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 July newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian • Brighton hotel bombing • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured list candidates List of Eureka Stockade defenders Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • Lockheed YF-22 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Udagbedo • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Black Hills National Cemetery • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B Good article reassessments Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City • Tsugaru clan • Basil W. Duke Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,887) • only work on referencing and citation (43,203) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,088) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,784) • work on structure (31,832) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,172) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,827) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (6) • assessment as lists (3) • project tags fixed (14) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (1) • task forces added (146) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Looking for book reviews for the December edition of the Bugle

If anyone is interested in providing a book review for the upcoming edition of the Bugle, please post it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2012/Book reviews. I'll be reviewing a book, but more reviews would be great :) Reviews can be of any military-related book (non-fiction or fiction) and can be of any length or style. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any kind of time restriction for this (only books within the last X number of years)? Wild Wolf (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope Nick will forgive me for replying on his part, but my understanding is that there is no restriction. I recently reviewed a book that had been published in 1986. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed you post Wild Wolf. As AustralianRupert notes, the books reviewed don't have to be at all recent - I can close to reviewing an almost 60 year old book earlier in the year :) Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get started on book reviews for the next issue. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2012 now open!

Military historian of the year 2012

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 14 December 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.

---

• Anotherclown: for his tireless contributions at Milhist A-Class Reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7: for his prolific article writing and consistent contributions as a reviewer, particularly at B class level. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ian Rose: for his continued involvement as a co-ord, FAC delegate and (high quality) content writer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nick-D: for managing to balance the demands of being an admin and a co-ord and still contribute high quality articles at FAC (and other levels). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67: for his significant contributions to Balkans-related articles and recent work as a GAN reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert: for his tireless reviewing, project coordination, and article work. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the nomination, Ian, but I would like to respectfully decline this time. As a previous recipient, I would like to follow Sturm's lead on this one and bow out. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria: for her valuable contributions to reviews, FAR delegation, and Canadian military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Dank: for his exemplary work as a reviewer, copyeditor, and project coordinator. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Constantine: for his skill and dedication in Byzantine and Muslim military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Cliftonian: for his skill and dedication in Rhodesian military and diplomatic history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Sturmvogel66: for prodigious work getting ship articles to FA, A Class and GA, and tireless reviewing, especially at GAN (getting close to 300 reviews now). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for thinking of me, but as a previous winner, I feel that I must decline. There are plenty of others who deserve the accolade.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Buckshot06: for his mentoring skills and encouragement to other members of the project as well as his numerous contributions to reviewing others work. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Parsecboy for another prolific year of warship articles. —Ed!^(talk) 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• The_ed17 for his great work behind the scenes. —Ed!^(talk) 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wild Wolf - for his work on the various ACW (and occasional non-ACW) orders of battle, along with orgainizing and categorizing ACW articles, especially the huge stubs category. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keith-264: for all his work on articles related to World War I, including but not limited to Battle of Messines (1917), Battle of Thiepval Ridge, Battle of Passchendaele, and Battle of Poelcappelle. With the 100th anniversary of the start of the war coming next year, Keith's body of work is greatly contributing to improving Wikipedia's coverage ahead of a significant milestone. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Grandiose: for continuing to improve the standards of the project's ACR process by consistently asking the hard questions in relation to image licencing, and making sure that Milhist A-class articles are fully prepared for FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 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.

Discussion and questions

What is the qualification for nomination? I joined this project only by March of this year so this is my first time to see this kind of award. Arius1998 (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell its our MVP of the year award, so the nomination qualification (no ryhme intended) is anyone of particular note who edited and helped the project in a large capacity over the last twelve months. Historically a good many of the veteran editors and coordinators are nominated, along with a handful of outside the project who while not nessicarily under our particular umbrella have gone that extra mile for us. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2012 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2012

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. This year, in addition to the annual "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 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.

---

• Peacemaker67 - works in a controversial area with success. Remarkable edit count this year, although strictly became active thirteen months ago. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Zawed - began editing in 2010 but really came to the fore in the last year or so with a great many solid B-Class articles that focussed on the somewhat neglected field of New Zealand military history, especially biography. Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Cliftonian - 3 excellent FAs and multiple A class and GA level articles in his first full year focused on military history topics, and an all-round pleasant person to interact with. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Arius1998: began editing in September 2011, but has only recently joined the project. He has made numerous contributions to Filipino topics, such as Antonio Luna, Miguel Malvar and various battles of the Philippine–American War. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 20 December 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.

US military units categories

I ran across this category: Category:United States militia in the American Revolution and was wondering if the categories needed renaming. Most of the categories are simply titled (state) militia, while others are (state) militia in the ARW. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has an opinion on the matter, I guess you can do whatever you think best. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"landing craft, tank"

Is "landing craft, tank" and "landing craft tank" a real term? I just got blocked on Wiktionary for adding that as an entry. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Managed to get unblocked, but as for what Wiktionary accepts as terms, it's very foggy. It seems like adding things there will just end up being deleted and having a block applied. If it appears in a military dictionary, that's not enough to avoid being blocked. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

whether Wiktionary accepts it or not, it is a real term. LCT is well known [1]. Per LCM (Landing Craft, Medium) etc etc. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My argument that got me unblocked was that it was a well known term. The administrator who blocked/unblocked me took my evidence and said that it looked like it was a barely used term, just barely acceptable. His own search for the term apparently resulted in no acceptable results. It got restored wikt:landing craft, tank, but I don't think I'll add anything else from a military dictionary to Wiktionary, unless it's an abbreviation. Getting a 2-week block for adding a military term sucks. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Argh, Wiktionary is frustrating, now a different administrator has said that it should be wikt:landing craft tank (the opposite of the last adminsitrator) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell talks in Outliers about how hierarchical cultures inhibit communication, sometimes with disastrous results. (He talks for instance about a Colombian passenger jet that crashed because the co-pilot felt uncomfortable telling his superiors that the plane was out of fuel.) The same top-down, don't-give-me-any-backtalk culture that sometimes produces bone-headed battle plans also sometimes produces semi-literate English, and it doesn't get corrected because people don't feel comfortable reminding their superiors of basic English grammar ... for instance, that everyone will think a "landing craft tank" will be a kind of tank, just as everyone knows that a "film theatre" is a kind of theatre and not a kind of film. How to deal with "exceptional" English is a very hard problem when you're writing for a military readership, but it's dead simple on Wikipedia, which is written for a wide readership: keep the proper nouns if they're established proper nouns, but avoid stupid grammar. The usual solution to this particular problem, even for a military readership, is to stick with the acronym, LCT ... but we have to define the acronym at least once on Wikipedia, so go with "landing craft for tanks (LCT)" at first occurrence, and stick with "LCT" after that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Btw, sorry about your Wiktionary problem ... I can't speak to that, different culture over there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what was called a "proprietorial attitude" also played a part in the worst airline disaster to date. Britmax (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Several of the smaller Wikimedia projects have a reputation for problems which spring from their limited pool of regular personnel and unclear inclusion/exclusion criteria. This appears to be an example of that. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we set up a WikiProject at Wiktionary for military terminology? (I note that several WikiPoject children have appeared at WikiCommons) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be time to set up a subproject at Wikidata, I'll investigate. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

This category has a serious backlog of articles needing a completed checklist. Since over 20,000 articles is a bit much for a single editor to go through, it might be better for some kind of "special project" similar to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March 2011 backlog reduction drive. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to participate. Inkbug (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been some discussion of this already here [[2]]. There is an issue around the proposed introduction of a B6 criteria that is preliminary to a drive getting off the ground. But feel free to nominate yourselves there, the more the merrier. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Imperial German invasion of the United States

I am wondering what should be the name of the article which is currently in place at Operational Plan Three, referring to the German language military study called Operationsplan III of 1903. I think the article should also be about the precursor plans I and II, from 1898 and 1899 respectively. I think some expansion is in order. After expansion, should the article be moved to a new name or is the current name the best one?

• Operational Plan Three
• Imperial German invasion of the United States
• German plans for invasion of the United States
• ...other possible names.

Also, the article is orphaned. Once the name is settled, it should be mentioned here and there in appropriate articles. For instance, it can be mentioned in the following biographies: Kaiser Wilhelm II, Alfred von Tirpitz, Alfred von Schlieffen, Eberhard von Mantey, Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz, Wilhelm Büchsel, and Charles J. Train. Those redlinked men were closely linked to this set of plans but their later careers were greater. German Wikipedia has articles on them. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States, and it should cover all three OpsPlans, not just the third one, especially since the third is an iteration on the second. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be handled the same way as Operation Sea Lion. --Bomzibar (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it to Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States as suggested. The article can still use a Legacy section discussing its very poor chance of success, and discussing the historiography of the plans, being hidden for nearly a century then found in Freiburg's archives, and finally how the world reacted to learning of the plans. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal:European military history featured portal nomination

Portal:European military history was nominated for featured portal status back in mid-November, but has received few reviews. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:European military history. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland, image

I've started work on an SVG version of File:Jutland1916.jpg (these things take time). I just wanted to know, since the image has three sequentially more zoomed-in panels, whether it would be preferable to have three separate images, three, the same as now, or whether there is demand for both (not much extra work).

Also I'm planning to drop the grid references, which I think are arbitrary, unless there's a reason to keep them? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest both; that way it's a relatively future proof design (the size of image you necessarily want in a an article in a few years time will vary according to the future size of handheld devices etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting for military historian of the year for 2012 now open!

Military historian of the year 2012

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. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to keep their votes to a total of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 28 December 2012.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 22 December 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.

---

• Anotherclown: for his tireless contributions at Milhist A-Class Reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support: has been a big part of keeping Milhist's ACR vibrant and has done great work on the Battle of Long Tan article. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Per nom. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Buckshot06: for his mentoring skills and encouragement to other members of the project as well as his numerous contributions to reviewing others work. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Cuprum17 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Hamish59 (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cliftonian: for his skill and dedication in Rhodesian military and diplomatic history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support -- so many names worth voting for, but Cliftonian's lively prose, on top of his solid referencing and under-represented subject matter, I think puts him in the top rank of MilHisters. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Constantine: for his skill and dedication in Byzantine and Muslim military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support -- definitely an under-covered area of Wikipedia getting great coverage thanks to this user. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - some great articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dank: for his exemplary work as a reviewer, copyeditor, and project coordinator. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support—MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support His dedication is truly remarkable. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Constantine ✍ 22:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Gavbadger (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Zawed (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Support —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Grandiose: for continuing to improve the standards of the project's ACR process by consistently asking the hard questions in relation to image licencing, and making sure that Milhist A-class articles are fully prepared for FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7: for his prolific article writing and consistent contributions as a reviewer, particularly at B class level. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Cuprum17 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support His work on MacArthur and the Manhattan project are some of MILHIST's best accomplishments on the year, I think. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support: has authored a very broad range of high quality articles this year. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Constantine ✍ 22:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Gavbadger (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Support I'd also note Hawkeye's huge contributions as a coordinator - I suspect he's closed more ACRs than the rest of us put together! Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Support -- prodigious work rate and fearless when it comes to subjects, plus he dragged me along for the ride to my first Good topic -- what's not to like? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Support How can I not vote for the chap who surpassed me in ACMs? Ed and Ian hit it right on. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Per all of the above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ian Rose: for his continued involvement as a co-ord, FAC delegate and (high quality) content writer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support—MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Gavbadger (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Ian's work has always been of the highest caliber, and his work in administrative areas of the project (and at FAC) are certainly commendable. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keith-264: for all his work on articles related to World War I, including but not limited to Battle of Messines (1917), Battle of Thiepval Ridge, Battle of Passchendaele, and Battle of Poelcappelle. With the 100th anniversary of the start of the war coming next year, Keith's body of work is greatly contributing to improving Wikipedia's coverage ahead of a significant milestone. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Keith's work on these important WWI articles is very impressive (especially with the centenary rapidly approaching!). Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nick-D: for managing to balance the demands of being an admin and a co-ord and still contribute high quality articles at FAC (and other levels). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Constantine ✍ 22:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Zawed (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support -- per Rupert's nom, 'nuff said. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria: for her valuable contributions to reviews, FAR delegation, and Canadian military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support, as per Ian's nomination. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Per nom. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Parsecboy: for another prolific year of warship articles. —Ed!^(talk) 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support—MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Cuprum17 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67: for his significant contributions to Balkans-related articles and recent work as a GAN reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support: per nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Zawed (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• The ed17: for his great work behind the scenes. —Ed!^(talk) 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wild Wolf: for his work on the various ACW (and occasional non-ACW) orders of battle, along with orgainizing and categorizing ACW articles, especially the huge stubs category. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:52, 23 December 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 can't recall from last year (and perhaps missed it in an earlier discussion above), but are we voting with a simple approval system like the coord elections, or should we vote for only one candidate? Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Parsecboy, editors are asked to limit their votes this year to up to three candidates only. I had tried to articulate this in the instructions above, but I fear I may not have made it clear enough. Do you think it needs to be reworded? The discussion about this was on the co-ord talk page here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I'm just daft. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Having worked with you, I know that's not true. ;-) Anyway have a good one. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting for military history newcomer of the year for 2012 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2012

Nominations for this year's Military History Newcomer of the Year award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to only vote for only one candidate. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 28 December 2012. The top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 22 December 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.

---

• Arius1998: began editing in September 2011, but has only recently joined the project. He has made numerous contributions to Filipino topics, such as Antonio Luna, Miguel Malvar and various battles of the Philippine–American War. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Great to see new(er) people joining the project and working on the subjects less travelled. I note that despite the fact that he's only recently joined the project, he has been editing MILHIST articles since he began editing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cliftonian: 3 excellent FAs and multiple A class and GA level articles in his first full year focused on military history topics, and an all-round pleasant person to interact with. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I've seen a lot of his excellent work. —Ed!^(talk) 19:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. All of the candidates have strong claims to the award. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support. Good reviewer, great writer focusing on under-represented subjects, and a nice guy as well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67: works in a controversial area with success. Remarkable edit count this year, although strictly became active thirteen months ago. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support—MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. All these guys stand out, but Peacemaker does a good job in an exceptionally difficult area, Balkans military history. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. What Dank said; tireless work in a very tiring area. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Hamish59 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Great work, which counters systemic bias and provides a reliable coverage on Yugoslavian topics? Count me in... Constantine ✍ 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Support per Dank and Constantine. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Gavbadger (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
11. All of these editors have done great work over the past year, but Peacemaker really stands out to me, for the reasons highlighted above. Balkans military history (especially in the 20th century) is an exceedingly difficult area to work in, which makes his work all the more impressive. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Arius1998 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Zawed: began editing in 2010 but really came to the fore in the last year or so with a great many solid B-Class articles that focused on the somewhat neglected field of New Zealand military history, especially biography. Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Some excellent contributions this year. Anotherclown (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support -- could happily vote for all of the above but will stick with my nom, particularly as a fellow biographer... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 24 December 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.

AfC request? Perhaps someone here can take a look

Hi there. It'd be great if someone from this project could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Anthony Gondek. Upon first read, he doesn't meet notability for winning a bronze medal, and of course it's lacking sources. It'd be great if someone from here could take a look though - I have a hard time judging based on notability (i.e. "playing a significant role" in a major military event..). Thanks so much! (Should only take a project member about 2 minutes :) ) SarahStierch (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The only source it gives doesn't resolve (I'm getting error messages from the page). Seems a brave marine, but a quick search isn't showing him to be necessarily notable. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Polish-Swedish wars article pointless?

Just been reading the Polish-Swedish wars article, and wondered if anyone with more experience than myself would care to take a look at whether this article should be deleted. Personally I don't see the point of it. It seems to be a long list of synopses of (often unconnected) wars that are dealt with by other articles (i.e. every section has a main tag). It is written in pretty poor English, seems somewhat POV (IMHO), and is only half finished yet hasn't been worked on since mid 2008. Cheers.1812ahill (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the page, re-titled "Polish-Swedish war," would make a good disambiguation page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that. Great idea!1812ahill (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think that the history of the wars between Poland and Sweden could be a feasible article. Not one that would be high up the preference lists, granted, but {the military history of Sweden} and {the military history of Poland} are each big enough to possibly justify the page. The lead would have to be more prose, however. Something a bit like French Revolutionary Wars. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case, would it be feasible/desirable to set up a disambiguation page for 'Polish-Swedish war' whilst leaving the 'Polish-Swedish wars' page unchanged? (I note the former redirects to the latter at the moment). I'd be willing to do the work, if only for the selfish reason of exploring the mechanics of disambiguation pages :o).1812ahill (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That could. The problem here is that my solution would work better if the article was more complete and better written. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Need some opinions/help

I am in a conversation on the Battle of Jamrud, where another editor is taking certain conditions(ie. "...the immediate military objective of the Afghans was to retake Jamrud fort. They failed to retake it.") as reasoning to place Sikh victory(as opposed to Afghan victory or stalemate/indecisive) in the result part of the template. Is this customary in the military history section of wikipedia??

My other question is, doesn't the template result have to be supported by a reference stating Sikh victory, Afghan victory or Indecisive and not simply an editor's formulated opinion as to objectives gained/lost?

Each "result"; Sikh victory, Afghan victory and Indecisive are supported by university source(s). I am for listing each result in the templage with corresponding sources.

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not a compromise based on the text? As in: "Result: Defined western boundary of Sikh Empire." Boneyard90 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a possibility, or another option might be list something generic in the infobox. For instance "result=See Aftermath" (or whatever section in the prose is being used to discuss the results). You could then use a number of paragraphs in that section to discuss the varied scholarly interpretations of the result, adding equal weight to all reliable sources. Another option might be "result=Disputed" and then, as above, discuss all the varied interpretations in the prose. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In an ideal world the infobox entry would be obvious based on the outcome/aftermath section, which itself should be summarised in the lede. But reliable sources do not always state the outcome simply and a lot of editor time can be taken up in trying to work out the a suitable statement. Omitting it from the infobox does not necessarily detract from the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AR and Graeme. For an example and the syntax have a look at Operation Trio. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeomen Warders

I hate to be a pain, but anyone want to tackle this? For something with deep roots going right back to the Tudor period, it's rather amazing that the article acts as if nothing of note happened between its founding and 2007, outside of Etymology and a well-known Gilbert and Sullivan opera. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It does need a bit of work... And the opera wasn't even one of their better ones... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I like that opera! =P - But this is off-topic. Seriously, though, I think I have a couple sources I can use, which'll make a start, but they're all to do with the Victorian era, so, while it's a start... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I know a source with some info on the unit under the Tudors, including numbers and roles, which could provide a para. I'll try to drop it in over the hols. Monstrelet (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Will have a look and see what I've got as well - in between listening to HMS Pinafore...:) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article now has a history section and some stuff on the Tudors. Over to you guys Monstrelet (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1911 Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica has a heart-warming account of how they lost their right to wear royal livery when the Tower of London ceased to be a royal residence, but got it back c1553 because of their considerate behavior to a briefly incarcerated lord protector. Unfortunately their history since then seems to have a been a peaceful and uneventful one.Buistr (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Warders would probably consider that fortunate :) I can think of a couple of incidents they may have been involved in - Colonel Blood and the theft of the Crown Jewels perhaps, and they may have had a role in WWII, when the Tower was at risk from bombing and, IIRC, spies were held there. Anyone able to confirm or deny these roles?Monstrelet (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Question re Fort Yellowstone article

Please advise on this question at: Talk:Fort Yellowstone#How much history to include? Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on the page, suggesting a few recent Featured Articles on fortified locations that might be used as models. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential copyvio problems at No. 204 Squadron RAF

A large chunk of this article appears to have been a close paraphrase of [3]. Comments on the talkpage and help clearing up the page would be appreciated.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox resistance group

Hello,

I've been doing some work on Belgian resistance groups in WWII and it seems to me that all the articles on the subject of resistance cells around Europe during the war deserve an infobox of their own. "Infobox:Military Unit" has not only the wrong name, but it also lacks some of the fields which would be required for a resistance group which are not on list, here are a couple off-hand:

• Region(s)of operation (few groups operated nation-wide)
• Estimated size (i.e. number)
• Nationality [of members]
• Countries supported by
• Founder(s)
• Language(s) spoken (important to divide Flemish and French speaking resistance groups in Belgium, as well as in the Balkans)
• Political affiliation (Communist, loyal to Government in Exile etc)
• Types of operation (sabotage, passive resistance, hiding pilots etc.)
• Dates of Operation
• Newspaper(s) published
• Why it was disbanded (was it disbanded after the end of the war, or found by the Germans?)

I don't know how to make one myself, and it is certainly possible I don't have the needed privileges or expertise, but if anyone would fancy the challenge, it would certainly be a worthwhile contribution! --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is only a summary of information and several of the above "parameters" could be omitted (newspapers) or accomodated within existing parameters (eg "active" could have the reason for dismbandment following the last date. but there is a "disbandment" field to take notes "part of" could be the affiliation, there is a "type" field that could be used as well.

|commander1= |commander1_label= |commander2= |commander2_label= |commander3= |commander3_label= |commander4= |commander4_label= |notable_commanders= |identification_symbol= |identification_symbol_label= |identification_symbol_2= |identification_symbol_2_label= |identification_symbol_3= |identification_symbol_3_label= |identification_symbol_4= |identification_symbol_4_label= }}-->

I see your point, however I'd say that some fields like newspapers are the ones that really differentiate resistance groups - which were self-contained political as well as economic units. It's that sort of summary information which should, I believe, be incorporated into an "infobox summary".Brigade Piron (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Of course there were a number of resistance movements in the Balkans, some of whom did little resisting and a lot of collaborating, but I fear there would then be edit-wars over whether the resistance group infobox was justified. Applying it to Chetniks for example would create a Category Five POV-cyclone... So using "infobox military unit" is probably more neutral. In the Balkans articles we are always having problems with infoboxes, particularly "infobox former country" which is currently doing my head in over at Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As an alternative to {{Infobox military unit}}, you might consider using {{Infobox war faction}}, which was designed with something closer to this scenario in mind; it may be particularly useful for the larger resistance groups (or groupings of resistance groups, if such a thing existed in this context).

More generally, if there are specific fields that would be useful additions to either of the infobox templates, it's not a problem to add them; certainly, adding fields to an existing infobox is much simpler than creating an entirely new one, and avoids the thorny issues of which infobox to use that Peacemaker67 alludes to above. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that Kirill has hit the nail on the head. That's much closer to what I was looking for. Thanks! --Brigade Piron (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland, image (2)

I've uploaded a draft version of the file File:Jutland1916.jpg here. It's not at native resolution, but I thought as a late Christmas present some editors would like a sneak-peek :) I'd also like any feedback - I've corrected a couple of typographical errors/odd translations and there may be more. There are some things which might look slightly odder at this resolution than at native, but feel free to chuck things at me. I'm looking to upload it in the new year. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's looking good. I'd suggest zooming in though - there's no need to include anything south of the Netherlands given that the ship movements were confined to the North Sea. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Without an inset locator map the risk is that we lose what we're looking at. I'll consider a somewhat tighter crop going forward though, I think we can lose a bit off the sides. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree - a nice bit of work. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Tet Offensive

Tet Offensive, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GW Panther

I've prodded GW Panther due to lack of sources to give sufficient notability for an independent article. The sentence has lain there unreferenced and tagged with notability concern for 6 months, so I thought it worth prodding. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not the original article creator, but I've given it a quick rewrite based on Russian sources; how does it fare now? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well now that you've added to it, I recognise that there's an existing article on the Flakpanzer Coelian. But at what point are these largely-unrealised projects better handled as a separate article than a subsection of the parent chassis. Is there room for expansion. By comparison the self-propelled AA gun based on Crusader tank [covered by the variant section of the article] and several of those were made and entered service (briefly) GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice that article; I'd have gone ahead with merging but realised that there's very little to add, so I've just redirected it to Flakpanzer Coelian. I'm just wondering why the Russian Wikipedia has two articles on the same thing for all this time (ru:GW-Panther and ru:Flakpanzer V both document the same thing). As for these developmental projects that never came to mass production, I'm not sure what the criteria for notability would be. I think as long as it's well documented, and isn't too interrelated with an existing design, it should be fine, but I'm open to what others have to say as well. In our case here, it would make sense to make it a subsection at Panther tank. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, sub-section at Panther tank. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Entebbe

Operation Entebbe, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian Expeditionary Force

This article seems to be a colection of orders of battle. Should it be renamed to something like "Egyptian Expeditionary Force order of battle"? Wild Wolf (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a case that the main author of the article hasn't got round to writing the prose to fill in the gaps. However there would have to be a lot of history of the EFF to dilute the orders of battle down to a proportionate size relative to the rest of the article. It would make good sense to spin off - rather than rename- the list of orders of battle off under Egyptian Expeditionary Force order of battle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Graeme. No doubt the order of battle is substantial and will dominate even an article that is filled out. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1865

When I tried to nominate this and similar articles to A List class a couple months ago, one of the suggestions was to reformat the articles from lists to tables. I did so for the above article and I am looking for feedback about how this looks. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Template question

It would be good to see what members of this project feel about the questions raised at: Template talk:Infobox military person#Spouse. Thank you. --My76Strat (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Create children wikiprojects at WP:SISTER sites?

There's been a suggestion, of mine, and of user:Dank, to create child wikiprojects at the sister sites. I'd like to see if we have any support for this, from the community here:

• WikiProject at Wiktionary for military terminology
• WikiProject at Wikimedia Commons for military images, sounds, videos
• WikiProject at WikiData

Examples of sistered WikiProjects are such like commons:Commons:WikiProject Aviation the sister of WP:WikiProject Aviation

-- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata and Individual Engagement Grants are both coming fast, with a lot of opportunities to help us or hurt us, I think. (IEG isn't a sister project, but since there's a lot of money on the table, and since "community endorsements" are a big part of this effort, I think this is going to pull the larger community in, for better or worse, in a way that previous grant-making initiatives haven't.) Is there anything anybody definitely does or doesn't want to see from these projects, especially as it might affect Milhist? (I've got some ideas, but it would be nice to get everything out on the table before we pick a plan and go with it.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is generally a good idea but you might receive some pushback from some of the sister projects. Some don't want projects (like Simple English Wikipedia) or the drama and article ownership that frequently comes with them. Not to say this project does that but its a general feeling as I have worked on some of these other areas. I think building a common project page somewhere (maybe in Wikimedia or commons) that helps this project support articles and content on the sister wiki's that relate to this project is a good idea. Take it from me though. Tread slowly and carefully or you may find yourself in a hornets nest as I did with WikiProject United States. Another possibility is to build a Facebook project page where you could post info about the project, articles in it, etc. to a much wider audience. Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. But if a sister project is going to directly affect the English Wikipedia ... for instance, if some of our infoboxes are going to have content that is determined by Wikidata editors (many of whom won't speak English and most of whom won't have access to any of the article's sources) ... then I think we're entitled to have a wikiproject, or task forces within existing wikiprojects, right here on Wikipedia to get consensus on what we do and don't want to see coming in from Wikidata. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd be better if the sister sites had a place on one of the sites to go to, if they want to complain about some of the activities then, instead of making everyone register on Facebook (and not everyone is an FB user, especially in some regions of the world) -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As for things I would like to see: It would be good to get some grant money to continue to get people in the Archives, Library of Congress, Smithsonian and possibly even things like the Naval Historical Society and Army Center for Military History to work with the pedia to add content, do research, etc. It would be good if we could work with these agencies to do things like Qcode certain items (Such as things in the Air and Space museum) to the Wikipedia article in the language of the person looking at the display. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

American Revolution

(Retitled)

Keepin it real

I have a small handful of articles just over stub size. Dealing with the American Revolution Colonels and Generals, BUT they are in need of some serious polishing. REF tags I just dont have the hang of. but anyway I'm not looking for an award here I just need help making them presentable articles Kiliaen van Rensselaer (colonel) The articles for his sons and nephews that fought also are sorta rough also. JGVR (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll gladly have a look at what you have, is there a link to the drafts? I gather Kiliaen van Rensselaer (colonel) is one you are referring to? --My76Strat (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Above, it does look like we're all about awards ... but it's just for fun, and they work (at least, for me :). - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(added link for Albany militia)JGVR (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to all who responded

I am very thankful for the fast response. I know I didn't leave a message to all that helped, I sorta have mixed feelings about that happening. I left my message and left thinking it might be a day or so which would have satisfied me, but as I kept refreshing the watchlist - well it was more than I expected in such a short time it was more than I could keep up with. So I felt I should come back and leave a note to those I missed. As this was happening an admin swept through and removed the "Battle of Fort Anne" cat-tags, on ONE he did say cats should not be on drafts in the notation but THAT one was in my sandbox...so I wont gripe about that. The others I do wonder about. Are the articles still technically "drafts":

• Henry K. Van Rensselaer
• James van Rensselaer (military figure)
• James Van Rensselaer (1783-1847), founder of Rensselaer, Indiana
• Kiliaen van Rensselaer (colonel)
• Nicholas Van Rensselaer (military figure)
• Robert Van Rensselaer

The above names I think would qualify as a project I think is well worth working on due to how rare it seems to have so many family members documented to be involved in one single conflict as a theme. I admit I am not great copy-editing, so I welcome any input that would help make any of these articles more informative, engaging and interesting. Research material on some of these guys seems a bit scant, which makes a project that much more challenging.

My main concern is I do not want to credit any of these subjects to any particular battle without getting input beforehand, from those who really know much more about the topic.

Jerry JGVR (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

AS a funny aside it appears 6 of the 5 mentioned in Schuyler's book are accounted for (unless I am overlooking something )

o)~

JGVR (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there are times I mis-cap officer titles... someone please set me straight...JGVR (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Forgotten add on

in desperate need of help on Van Rensselaer's Regiment

New task force needed for central Europe

I noticed that there is no task force to cover Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, and Hungary. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Also nothing relevant for Mongolia. Possibly because there are not enough articles to warrant relevant task forces, or not enough interest. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Benelux countries too. But see this thread [4] for recent discussion of the task force situation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone help on the Prince's Palace of Monaco...?

Although passed as a FA back in 2008, it's now looking a bit saggy around the edges. I've raised a query at here, but lack the relevant source material myself... Don't know if any of you can help? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Decade of Darkness

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Western Front- Flanders

Please note unassessed article The Western Front- Flanders, which may be in need of attention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)