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 September newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Battle of Saipan • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • The Motherland Calls • Jochi • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Robert Poore • Chagatai Khan • Boot Monument • Roswell incident Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS • USS Texas (BB-35) Peer reviews Henry Clay Work • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark Good article nominees Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Felek al-Din Dündar • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Eleanor of Castile • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Sack of Delhi (1757) • Black and Tans • Diaspora Revolt • Castlereagh–Canning duel • Ottoman minelayer Intibah • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Piri Reis • Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain) • George Preece • Francis L. Sampson • HMS Regulus (1785) • Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212 • Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 • Pandour Corps • Central Powers • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Siege of Szigetvár • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • George W. Bush Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,598) • only work on referencing and citation (43,248) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,932) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,909) • work on structure (31,892) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,182) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,964) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (5) • assessment as lists (7) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (5) • assessment checklists completed (13) • task forces added (8) • attention to task force coverage (655)

The same text is duplicated across a lot of articles

• Note: This was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, but is likely to be of interest to the WPMH. — Maile (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up or even if this is problematic, but while disambiguating Freedom of Information Act, I noticed that an unusually high number of articles regarding prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are presenting the exact same content, namely:

When he assumed office in January 2009 President Barack Obama made a number of promises about the future of Guantanamo. He promised the use of torture would cease at the camp. He promised to institute a new review system. That new review system was composed of officials from six departments, where the OARDEC reviews were conducted entirely by the Department of Defense. When it reported back, a year later, the Joint Review Task Force classified some individuals as too dangerous to be transferred from Guantanamo, even though there was no evidence to justify laying charges against them. On April 9, 2013, that document was made public after a Freedom of Information Act request.

References

If you take a look at this search, you'll notice that the foregoing text is repeated, exactly as it is, across dozens of articles. I don't know if this is an issue, but I thought I should say something because I kept stumbling on the same text over and over. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: is our expert on Guantanamo, maybe he can comment. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Geo Swan here. I won't claim to be an "expert", because nothing you or I or any of us writes, in article space, is allowed to lapse from WP:OR. But I did write the passage in question, and most of what the wikipedia has to say about Guantanamo captives.

As to whether 34 articles should each contain a very similar passage -- please bear in mind how common it is for related articles to do so. Each element in the Periodic Table will contain passages very similar to passages contained in the related articles. Why? Because all chemical elements have electrons, form compounds with other elements. All elements have a toxicity, be it zero to instantly fatal. It would be the same for articles about members of the US Senate, or UK House of Lords. They too are likely to contain passages similar to those found in the related articles.

We don't know the details of the determinations of the Joint Review Task Force, because they were held in secret, and their minutes, and the documents prepared for them have never been made public. However, the follow-on boards, the Periodic Review Boards, have operated with a greater degree of open-ness. Five documents are prepared for each of these hearings of these boards. All meetings are conducted via videolink. The first stage of the hearings is always made public. Reporters can and do tune in. For many of the captives this is the first time they have been shown, since their capture. However, they can opt out, as some do, mainly for mental health issues. There is press reporting on each hearing. So, for every individual whose article has the repeated passage @Mz7: noticed, there should be follow-on coverage of those hearings, particularly of the third party coverage of them.

This means that the material that follows the passage Mz7 noticed was similar, across articles, should be very different. Each captive's case was different, they faced different allegations, they had different capabilities. Some captives learned English, in Guantanamo, and even started some college courses. Others were driven barking mad, and had to be confined to the psychiatric wing, where, if they aren't dosed with tranquilizers, they howl incoherently 24x7. Some have family support that others lack. So they have different prospects for re-integration into the mainstream, once repatriated, or sent to a third country for asylum.

Twenty-nine of these individual have had their Periodic Review. When their articles don't have coverage of their hearings it doesn't mean the press coverage of their hearing wasn't significant, or interesting. It means the wikipedia volunteers who follow such developments haven't gotten around to it.

If you are interested in weighing in on this corner of the project I'd be happy to "show you the ropes". Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Colour me unconvinced by your explanation, Geo Swan. The chunk of text is about the management of the detention/review processes at Guantanamo, and pertains to it/them. Whereas it affects detainees, it is not about the detainees. It seems to me well possible to report on their review without repeating this chunk each time. Users more interested in Obama's promises w.r.t. Girmo, or the mutation of the review process ,can surely be linked to an article on which such information is appropsiate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think the first issues should be to check that this text is not a close paraphrase and is accurate to its cited sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• • I'd suggest removing this where it's not needed. There's been way too much "boiler plate" editing on topics involving Guantanamo (often motivated by WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) and it's not helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment, the text does seem to have a bit of a political slant to it. I wonder if, in more distantly related articles, the bit about Obama isn't a WP:COAT. Yes, FDR endorsed universal health care, and failed to deliver, but it's not necessary to include that on every related article. TimothyJosephWood 00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a description of the obvious. Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Asim Thahit Abdullah al Khalaqi, you have an entire section that is about this larger political milieu , and a single itty bitty sentence at the end that is about the actual subject of the article. This boiler plate would be perfectly acceptable in an article about gitmo (and there's a lengthy section about it there), and it is absolutely appropriate to include that this guy was recommended for release by the report (because that is information about the subject specifically), but this is the equivalent of including several lines on the FIFA scandal in an article about individual footballers.

It would be WP:DUEWEIGHT if POTUS had mentioned this guy specifically, but he didn't. Anyone who wants a larger socio-political understanding of gitmo has more than ample opportunity to visit that article and get an eye full. Presumably, someone who is on this article about this guy is looking for information on him. As it stands, this takes the opportunity, at every opportunity, to say "don't forget about a campaign promise that would have been relevant if it happened, but didn't, so it isn't". TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• DGG suggested, below, that the passages that covered the individuals' reviews by the Joint Review Task Force, could be changed up, a little, so, even though they said more or less the same thing, they said it differently.

  Mz7 didn't voice a concern over bias -- merely that the passages seemed too similar.

  Other contributors claimed they saw lapses from WP:NPOV in the passage(s), but didn't state what they saw as biased, and didn't suggest an alternate wording.

  Well, Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada, an individual who has received a lot of coverage this year, because the hunger strike he has been on for the last decade had reduce his weight to about 60-70 pounds, was released yesterday. I noticed that Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force already uses a different wording. I drafted that passage on June 26, 2015. Mohammed Nazir Bin Lep#Guantanamo Review Task Force, Abdu Ali al Haji Sharqawi#Guantanamo Review Task Force, Saifullah Paracha#Guantanamo Review Task Force, the first three articles the search Mz7 recommends, had their passages added on May 19, 2015. I went back to May 19th, 2015, my contribution history for that day shows that, over an hour and a half, I added that passage to about three dozen articles.

• I am not an SPA. More than two thirds of the articles I have started have nothing to do with terrorism. In 2005 I started the articles on the US Coast Guard's Island class cutters, and Marine Protector class cutters. I started articles on some individual cutters. When the Coast Guards plans for the Sentinel class cutters approached completion I started the article on that class, as well. Bollinger shipyards started to deliver new cutters, every three months, about four years ago, and I started articles on the new cutters, as RS covered their launches, or commissionings.

Those articles, obviously, are going to contain similar passages, as the vessels were built in the same yard, to the same design. They differed, because they were written months apart.

What we don't want is for related articles, to contradict one another, merely because they were written at different times.

One of the interesting characters I came across as I researched the Sentinel class cutters was Chip Bowen, who was the Coast Guard's senior NCO in 2010. He took the initiative to have the vessels in the new class to be named after Coast Guard heroes -- enlisted Coast Guard heroes. When I had written the articles each of them had a paragraph that briefly described the vessel's namesake. But the first articles didn't link to or mention Bowen's role in their naming. I started updating the earlier articles on the individual cutters, to include a sentence with information on Bowen's role.

Mz7 asked, above, whether it was a problem for related articles to contain very similar passages. My answer would be brief similar passages are not a problem. Long identical or similar passages are problematic for several reasons. The details should be covered in only one place, the article where those details are most central. When the details are covered in multiple articles they can grow out of synch, and contradict on another. But we do surround some links to related content with brief exposition to set the context of the link.

@Tagishsimon: wrote: "It seems to me well possible to report on their review without repeating this chunk each time." We could rewrite the wikipedia so what were currently subsections of articles were all turned into standalone articles, and assert that we hadn't altered the wikipedia's actual intellectual content. Alternately we could roll the articles on Astronomy, Quantum Mechanics, Optics, etc, into the main articles on Physics, make them merely subsections of the main article on Physics. We could make that change, and assert that we hadn't altered the wikipedia's actual intellectual content. The really determined reader would still eventually be able to find the content they were looking for, at least in theory. However, neither of those changes would practical. Really, neither of those changes would serve our readers.

Links need context. Not all links, but most links. Sometimes the required context is only a clause. Barack Obama is the current President of the United States, George W Bush is a former President. Most English speaking people know this, today. But we should write for future readers, who may no longer remember who former Presidents were, and we should write for people for whom English is a second language. So, if I include the first reference to Bush, or Obama, in an article, I add their title to provide context. I thought the Joint Review Task Force required a longer context setting.

I've seen articles where there had been a subsection about a related topic, that had a paragraph of context setting, followed by a {{seealso}} or a {{main}} template, where someone had later come along, and removed the entire paragraph of context setting, leaving only the {{seealso}} or {{main}} template. If this is what Tagishsimon was suggesting I have to say this can look ugly. It never looks like it was done to serve readers. Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC re: duplicated text

Seems to only be a couple of strongly held positions here, certainly not enough to definitively keep or change this boiler plate. Probably a good place to get some outside opinions. TimothyJosephWood 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Content in question. I'm inclined to agree with User:Nick-D's comments above. The content may be accurate and verifiable, but as currently written and presented it looks far more like WP:SOAPBOXing than encyclopedic content. Just delete it... NickCT (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - the issues raised above with this text are compelling, and seems to be part of the wider issues with our coverage in this area (including the non-notability of many of the articles themselves, which as far as I can tell were mostly written to make some sort of point). Anotherclown (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I was being polite above: this problematic text is part of the long-term POV pushing on this topic by GeoSwan, for which he or she has been repeatedly criticised and sanctioned for in the past. It needs to go. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think Nick-D has mis-spoke. Yes, my efforts have been criticized. I think most people accept that my efforts have been in good faith. I have never been blocked, or had a topic-ban, so I think it is mis-leading to assert I have been "repeatedly sanctioned". More-over, not everyone agrees with Nick-D that my efforts were ill-advised, or, at least, that they were generally ill-advised.

    In his comments here Nick-D has made comments about what he or she thinks my motives are. In my opinion these kinds of comments don't comply with the recommendations that discussions should be about editorial issues, not the personalities of the contributors involved in the discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, or serious rewrites that would be nearly an effective deletion, as can probably be gleaned from my above comments. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment In analogous situations, I usually try to vary the boilerplate a little, as a matter of style. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree

1. If the passage is biased, a version, or versions, should be prepared, that isn't biased. I notice no one has been specific as to how it is biased. In my experience, when someone reports bias, but can't or won't be specific about the nature of the bias, it is important to bear in mind the possibility that the bias is within the observer, not in the passage they think is biased.
2. Has anyone who suggests deletion given any thought as to how to explain to reader why these individuals continued to be detained, without covering their review by the Guantanamo Review Task Force?
3. These individuals who have spent more than a decade in Guantanamo have gone through several different reviews: (1) OARDEC reviews, by the OARDEC agency -- a separate agency from JTF-GTMO; (2) habeas reviews; (3) formerly secret OARDEC reviews; (4) Joint Review Task Force reviews; and, those who were designated innocent, yet dangerous, Periodic Review Board reviews. How can coverage of these individuals possibly be improved by censoring that the Joint Review Task Force reviews even happened? Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

My concern is not primarily regarding WP:NPOV. While that may be an issue, it's a more complicated position to argue than WP:COAT, which is equally qualifying for removal. The passage is about Obama, about campaign promises, about the task force, and not about the subject of the articles. It therefore belongs on the articles about the things it is about, and not on somewhat related WP:BLPs. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Since I was the one who originally brought this to the project's attention, I should say that my original concern, as Geo Swan mentioned above, was the similarity of the texts, not their neutrality. However, I did notice the subtle use of rhetorical anaphora in the passage, with "He promised" repeated at the start of two sentences. It struck me as a slight deviation from the formal, dispassionate tone we're supposed to use on Wikipedia. I would agree with DGG that, as a matter of style, we should vary this contextual information across articles, rather than submit to "boilerplate" copy-paste writing. With regards to WP:COAT, the relevant question is: is all of this information about Obama's promises essential to each of the Guantanamo prisoners' articles, or would it better to instead cut it down and provide a link to an article that would explain the context it more detail? Mz7 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary

The consensus seems to be to delete, or alter the usage of this boiler plate. Barring further comment, I think I'm willing to call the matter and give the go for anyone who wants to spend an afternoon on this. I would like to this weekend, but I don't know if I'll have time. Maybe I can get to it next week sometime. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Geo Swan has raised concerns above. TimothyJosephWood 13:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Specifically, above, I pointed out that, a month or so after I repeated the wording that triggered @Mz7:'s initial concern I had drafted an alternate wording, at Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force. Comments above agree we should consider alternate wordings -- but no-one has commented on the specific alternate wording from June 26, 2015, at Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force. Geo Swan (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate text proposal

We wanna get concrete? I like it. Let's do it. Looking at the article for Jabran al-Qahtani:

• Remove the first three sentences entirely per WP:COAT.
• Remove the Worthington source as it appears to be essentially this guy's blog.
• Remove "even though there was no evidence to justify laying charges against them" because that's not at all what the sources say, and probably WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

• What the first WaPo source says is "unprosecutable because officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and because detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion."
• What the second WaPo source says is that they "expressly stated or otherwise exhibited an intent to reengage in extremist activity upon release."

• Remove "too innocent to charge, but too dangerous to release" because the sources don't say anything even close to that, and because WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL, and probably WP:RGW again.
• Include something like this, which actually says each individual was recommended for indefinite detention, because the current sources don't mention any names. Unfortunately, this source lists every detainee in detention as the time, and not the 48 recommended. A better source is still needed.

So we're left with something similar to this:

In 2010, the Joint Review Task Force recommended Jabran al Qahtani as one of 48 individuals to be indefinitely detained as he was at a high risk to reengage in extremist activity, for fear that a trial could compromise intelligence-gathering, and the risk of challenging "evidence obtained through coercion." In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Department of Defense confirmed that Jabran al-Qahtani was one of 71 detainees eligible for a Periodic Review Board.

References

We have two sentences, but importantly, we have two sentences about the subject of the article, and which don't go beyond what the sources say (with the exception of the needed source fingering him as one of the 48). TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Date formats

User:Jojhutton, who I don't think is a member of this project, has been altering date formats on pages about military personnel (mostly in the Band of Brothers crowd) from DMY to MDY. Contributions may be seen at Special:Contributions/Jojhutton. They were using one of the editing tools and I don't think he was reading the articles. If I'm wrong, someone say so; if I'm right, I don't want to get into a long-term editing war with this editor. So far, I've reverted Ronald Speirs, whose rank Jojhutton also deleted from the lead, and Winfield Scott Edgerly.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DMY format is US military format and applies to military members per MOS:DATETIES, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DATETIES does not allow apply to biographies. Only military units and related articles. JOJ ^Hutton 22:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Based on what? There is nothing about restrictions on the MOS:DATETIES section. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on the fact that biographies are articles about a persons entire life. Doesn't need a restriction, because biographies are not military articles. Just because someone served in the military does not mean that the article is a military article. JOJ ^Hutton 22:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• And what if their military service is the only reason the person is notable? TimothyJosephWood 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Timothy, you took the words right out of my mouth. I understand Jo's point of view where a person's military service is incidental and unremarkable, but if it's their reason for notability (why the WP article exists) I see no reason the military format should not be used, as it has in several US military bios that have gone all the way to FA. If they're notable for military and other reasons (Grant and Eisenhower are obvious examples, though even then it was their military careers that led to their political careers) then I'd say there's a case for leaving it to the main editors' preferences. So as a rule I would not be arbitrarily changing date formats in all MilHist-tagged US bios. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• This may be a good opportunity to reach consensus and clarify this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history. TimothyJosephWood 23:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Army CMH Style Guide 2011.pdf. Section 6.1 — Maile (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This is why I love the military. Someone, somewhere has an officially recognized opinion on compound adjectives. TimothyJosephWood 23:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Many organisations have style guides. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but few have style guides and nuclear weapons. TimothyJosephWood 12:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Request: Those familiar with non-US militaries, are there other examples with date formats? TimothyJosephWood 11:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"Retaining the existing variety" is another element of the Style Guide. But essentially, if something becomes contentious, then changing without a consensus is a poor way to go about it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Date formats

Per MOS:DATETIES, articles on subjects primarily related to militaries or military history should use the standard military date format, DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY). This includes spaces and excludes hyphens or commas. For example, "1 January 1900", is acceptable. Formats such as "1-January-1900"; "1 January, 1900"; "1January1900" or "1, January 1900", are not. In cases where the day is a single digit, a leading 0 should be omitted. For example: "1 January 1900", and not "01 January 1900."

The abbreviated format, DD Mmm YYYY (or D Mmm YYYY), is acceptable in cases where brevity is important, such as complex tables, or in cases where a date is repeated multiple times. However, in prose, the first mention of a date should include the full date format as outlined above. Subsequent uses of the same date may then be abbreviated.

Abbreviations should follow the same format as full dates above, regarding spaces, commas, hyphens, and leading zeros. In addition, three letter abbreviations should have only the first letter capitalized. For example, January should be abbreviated "Jan" and not "JAN".

In cases where the context is exceedingly clear, and brevity important, dates may be further abbreviated to the DD Mmm YY format. For example, "1 Jan 55". All previous guidance applies. This format should be avoided in any case where it may cause confusion, such as events that take place across century turns.

Biographies

Existing biographies related to military history should follow MOS:DATERET as a default, and extensive efforts should not be undertaken to comply with this MOS for it's own sake, unless there is strong consensus for the change. This consensus should be based primarily on the prominence of military service in the WP:NOTABILITY of the individual.

For example, an article on an individual, such as a Medal of Honor recipient, who is notable only for their military service, should most likely follow this format. An article on an individual, such as George W Bush, who would be notable had they never served in the military, most likely should not.

Biographies of civilians, such as Ash Carter, who are notable primarily for military related reasons, but who themselves did not serve in uniform, should generally not follow this guidance, and instead follow MOS:DATEFORMAT.

All articles, regardless of topic or consensus, should follow MOS:DATEUNIFY, and should not mix date formats.

Again, just a draft to generate ideas. I realize its pretty US-centric and that should probably be addressed. I have no idea how uniformed non-armed services (e.g., NOAA) should factor in, if at all. Thoughts, suggestions, change, and epithets are welcome. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Re "US-centric", the United States is one of the few that would even need this guideline. Other countries follow DMY as their standard style. Are there countries other than the US that uses MDY in civilian life? — Maile (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, all of Europe (UK possibly excepted) is on DMY.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

UK is DMY although MDY isn't disallowed - just less common. Nthep (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Canada can use either format. Llammakey (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If only there were some place you could look these things up. Other than the USA, the only countries to use MDY exclusively are Micronesia and Belize; it's an accepted variant in Canada, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, most of Asia uses YMD, and the rest of the world is DMY. ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Specific questions for those commenting:

• Do you support the idea of a MilHist MOS amendment regarding dates?
• If so, do you disagree with any of the standards I've given in the example and how? (e.g., Abbreviations should not be allowed. The use of hyphens should be permitted.)
• Are there any standards you would add to the example?

TimothyJosephWood 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Like the proposal. Llammakey (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. I'm fine what what you're proposing. The current WP:MILMOS only covers date ranges, so what you're proposing is really needed in the MOS. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Request What are some non-US equivalents of the examples used? Right now we have the Medal of Honor, Bush II, and Ash Carter. The VC seems like the obvious parallel to the MoH. Who can we use for the other two examples, someone for whom service is incidental to their notability, and a civilian related to military service, who has not served in uniform themselves? TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Although I'm not at all opposed to the concepts articulated in the proposal (and would say that it mostly reflects the style I prefer to use), I do wonder if it is necessary to codify it when it probably is only a minor issue and would (I imagine) mostly only effect a small sub-set of our articles (i.e. US-related topics). Is there really a problem that requires a prescriptive "fix" or is this something that can just be worked out by editors on a case by case basis by discussion and the application of extant policy (such as MOS:DATETIES, MOS:DATERET, MOS:DATEUNIFY etc.)? I guess I can see editors from outside the project being concerned about us attempting to apply "our" style to articles which rightly fall under a number of projects, and expect some inevitable "push back" as a result. As an aside I'm not a fan of abbreviating dates at all (except in the case of tables or where brevity really does require it). For instance I couldn't see any reason to abbreviate a repeated date at subsequent use just for the sake of it. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Like Anotherclown, I also don't see the problem this well-intentioned proposal is trying to solve. MOS:DATEVAR provides useful relevant guidance, and it's not really the case that there is such a thing as a "standard military date format". Even if the world's militaries did have a common approach on the topic, it wouldn't really matter because Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and uses general writing styles. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D, Anotherclown, I agree 100% that it is pedantic, but that's kindof what an MOS is supposed to be. "Standard military date format" is probably incorrect language. But it is more or less the format used by NATO and in turn WikiProject NATO. NATO is about as strong as it's going to get for agreement on English conventions. Regardless, I agree that the "standard mil form" should be removed.

The abbreviation part can probably be completely removed. This is the kind of opinion I was hoping to solicit when I was puking out as many ideas as I could think of. It really doesn't even quite follow US standards, which would be full month=full year, abrv month = two digit year.

As to the possibility of MOS over application, it might improve the MOS to have a standoffish addition to the standard disclaimer re:

"Many articles may deal extensively, but not exclusively with military subjects, and this MOS may or may not be appropriate. The purpose of this MOS is to provide guidance, and help standardize the coverage of military topics, not to provide a basis for WP:WIKILAWYERING. When in doubt, or when there is WP:NOCONsensus, defer to WP:MOS.

Admittedly, I have run into the occasional instance where editors want to over apply MEDMOS, but it's never been seriously disruptive.

Overall, I just wanted to explore the possibility of using this as an opportunity to improve the MOS, not necessarily to respond to an immediate or impending crisis. The intention wasn't so much to right a wrong, but to fill in a gap in our MOS identified by a disruptive editor. The MOS already has a date standard, so it's apparently within its scope, but it seems odd to address date ranges specifically, when you haven't addressed dates generally.TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support I thought this was the way it already was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. It would be nice if this was in the MH MOS, because it repeatedly comes up at MOS Dates and Numbers. Examples 1, 2, 3. For a while, it was a recurring debate on Audie Murphy's article, but has died down a little bit for the time being. Not a must-have in the MH MOS, but it would be a nice back up. For whatever reason, this is just one of those topics that gets heated in debates. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I removed the guidance on abbreviations per comments above. I have combined the existing guidance on date ranges, and tweaked for consistency, to make a stand-alone date section. I have also added a reference and language to anchor this format as the standard format of the UN, as justification for its usage.

Dates

Existing articles related to military history should follow MOS:DATERET as a default, and extensive efforts should not be undertaken to comply with this guidance for it's own sake, unless there is strong consensus for the change.

Per MOS:DATETIES, articles on subjects predominately related to militaries or military history should use the standard format adopted by the UN , DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY). This includes spaces and excludes hyphens or commas. In cases where the day is a single digit, a leading 0 should be omitted. For example:

• 1 January 1900 and not 1-January-1900; 1 January, 1900; 1January1900 or 1, January 1900
• 1 January 1900 and not 01 January 1900

All articles should follow MOS:DATEUNIFY, and should not mix date formats.

Date ranges

Military events often require the expression of a date range; this presents opportunities for clear, attractive formatting.

En dashes

The Manual of Style specifies that an en dash rather than a hyphen should be used. Where there are internal spaces within one or both items, the en dash should be spaced on both sides. Examples:

• 1968–70, not the hyphenated 1968-70
• May–August 1944
• 3 June – 15 August 1914; not 3 June - 15 August 1914
• 12–14 September 1943

Minimal repetition

Consider expressing date ranges without repetition; thus:

• January–March 1968, not January 1968 – March 1968
• 3–4 November 1951 not 3 November 1951 – 4 November 1951; nor even 3 November – 4 November 1951

Closing item

The closing item in a year range may be two digits rather than four, at editorial choice:

• The second phase (2004–06), rather than The second phase (2004–2006)

References

I've excised this portion of the previous draft, and propose it be added as the first section of the MOS, to preempt any attempts at using the MOS disruptively, as concerns have been expressed about this. It also doesn't really belong in a date section, as it deals with usage of the MOS generally, and not dates specifically. I also added non-US examples to help better globalize it. The reference to Marise Payne may be a weak one as I admittedly just googled "Australian defense minister". Elvis is American, but honestly I don't know any non-American examples to use.

Application

Many articles may deal extensively, but not exclusively with military related topics. When in doubt, or when there is no clear consensus, defer to WP:MOS. As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles.

Biographies

Consensus to follow this guidance on biographies of living or deceased persons should be based primarily on the prominence of military service in the WP:NOTABILITY of the individual. For example, an article on a Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross recipient, who is notable only for their military service, should most likely follow this guidance. An article on an individual, such as George W Bush or Elvis Presley, who would be notable had they never served in the military, most likely should not. Biographies of civilians, such as Marise Payne or Ash Carter, who are notable in large part for military related reasons, but who themselves did not serve in uniform, should generally not follow this guidance.

Comments are welcome, especially from Nick-D and Anotherclown, whose concerns I have attempted to address. TimothyJosephWood 14:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that MOS:DATE specifies that for year to year ranges, the range's end year is usually abbreviated to two digits. So for your example above, the format would be 1968–70. Mojoworker (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Fixed. TimothyJosephWood 19:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so this has seen daylight for about a week and there's been no objection. The previous proposal seemed to have general support, and I've tried to address the concerns of two commenters, whom I pinged to this second proposal, with no resultant concerns raised. I'm going to go ahead and incorporate this into the MOS. If anyone has concerns feel free to revert and continue the discussion here. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 4, 2016

This is a FAC from 2009, and the nominator has recently been indefinitely blocked. Some eyes on the article, Battle of the Coral Sea, would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I put it on my watchlist, Dank. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm appalled. The 75th anniversary of the battle will be next year. There will be celebrations. And we want to run it a year early? Is there no way to stop this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Albert O. "Scoop" Vorse, Jr.

Vorse was until recently MIA from the WWII aces page and so far has no page of his own; nor does VF-80, the eponymous "Vorse's Vipers," have a page. Since it took a long time to get even Cecil E. Harris cleared for notability per Wikipedia:MILPEOPLE, is it worthwhile to make a page for "Scoop" Vorse? Finktron (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Vorse is notable because he retired as a rear admiral per WP:MILPEOPLE, so it is worth an effort to create a page about him. Kges1901 (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't even notice that, my bad. I appreciate the response. I'll see about making a draft. Finktron (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Area of Zeitenlik military cemetery

The article Zeitenlik included the sentence

Greece has donated free land for the construction of the complex of 7 000 km²

That's 2,700 square miles, or over 1,700,000 acres, and cannot possibly be right. See Talk:Zeitenlik#Area. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss.

Cross-posting to WikiProjects Serbia and Greece. --Thnidu (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary question

What's the formula for linking to Wiktionary pls? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is just [[wikt:]], for instance wikt:sloth. Did that work? Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It did, thanks. wikt:per is what I want but I'll settle for wikt:contrition. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Book request

Does anyone have a copy of For gallantry, the George Cross by Kenneth Hare-Scott? I'm after a scan of the page(s) relating to Dorothy Louise Thomas. TIA Nthep (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have not already, you may want to place a request on the following page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Regards,EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nthep: Wikimedia UK has grants which cover buying books. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base

In the process of editing a related article, I discovered this was a red link. I used to have access to a lot of information that could be used to produce a reasonable article on the topic, but I may still be able to come up with a lot of information. However, I don't really know how to write about the military. I just know that for many years my family went on vacation where we could hear their jets take off frequently. And the closing of this base was sad news. I still keep up daily with what is going on in the community through its newspaper and visit the resort every year.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want me to drop a copy of a high-grade airbase article in some sort of userpage or talkpage Vchimpanzee? You could use it then as a sort of a sandbox. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Andrews Field, the name for the previous Andrews Air Force Base, is a pretty high-grade article, apart from a couple of confusing sections and one section without references. That's a good guideline, and feel free to ask me any questions. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Southern Air Command"

The usage and topic of Southern Air Command is under discussion, see talk:Southern Air Command (India) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"South Western Air Command"

The usage and topic of South Western Air Command is under discussion, see Talk:South Western Air Command (India) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)