the List that is being referred to is the one AfD'd here. In the closing administrator's opinion that there was a general consensus that the subject was notable, but due to the vagueness of the War on Terrorism that it could devolve into a coatrack article. Also, the Iraq War list AfD had to go three rounds before there was a consensus reached; therefore it does not appear (IMHO) that due to WP:CCC there maybe grounds for an article or list of a similar topic.

As a beginning of a renewed discussion, as my question about level of coverage required for individual notability and the use of Obits to establish notability have so far gone unanswered, is there a consensus that as a group that the subject "Coalition Casualties of the Iraq War" are notable given the high level of coverage the totality of the Coalition Casualties have received? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that wasn't the article - I've tried to find the AfD, but failed, but it was deleted on the first go (or converted to a redirect as a result of the discussion) and it listed thousands of people by name. I think that there's no question that, at the aggregate level, this topic is notable (likewise articles on the casualties of other major wars), but the results of AfD discussions indicate that individual service personnel are not notable if they've only received coverage due to their death. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That opens up a bigger question then, if an individual's death is an event and therefore covered under WP:1E then can Obits even significant ones in major reliable sources be used to determine notability? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response. My personal take on it is that people whose only claim to notability is due to their death should be covered as part of article on the event which led to their death. However, many of these incidents are not themselves notable under WP:EVENT (for instance, an individual vehicle striking a mine or a small battle). As such, they're out of scope all together. Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then, if Obit's are the primary creation of reliable sources regarding an individual then a note of the use of Obit's and notability (creation of sufficient reliable sources that would otherwise create notability if the amount of coverage was not about a death) due to the death of the individual, as per WP:1E, do not themselves create notability should be added to WP:BIO somewhere? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Veillane an AfD candidate?

Snipped from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source?

.... I wanted some information on the Battle of Veillane on which Wikipedia did not have an article, so I looked up what was available publicly on the net and three days ago wrote a sub. That stub cites five sources four of which are tertiary sources. I do not think that Wikipedia would be improved by not creating or removing stubs such as this because they cite tertiary sources, instead Wikipedia will be improved when someone, who knows more about the battle than I, who edits my contribution mercilessly by summarising secondary sources. -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

...Perhaps you ought to consider more closely weight if you're citing online tertiaries. There are no sources therein cited that are tertiary appropriate for the notability of Battle of Veillane; and the single page citations to contemporary works are radically insufficient to establish notability. None of these has the Battle of Veillane as its topic, and therefore you should feel awful about your contribution there. Go read WEIGHT. ... Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am interested to hear what people in this project think. Is the stub Battle of Veillane a candidate for AfD because it is based on tertiary sources and does not meet WP:WEIGHT (although I think WP:SIGCOV is more relevant), or should it be kept and in due time expanded? -- PBS (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the battle itself, it appears in a (moderately) well known engraving by Callot, and my instinct is that it is probably notable. (I'll admit, I am a Callot fan though...!) In terms of how I'd justify it, though, I feel I'd have to cite secondary sources in my justification rather than tertiary. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see it remain as the foundation for expansion. It's true that we frown on tertiary sources, but at least one secondary source seems to be used and because we apparently have nothing else on the Piedmont Campaign there's no logical candidate for a merger. EyeSerene^talk 10:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything covered in multiple tertiary sources can probably be assumed to have also been covered in secondary sources. A search of Google books ([1]) returns several references to this battle in secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Polish lancers

I was having a bash at sorting out a query on the Talk:Lancer page about the use of lances by Polish cavalry in 1939. It's a bit of a vexed question because of the German propaganda about lancers charging tanks etc. I found this eye witness account of lances being used: Polish News: Last Great Charge of the Polish Cavalry by Marian Kamil Dziewanowski who seems to be a reliable source. However, we have a list of 1939 Polish cavalry charges at Polish cavalry#Cavalry charges and propaganda but the one Dziewanowski describes is on 09 September doesn't seem to appear on the WP list. Can anyone familiar with the campaign help to identify the engagement, and do we have an article about it? I was planning to add a sentence to the "Lancer" article, to the effect that some accounts suggest that lances were used in 1939, and use the Dziewanowski article as a reference. Advice please! Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk to User:Piotrus. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Buckshot, as Piotrus is the Polish history person I'd go to, but a note of caution. Eyewitness accounts aren't generally well-regarded for factual accuracy. I'd corroborate the charge and actions described by Dziewanowski with a secondary source before including it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkpage Duplication in B-class section.

There is a duplication of a talkpage: Talk:209th Civil Engineer Squadron. When the article is clicked on it goes to Mississippi Air National Guard. Adamdaley (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Adamdaley (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope of War on Terror article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War on Terror#Terminology. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Montgomery Convention

I was adding stub tags to articles and found that there is a proposal from June 2011 to merge this article with the Provisional Confederate Congress, with one support vote from November 2011. Is there any objection to merging these two? Wild Wolf (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If the proposal has attracted such scant attention I think it's safe to assume it's fairly uncontroversial. Both articles are very short so a merger would certainly make sense to me. EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Merged articles. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

War-related mining

I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this but I was wondering if mine articles related to the wars they were producing material for should be added in the associated war categories. I rewrote and expanded the Barton Mine article a few days ago. This mine produced molybdenum ore in World War I for military purposes. If war-related mines are appropriate to be categorized with the wars they were producing material for, Barton would go in Category:Canada in World War I. If not I think there should be categories that list topics associated with wars. Volcanoguy 10:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright no comments. I added the category, as well as the project template. Volcanoguy 03:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, actually, as our scope would be widened too far (oh, you produced war material at any point in history? Added). Apologies, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Volcanoguy. I did read this when it was posted but got sidetracked and forgot to come back to post a reply :P I agree with Ed that our template probably doesn't belong on the articles. I'm ambivalent about the category, because although I think it's possible to link almost any material production/manufacturing to a military usage I suppose it's conceivable that a cross-reference would be useful to someone. EyeSerene^talk 09:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfactual comparisions in AFV articles

I am not really sure that this belongs here, but I am confident that here someone will read this and fix the problems. Some military articles (e.g. the Stryker, TPz Fuchs, LAV III and many others) include comparision tables. The reason why they were added remain a mystery at least to me, but that's not relevant. More relevant for Wikipedia might be (if these comparsions will not be removed), that factual correctness should be given there. The comparision tables include a lot of mistakes, which could lead to a wrong understanding - I don't want to accuse the writers of these tables of being biased - I just want to note that there are errors inside it. To make this a little bit shorter I think I might use the table from the Stryker article without references:

	Fuchs	VBCI	LAV-25	Stryker ICV	BTR-90	Terrex	Patria AMV
Weight	18.3 tonnes 20.2 short tons	26 tonnes 29 short tons	12.8 tonnes 14.1 short tons	16.47 tonnes 18.16 short tons	20.9 tonnes 23.0 short tons	25 tonnes 28 short tons	16 tonnes 18 short tons
Primary armament	Up to three 7.62 mm (0.300 in) Rheinmetall MG3 machine guns	25 mm (0.98 in) NATO dual feed cannon	25 mm (0.98 in) M242 chain gun	0.50 in (13 mm) M2 Browning machine gun	30 mm (1.2 in) 2A42 automatic cannon	25 mm (0.98 in) M242 chain gun, 105mm stabilised turret or RWS	Twin 120 mm AMOS mortars, 105mm gun or 0.50 in (13 mm) M2 Browning machine gun RWS
Secondary armament		7.62 mm (0.300 in) coaxial machine gun	7.62 mm (0.300 in) C6 GPMG machine gun x2		7.62 mm (0.300 in) PKT machine gun, AGS-17 30 mm automatic grenade launcher	40 mm (1.6 in) AGL, 7.62 mm GPMG (twin-weapon RWS)
Missile armament (Range)	MILAN 400–2,000 m (1,300–6,600 ft)				9M113 Konkurs 700–4,000 m (2,300–13,100 ft)	SPIKE 4,000 m (13,000 ft)
Road range	800 km 500 mi	750 km 470 mi	660 km 410 mi	500 km 310 mi	700 km 430 mi	800 km 500 mi	800 km 500 mi
Maximum road speed	96 km/h 60 mph	100 km/h 62 mph	100 km/h 62 mph	100 km/h 62 mph	100 km/h 62 mph	110 km/h 68 mph	100 km/h 62 mph
Capacity (maximum)	2 crew 10 passengers	2 crew 9 passengers	3 crew 6 passengers	2 crew 9 passengers	3 crew 7 passengers	2 crew 12 passengers	3 crew 10 passengers

The first thing that could be noted as an error is the choice of vehicles featured in the comparision. Why should an IFV (VBCI) be compared to APCs? Why are six-wheeled vehicles compared with eight-wheeled? Why are some of these vehicles from the 1980s and some from the 2000s? Even if the vehicles are used in the same roles is arguable. Even if we would ignore most of it, we would take a look at the data presented in the table... and here it gets only worse: The weight values from some vehicles (Stryker, LAV-25) are from vehicles not fitted with applique armour, while other weight values (VBCI, Fuchs) are from vehicles fitted with applique armour. Then some values show the empty weight (Stryker, Patria AMV), while other weight values are for combat loaden vehicles (Fuchs, Terrex). So, there is no common factor for the weight values. The Fuchs is also the only represented 6x6 vehicle. Then we come to the armament: All vehicles should be APCs, as the Stryker in this comparision is also an APC configuration. But the VBCI (an IFV) is part of the comparision table, and the Patria AMV and Terrex are not presented in the APC configurations. The Terrex does not carry a 25 mm chaingun in fielded APC configurations, while the Patria AMV only carried 105 mm guns or the AMOS mortar system in prototype vehicles, the APC is not fitted with a turret. The Fuchs APC does not generally carry a MILAN ATGM launcher, only sometimes (the Terrex also does not carry a SPIKE launcher, the infantry inside may carry one). About range and speed: On which factors are the values based? Does a Fuchs or a Stryker with add-on armour also have the same speed and range? Were the vehicles fully combat loaden or only carried a driver and a commander? Thn there is the capacity - I must admit that I don't know much about this - but I know that the Fuchs APC at least can carry 10 passengers, but carries only 8 passengers in German army service. Afaik the German army is the only user of the Fuchs as APC.

This was just an example, but the other the comparisions in other articles contain similar errors. It would be nice if someone has time to fix the tables, else I would suggest removing them. --EndlessUnknown (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the duplication from article to article is a problem. It would make more sense to have a comprehensive "list of" article whose selections are more objective. Mangoe (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that on the whole such comparisons should not be in articles. I can see exceptions occurring (eg within an article on a country's weapon development/acquisition programme) but in each case the comparison should be based on comparisons made in the reliable sources. And even then I suspect sources compare more general attributes such as reliability and cost than the exact number of machine guns a vehicle might carry. The way to introduce a reader to a similar vehicle is through the See also section (preferably as in linking to a "list of..." article, or the categories/category link where a list does not exist. The reader can then make their own interpretations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing these tables for all the reasons above - they're cumbersome and not very useful. A single comparison article might an improvement, though they can be troublesome in their own right given that they duplicate other articles.

I would also suggest removing the tables. EndlessUnknown, if you encounter edit wars or other trouble after removing tables, do not hesitate to raise the problem here. Several administrators (probably more than 'several', actually) monitor this page constantly. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I too suggest removing the tables unless they're based on a source that explicitly makes exactly those comparisons (per WP:SYNTH). EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Create a page called something like "Comparative analysis of APC's: 2000-2010" (and another for IFV's) and put the tables into these pages - and point to those pages from each APC or IFV article which is analysed in the table. No? This frees the IFV or APC pages from potential edit wars. Farawayman (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Frederick_Russell_Burnham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

GA lists

At 497 articles, MILHIST's "Warships" subsection on Wikipedia:Good articles/History is the largest in the entire list, with more links in that subsection alone than the Philosophy and religion and Mathematics pages combined. I'm not sure how to go about subdividing it further; there is already a 97-article "Submarines" subsection I separated a while back but I'm not sure how to go about further dividing them by class. Should we divide articles by nationality? Could we arrange ships by dates of commission/design? Should we just divide the whole thing alphabetically? Looking for feedback. —Ed!^(talk) 19:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I started a discussion here about whether or not the 1,800 War and Military GAs should get a page of their own on the list, separate from the "History" page, to help divide the GAs more effectively. —Ed!^(talk) 19:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What about dividing it between age of sail and self-powered ships? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't work - the vast majority of the articles fall into the latter category. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Since subs are split off already, this should reduce the problem. Dividing then would only involve powered ships... so, capital ships (BB, BC, CV, CVL), armoured/protected/other cruiser (CA, CL, CVE), small surface combantants (DL, DD, DE, FF, etc), other (seaplane tender, hospital ship, etc) 70.24.251.71 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think dividing the Warship articles by Nationality may be good for now. I counted the articles with respect to their Nationality:

Country	No. of Warship Articles
Germany	143
UK	136
US	66
Russia	57
France	36
Japan	19
Brazil	10
Austria–Hungary	17
Greece	5
Italy	4
Sweden	2
Australia	1

Countries having less than (lets say) twenty articles may be grouped in a single subsection. --SMS ^Talk 21:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. I can put the subs into those sections, too. —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be 17 Austro-Hungarian ship GAs (see here), most of which probably got lumped into the German tally (for which you're welcome, by the way). Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid any "Other"-type category. I think "Europe", "Americas", "Asia and [Australia]" (whichever preferred term for the last continent) might be suitable. As attractive as pulling out particular countries is, I think it reveals our bias too much. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, then there's the problem of breaking it into manageable chunks again - only 76 will be split off from the Americas, and less than 2 dozen for Australasia, leaving another 400 or so for Europe. Sort of defeats the purpose of splitting up the category.

By the way, there should be at least five Greek ship articles - Salamis, Kilkis, Limnos, Hydra, and Hydra class ironclad. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Parsecboy. --SMS ^Talk 16:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

101 Battalion

Hi all, this contribution reads very much like a copyvio (look at the first edit)---does anyone have access to its main source, Modern African Wars (3) by Helmoed Heitman? If all should be fine you might want to tag this article as belonging to your project. Thanks in advance, Pgallert (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not hail from Modern African Wars. It's a 'translated, corrected, edited, and expanded' version of a extract from Beeld an Die SWA Gebiedsmag, by P.H.R Snyman, an Afrikaans book published in 1989. The source was written into the first lines of the original 2007 first edit. I'll alert User:Moonriddengirl and she can give her opinion on whether 'translated, corrected, edited, and expanded' removes the original copyright. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, no. :( That makes it very much a derivative work, and it needs to be rewritten if it is to be retained. Anybody know enough about this subject to take this on? I've blanked the article and will leave a note for the creator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got some expertise on this area. I'll maintain a watching brief for now. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all a lot for your quick response and action. It looks like you can access the Snyman reference, I cannot see into it from my location. If anyone wants to send me the Afrikaans text I could help working on this article. --Pgallert (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Officer training

I just stumbled across Officer training; it's just a short unsourced paragraph. Surely such a general topic deserves much better coverage. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of this will involve how things are done in different nations. ie, a section on the United States should link to ROTC, OCS/OTS and West Point. Similar to how many of the military rank pages are done. The articles that you link to should deal with the contents of the training. —Ed!^(talk) 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A-class fail, FA pass

The article 1689 Boston revolt failed its A-class review months ago because I opened its successful FA candidacy while the review was still open. It's a little odd to have the A-class "fail" and the FA-class "pass" right next to each other on the "more information" template located near the top of the talk page. Is it appropriate to remove it, or must it be kept? dci | TALK 03:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the A-class wasn't legitimate (as it was opened at the same time as the FAC), I don't think the fail is valid either. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, when an A-Class Review stays open for a week and garners comment from a few editors, it's certainly "legitimate" -- the nominator has put it up, people have taken the time to review, and if the nominator chooses to go for FA before the ACR process completes, that's his choice. The ACR has to be closed once the FAC has started, and the only option available in our present system is to "fail" it because there was no consensus to promote to A-Class. The ACR and its result can't be removed from Article Milestones, however there's no reason the full review has to be sitting there in all its glory in the main body of the article talk page, and I'm not sure why it's there at the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good point on the ACR section on the talk page. I changed the transcluded review section to a link. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ian here. Sorry DCI. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Russell Burnham

I'm having difficulty getting my point across on talk re: Burnham's official military status in the Second Boer War. Can someone else have a look? Needs some British Army knowledge Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Flawed template

Hi, is anybody else aware of a fault with Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Good article nominee? The template only accommodates first-time GAN, so if an an editor nominates an article for GA for the second time, the link at Template:WPMILHIST Announcements would lead to the first GAN review page, not the intended second one (see Talk:Bhagat Singh and Talk:Battle of Magdhaba). Could somebody fix this? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Preparing de Havilland Comet for A-level Review

Hello WP:MilHist. Over the last few months, I've been spending sometime redeveloping one of the most crucial civil aircraft in history, the first-ever passenger jet aircraft, the de Havilland Comet. The bulk of this work was actually done back in 2010, the result of which led to the article being listed as a Good Article. It is my intention in the near-future, that the article has reached a level of stablity and refinement since then that it is suitable for consideration at the next level of quality review. With an article as large as this one, I feel it appropriate to notify the community in advance, both in order to garner opinion of suitability and criticism towards improvement - thus this message. If anybody has the time to read over this article, I would appreicate their effort and their thoughts on the matter. Thank you in advance. Kyteto (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For others' benefit, I was the GA reviewer and Kyteto, Bzuk and I spent a fair bit of time getting things to what I think was a high standard. I know the article has also had a Peer Review since (about a year ago I think -- time flies). Anyway, had a quick skim just now and it looks like the essential structure and level of referencing is as I remember, with some further detail added. ACR certainly seems a logical next step now, my only suggestion is one I recommended during the GA review as something to do before FAC, namely add a Legacy section summarising the design's impact on jet travel and also of course on air crash investigations (hmm, good name for a TV show, that)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kyteto for your hard work on the Comet article, along with the efforts of Bzuk and Ian Rose. I perused the article earlier this year and was very impressed by its quality. My comment at the time recommended taking the article to A-class review, as a prelude to FA evaluation, but there were no responses at the time. I also suggested and ultimately added the new infobox image that the article currently uses. In my opinion, having gone through a number of ACRs and FARs of airliner articles, the Comet article stands a good chance of reaching the top level of Wiki article status. Given time, I may be able to contribute further as well. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad

This article, which is linked to your project, claims to list all major oficers and commanders, German, Romanian, and Soviet. But unless I am seriously blind, it lists only German officers and no Soviet officers. The article was created in 2007 which means I am not especially hopeful that this will be rectified in the foreseeable future. So what should we do? Do we delete it? Or change the title? Or create a redirect? Currently, the title is misleading. I am not part of your project, but unless any of you plan to take on the task of completing the list in the near future, we need to address this problem, of an inaccurate and misleading title. As it is linked to your project I think your members should lead the discussion about the best solution. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A section covering Soviet officers was deleted in November 2011, with Romanian officers deleted shortly afterwards. Arguable this article may be partially redundant to the Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad and Red Army order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, military history is not my thing so I am not the right person to lead this discussion. But the material should not have been deleted in November 2011 - or when it was deleted, the title of the article should have been changed. If the article is redundant with others it should be deleted. I hope some people here will make the right decision. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the Russian and Romanian commanders for now. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks entirely surplus to the order of battles, and not very useful in isolation. Why the German unit names and ranks are in untranslated German (eg, 'Oberbefehlshaber Heeresgruppe B') but the Soviet and Romanian ranks and units have been translated is also something of a mystery ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion here. EyeSerene^talk 08:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

An interesting question...

...do Texas' new armed Rio Grande patrol boats fall within our scope? [2] And, even if not, are they notable enough for an article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

They probably fall within the project's scope (as their purchase is related to an ongoing conflict, and they're heavily armed), and they're almost certainly notable. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

They probably also fall under the Law Enforcement and Texas WikiProjects as well. If they were not involved in a conflict, I would say that they would not fall under our scope, but if they become involved in the Mexican Drug War, or some related subject, then I would say yes they do then fall under our scope.

So does that mean that the United States Border Patrol & U.S. Customs and Border Protection fall under our scope as well? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing they're for LEAs, not military, use, I'd say no, nor C&BP. "Drug war" isn't a war, it's a media fiction. It's about lawbreaking, not war per se. If they are, does that put ICE under the project? NCIS? CIA or NSA, because they provide intel? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Trek on this - I don't think it falls under our scope. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Our notes on remit state "Other than a requirement for military or paramilitary involvement, we do not limit the events to which terms such as "war" or "battle" are applied; it is generally enough for the term to be used by reliable sources. Editors should beware, however, of interpreting such usage too literally; the popular media often uses them to describe civil law enforcement matters such as "gang wars" or "street battles", which are not typically within our scope." I would suggest from that that a LEA involved in a "drug war" is outside our currently defined scope Monstrelet (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, drug "war" aside, they are paramilitary vessels used to patrol a border water - but scope or not, they do seem to be notable enough... *scurries off to sandbox* - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• And away it goes! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Sitting Bull article

Hi, FYI Sitting_Bull#Lead_section_does_not_make_sense. I thought I would mention this here because I see this project encompasses the relevant article, and also seems to be fairly active. Regards, 86.160.82.245 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that link should be Talk:Sitting Bull#Lead_section_does_not_make_sense, instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, yes! Thanks for your help at the article. 86.160.221.54 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)