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 August 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 • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman 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 • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Castlereagh–Canning duel 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 • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 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 • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) • 2008 Mumbai attacks • United States Special Operations Command • Kony 2012 Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,103) • only work on referencing and citation (43,199) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,321) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,798) • work on structure (31,848) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,175) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,868) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (11) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (0) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (7) • task forces added (14) • attention to task force coverage (657)

Assessment of the articles regarding the heads of the forces.

I having a sort of confusion while asses the articles relating to the position of the heads of the services i.e the articles relating to the Chiefs of the Staff or head of the service such as Chief of the Air Staff (India), Chief of Army (Australia), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee etc. should be assessed for the respective article classes or list classes? Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think they could be similar to summary-style ship-class articles rather than lists, so long as they actually say something about each person who held the position (ie are a summary of the articles on each holder of the office and pertinent facts about their tenure, rather than just a table with the start and finish dates). If they were the latter, I'd say they are more like a list. It is a bit of a grey area. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) List-class, The articles appear to be formatted to list the people who have held the position. Not all list articles begin with "list of" but they're generally identifiable by the formatting. WP:List article gives a relatively clear guideline as to what does or doesn't constitute a list. In the cases of the articles you have mentioned above I would point to;

1. "are articles composed of one or more embedded lists" - the first sentence of the lede of the guideline I have linked. Each article above has a sortable table covering all of the notable people who have held these positions and this table is a key focal point taking most of the space on the page.

2. "or series of items formatted into a list" - again, much like the above, there is a table and list of the people who have held the position.

3. "There are a number of formats, both generalized and specialized, that are currently used on Wikipedia, for list articles." alongside subpoint 4 "Sortable lists, which are formatted as tables..." all of the articles have a large sortable table that is a key to the article.

The guideline goes into far more depth but as a general overview this should do. The subject of the article is discussed in some depth, but, the largest section is given to the sortable list format wikitable that identifies the relevant subjects to which the article pertains. As such, I would identify each of the articles that you have linked as being of the list-class variety. Normally, non-list articles won't include large sortable tables (there are exceptions to this generality of course, such as sporting tournaments and discography articles), it may include images and diagrams, but these sorts of tables are more or less, most often used in list articles. Hopefully that answers your question. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:, @Peacemaker67: Thanks for taking time to answer my query. But now the problem, as you've mentioned all there type of articles must be assessed as list-class, but currently not only the articles I have mentioned as examples, but also many other articles have been assessed wrong. What would you suggest me to do? Should we reassess all the articles to list-class? I would suggest moving this discussion to coordinators noticeboard as this would require an official confirmation before the articles as reassessed. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, to be honest I wouldn't be worried so much about it. The correct assessment will be made either by someone who comes across it randomly or if the article is put up for B-class. We have thousands of unassessed articles, a few more isn't really harming anyone. Further, myself and Peacemaker had slightly differing opinions, Peacemaker noted that the articles could be article class or list class depending on how they are written. In which case, a change from one assessment type to the other might have negative consequences on certain articles. They'll have to be decided on a case by case basis. To be honest, I'm not the best person to defer the question to, I'd wait for Peacemaker to respond with his thoughts as well. I think they may be better qualified to make any sort of decision on what should actually be done, if anything is to be done at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it should be a case-by-case basis, because I think there is a reasonable argument that some of these should be articles rather than lists (depending on the way in which they are written/formatted. Also, there is no GA for lists, and if one of them was a GA now, you might basically be downgrading it to re-assess it as BL. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing on Knight’s Cross (KC) holder articles

Proposal: Adjust the list articles, such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and others, to use Veit Scherzer as the main source to confirm the award, instead of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel.

Please see discussion on Scherzer vs Fellgiebel in MilHist archives. Short version (my interpretation): Scherzer superseded Fellgiebel as the current authority on the KC recipients.

This adjustment will resolve the following concerns:

1. Non-independent sourcing: Fellgiebel’s work reflects the position of the Association of Knight’s Cross Recipients (ACKR), which is a private entity not authorised to adjudicate the awards. In addition, ACKR/Fellgiebel is a source that is not independent of the subject (awarding of the KC)
2. Inclusion of individuals whose KC awards are in doubt: The articles currently include individuals who, according to ACKR/Fellgiebel, were recipients but for whom Scherzer was not able to confirm the award using the materials from the Federal Archives. This results in entries with question marks that include notes such as “nomination not processed”; “the award was unlawfully presented"; etc.

Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears that there are no objections, correct? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

G'day, IMO, it seems fair enough to use Scherzer as the main source; however, remember that our job as Wikipedians it simply to report what others say about something, not to interpret it. As such, some contrast with Fellgiebel seems required, IMO. This will inevitably mean that a discussion of disputed awards is required, IMO, although the way in which they are presented seems open to discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The current "parent" article, List of KC recipients, contains a section on Non-existent recipients. It may be appropriate to add a section on "Disputed recipients" and discuss these there. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- cross posting with the discussion at the MilHist Coordinators Talk page on the same topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heinz Jürgens (SS officer)

The article Heinz Jürgens (SS officer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:GNG: significant RS coverage cannot be found; also fails WP:SOLDIER as the award is in dispute: "nomination never signed" and "presentation lacks legal justification".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Friedrich Blond

The article Friedrich Blond has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; fails WP:Soldier as the award cannot be substantiated.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Military service categories

An editor has recently been deleting RAF categories from individuals who served in the RAF in the war but were not regular RAF personnel. See for instance [1] and [2]. I believe this is against the spirit of categorisation and should be reverted. Military service is usually very defining for those who served, even if they only served for a few years, and especially if they served in a world war. Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Military service categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Werner Weinlig

The article Werner Weinlig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; KC award is doubtful as "no proof of the award exists".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sepp Draxenberger

The article Sepp Draxenberger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability: subject fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; Knight's Cross was unlawfully presented.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion page disruption

@K.e.coffman: Why are you leaving all these messages about AfD's on the Military History talk page? I don't think this is a good idea because you are overwhelming the page. And for example, my discussion, which is important got sandwiched in between these. I can see one AfD in a day but not ten or more. This is not what this project discussion page is for. So, I am going to ask you to please stop. This is disrupting the page. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:DTTR applies. Nothing wrong with posting occasionally saying "BTW, these articles have been nomd", but if you're around enough to be active in a WikiProject, you probably don't need to be reminded about the minutiae of the deletion process, much less several times. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman and Steve Quinn: Perhaps adding these notifications to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military would be better for everyone? I don't believe the automatic updates for that page capture things from the proposed deletion process, so the articles aren't being listed there at the moment. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: This seems to be a good idea. Thanks for mentioning it. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

e/c - I believe Kirill's suggestion is the one to follow. K.e. place the notifications there. Kierzek (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The linked page is for AfDs. The PROD alerts can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force/Article alerts. If interested members put this on their watchlist, that may be a solution. I'd be happy not to post the individual notices to this Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: The page is intended to be used for all deletion processes, not just AfD; see, in particular, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military#Military Proposed deletions. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I've not noticed this area before. I added the same Article alert link there. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting eyes on Military history of France

A six year old quote on Yahoo Answers [3] was placed in the lead of Military history of France first by an anonymous IP [[4] with BBC History in parenthesis. I reverted due to inaccurate - imprecise attribution [5], This was reverted again by a red-linked user [6]. I have reverted again [7], emphasizing to not revert again without engaging in the discussion already begun on the talk page: [8], [9].

I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this situation in case the red-linked user decides to be uncooperative. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I also previously left a message on the red linked user's talk page [10]. It could be a BBC History quote on Yahoo Answers - but how are editors supposed to know this without correct attribution? I don't have all day to search out and verify content that might be challenged. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I've commented on the article page but it would appear the quote traces back to Professor Niall Fergusson- a much firmer source than yahoo answers Monstrelet (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please See - Submissions

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Scope of Belligerents in Infobox

Is there any policy, guideline, previous discussion, or consensus on what nations can/should be included as belligerents in the infobox? As well as the United States, Omaha Beach currently lists United Kingdom, Canada, and Free France as belligerents, on the basis that these nations provided some naval support. Doesn't seem right to me. FactotEm (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see Template:Infobox military conflict - the relevant guidance is that this field should include "the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article". It would be best to handle discussions of a particular article's infobox on its talk page, though I note that the List of ships in Omaha Bombardment Group article indicates that a multinational force "shot the landing in": none of the D-Day landings involved only one country. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I did read the template guidance, but it does not seem to help in this situation. Omaha Beach was massively a US operation, and the contributions by allied nations very small indeed by comparison. Including other nations on the basis of such relatively minor roles seems to give undue weight, which surely would not be allowed if this was attempted in the article itself? FactotEm (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D. Air support is also a factor to be taken into account. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Omaha Beach landing was a multinational operation, and pretending otherwise doesn't seem like a good idea. I note that you'd tagged a statement in the lead that other countries were involved as needing a reference, despite this being referenced in the body of the article, so reading the article more closely might be a good start. I'd also suggest that you consult the order of battle for Task Force 124, the Omaha Beach landing force, on pages 335-336 of Samuel E. Morrison's semi-official history of the USN in World War II The Invasion of France and Germany - a high proportion of the ships involved in all aspects of the landing were from other countries. A key feature of the Normandy Landings was the close integration across the Allied forces. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that spiralled out of control pretty quick. The specifics of the Omaha Beach article is not my point here. This is an infobox question. I am simply querying the apparent undue weight that listing all participants in the infobox tends to give, however small, relatively speaking, their contributions were, and trying to find out if this subject has come up before. I'll take the Omaha Beach specifics to that article's talk page. FactotEm (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That was not your question (especially in your 08:39 post) Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Spirals look rather controlled to me, especially when they're easing the cork out of a Cotes du Rhone bottle. ;o)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The prime directive is to inform the readers, rather than let them stay ignorant. In the case of Omaha Beach, it is pretty clear cut, as the British, French and Canadian contribution was sizeable. But in some cases the contingents involved were very small. For example, in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the British flag appears. On the one hand, the are only two Brits in the 50 or so men who flew the actual missions. On the other, they were there specifically to fly the (Union) flag and signify that it was a multinational effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 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 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power 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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

I was thinking that perhaps we should try to get Attack on Pearl Harbor to at least GA status, for its 75th anniversary this year. I might start working on it in the coming days, but seeing that it will be a rather large task I invite anyone interested to help out. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 18:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Lincoln Clark Andrews

I've made a lot of improvements to the article on WWI brigadier general Lincoln Clark Andrews, but I could use some help with the infobox. TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Normandy photograph map 1947

• [11] in French but a great help to imagine the terrain. Keith-264 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Very interesting, thanks. The photos of the ruins of Caen are rather sobering. It's also interesting to see the extent of the bomb craters at Pointe du Hoc - they remain striking, but it appears that only a fraction of the World War II era craters remain. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Treatment of "questionable" entries in Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross lists

I have created this thread so that the community can have a centralised discussion and reach a consensus regarding the way "questionable" entries are treated in the various lists of recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (KC).

Case for the status quo

As I understand it (and this is pretty much copy and pasted from a comment by MisterBee1966 elsewhere), the source considered to be the most superior reference on the recipients of the KC is Scherzer. Scherzer analysed the German National Archives and found 193 out of 7,321 instances where the available data in the archives did not fully verify the legal aspect of the presentation. Scherzer uses the word "questionable" (fragwürdig). He goes on to explain why this is the case and refrains from delisting any of those 193 "questionable" entries. On page 8 of his book he says "Hierzu möchte der Autor nur anmerken, daß er niemandem etwas aberkannt hat. Vielmehr legte er dar, welche Archivalien zu den einzelnen Fällen überliefert sind und in welchem Stadium des Verleihungsprozesses diese Dokumente in den Archiven vorgefunden wurden. [The author just wants to say that he has not denied anyone anything. Rather, he explained, which files to the individual cases have prevailed and at what stage of the award process, these documents were found in the archives.]"(this isn't a brilliant translation, help from some fluent De-5/En-5 editors would help us here, I believe).

Scherzer gives several reasons why this is the case. Firstly, the German National Archives are incomplete (records were lost, destroyed or not returned by the Allies). Secondly, the approval chain after 20 April 1945 until the end of the war became extremely confused. In this "confused phase" a number KC presentations where made which are considered "questionable", nevertheless there is some evidence they were made and they are listed by Scherzer and other sources, with an explanation of why they need to be considered "questionable". Currently, the various KC lists reflect Scherzer's analysis by highlighting these "questionable" recipients with both a colour coding and a ? (question mark) and a comment reflecting what the sources have to say about the award in that case. The approach currently taken with the lists is consistent with Scherzer's approach and presentation style. I think this is a good summary of the case for the status quo. I invite K.e.coffman, who has expressed a different view, to state his case in the subsection below, after which I invite members of the community to chip in using the Discussion subsection. It would be useful to get a better translation of what Scherzer says above, so if you can do a better job, feel free to have a crack. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Case for a different treatment of "questionable" entries

There are several considerations I’d like to put forward:

1. Association of Knight’s Cross (ACKR) is a source not independent from the topic, the awarding of the KC. Further, it’s an entity that can be described as not being an organisation in “good standing”. For example, in 1999 Bunderswehr explicitly prohibited its member contact with the association. For these two reasons, I believe including AKCR’s opinions in related articles is giving them undue weight.
2. The current articles use the book by Fellgiebel as the primary source, thus listing those the AKCR accepted as having received the award. If the encyclopedia accepts this view, the related list articles should be called “Recipients according to AKCR”.
3. Including the names of the subjects in the articles titled “Recipients” could be potentially non-neutral, as the title conveys a presumption that the included subjects belong on the list, while some “doubts” have been expressed about the validity of the listing. This places the burden on anyone wanting to refute the validity of the inclusion, and it’s impossible to prove a negative.
4. Many of the Scherzer comments include wording such as “nomination remained unprocessed”; “award unlawfully presented by the commanding officer”; “award lacks legal basis as it was presented under the Doenitz decree” etc. I came across a few instances where Scherzer concludes that indeed a proper presentation is “possible”, but these are far and few between. In the balance of evidence, the vast majority of these are dubious.
5. The “listing” by the ACKR is not official (the author stated that). The fact that Scherzer has not ‘’delisted’’ anyone in his book is not meaningful, as AKCR is a private entity not authorized to adjudicate the award in the first place.

At best, these entries could be considered to be about “nominees” for the Knight’s Cross in the last weeks of the war, which confers no individual notability. A topic on these incomplete/unprocessed nominations and unlawful awards is indeed interesting and possibly encyclopedic, but not the subjects of these nominations individually. The topic can be dealt with in a separate article or as part of the Recipients article, as a general discussion on why the the nominations could not be confirmed as awards by archival evidence (I.e. general collapse, unlawful presentations, incomplete records, views of AKCR as discussed by Scherzer, etc).

So in conclusion, I believe we are dealing with the issues of (1) non-independent sourcing, (2) POV and (3) undue weight. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: With regard to the lists, I agree with Peacemaker67. The decisions of the AKCR had some relevance as to who was allowed to wear the decoration after 1957. These semi-official decisions are not always based in fact, but represent the opinion of the leaders of the AKCR. Scherzer attempted to verify these decisions, but was denied access to AKCR documents, if I am not mistaken. So, both opinions are relevant, but neither is true or false per se. Thus, with regard to individual biographies of "questionable awards", I would suggest to merge them into a separate list or lists, unless the individuals concerned are notable in their own right, as the late-war presentations can hardly be considered "highest awards for valour" as per WP:SOLDIER. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation update: Combined input of two German speaking colleagues. I assume something (award?) has possibly been granted in the past, and the author has not decided to take away (any award), but only shows what archive material is extant and in which stage of the awarding process the documents were found in the archives. (This is worded a bit strangely in German in my opinion; I assume it is supposed to mean "which stage of the awarding process can be documented in the archives"). —Kusma (t·c) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

More context is needed for "Verleihungsprozess"; without context, I find it impossible to translate. My attempt: "In this matter, the author would only like to remark that he did not deprive anybody of anything. Rather, he laid out which archives have been handed down for individual cases and in what state of lending process these documents have been found in the archives." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC). I originally put out a call on a German speaking colleagues' T/P. The above were responses from helpful t/p/s. Simon. Irondome (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to those that have helped out with the translation. I think it is a bit clearer now, despite what may be clunky wording, even in the original German. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe "Stadium" can mean "stage" or "phase", and whilst I cannot find a direct translation for "Verleihungsprozess", the word "Verleihungsfeier" translates to "award-giving ceremony", so the section "..in welchem Stadium des Verleihungsprozesses..." might translate to "...in which phase of the award process...". HTH. FactotEm (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment : It is not the AKCR's views that are being used as a source for the lists, it is Scherzer's summation of the position of the AKCR, which he provides along with other information about them. Scherzer is independent of the topic, and he takes a nuanced position, one that takes into account all the information he was able to glean about each award. If we accept Scherzer as reliable, as the principal or leading source on the awards, then we should accept what he says, and his comments, at face value. To do otherwise is OR. If it is necessary to expand on what each list says about the "questionable" awards in order to clearly enlarge the scope to include the "questionable" awards, that is a far better approach IMO, than deleting them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment : Among the 193 questionable recipients (2.6% of all recipients listed) are also those men who were associated with the 20 July plot, the failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. These men were later sentenced to death, deprived of all honors, ranks and orders and dishonorably discharged from the Wehrmacht, among them Erwin von Witzleben, Friedrich Olbricht and Friedrich Fromm. In addition, men like Hermann Fegelein and Edgar Feuchtinger, on account of desertion, were also executed and deprived of rank and honors. Without distinction, Scherzer treats these recipients just like all the other questionable recipients, referring to them as de facto but maybe not de jure recipients. For sake of completeness, Scherzer also identified 27 (including Fegelein) instances of questionable presentation of the Oak Leaves to the Knight’s Cross and 13 (including Fegelein) cases of Swords presentation in doubt. Aligned with Scherzer’s approach to the issue, these listings are flagged accordingly. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The 20 July plot reference feels a bit like a red herring, since we know that these individuals were indeed recipients, at least until they were expelled from the military. However, it's unknowable whether those with unconfirmed nominations after 20 April 1945 have received the award. In some cases, as Scherzer point out, some of those awards were unlawfully presented. So I don't see nuance here, as "unlawful presentation" and "nomination not processed" seems clear cut to me.

Re: that the current List articles reflect "not the AKCR's views that are being used as a source, but Scherzer's summation of the position of the AKCR". It's not how I see it, going by the articles lead sections. They state:

"A total of 7,321 awards were made between its first presentation on 30 September 1939 and its last bestowal on 17 June 1945. This number is based on the analysis and acceptance of the order commission of the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR)." [Emphasis added. Note the somewhat POV piping to the Blue-ribbon panel article; it's unclear who described AKCR's "order commission" in this manner: "A blue-ribbon panel is often appointed by a government body or executive to report on a matter of controversy. It might be composed of independent scientific experts or academics..."] (...)

The leads go on to describe the sources:

"These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book, [Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) — The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945. Fellgiebel was the former chairman and head of the order commission of the AKCR. In 1996 a second edition of this book was published with an addendum delisting 11 of these original recipients. Author and historian Veit Scherzer has cast doubt on a further 193 of these listings."

The articles rather clearly present Fellgiebel as the main source, while Scherzer "has cast doubts" about some of these listings. This comes across as potentially non-neutral, as I pointed out in the comment above. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You make a valid point. Objectively this topic would be much easier if there was such a thing as an "official" list. However, nothing official exists and we are stuck with the three authors who have published lists of KC "recipients" since the end of World War II. Focusing on Fellgiebel and Scherzer (neglecting Von Seemen in this context), both authors, with the exception of one additional find by Scherzer, talk about the same body of people to consider, in total 7,321 listings. I suggest we change the lead to change the emphasis. How about referring to them as listings not recipients per se, emphasizing on Scherzer's analysis of the German National Archives in comparison and contrast to the acceptance of the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients? This is the approach Scherzer took, it allows the reader to form his own opinion on a listing, and it would not violate WP:OR and is WP:VER. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

In view of the above discussion, I would like to propose the following:

Item 1: Adjust the lead of the List articles to read:

"The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its variants were the highest awards in the military of Germany during World War II. The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low-ranking soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry. Over 7,000 awards were made since its first presentation on 30 September 1939. Presentations were made to members of the three military branches of the Wehrmacht—the Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy) and Luftwaffe (Air Force)—as well as the Waffen-SS, the Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD—Reich Labour Service) and the Volkssturm (German national militia)."

"The list below is largely based on the work of author and historian Veit Scherzer, which he wrote in cooperation with the German Federal Archives. The book was chosen by Franz W. Seidler for the library of the Bundeswehr University Munich and Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and is considered an accepted reference there. The recipients are listed alphabetically by last name; the rank listed is the recipient's rank at the time the Knight's Cross was awarded."

Item 2: Adjust the Recipients subsection to include (relocated with some adjustments from the current lead sections):

"The first semi-official listing of Knight's Cross recipients was published in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book, [Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 — Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) — The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945 — The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War of all Wehrmacht Branches. Fellgiebel was the former chairman and head of the order commission of the AKCR. In 1996 a second edition of this book was published with an addendum delisting 11 of these original recipients. Scherzer has cast doubt on a further 193 of these listings. The majority of the disputed recipients had received the award in 1945, when Germany's deteriorating situation during the final days of World War II left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process."

"According to Fellgiebel, of the 446 awards made to servicemen..." (I'm not sure if the numbers of recipients are needed in the list articles, but if they are kept, including "According to Fellgiebel" will keep the articles internally consistent).

Item 3: Adjust the listings themselves by taking into account the notability of the subjects where the KC is not confirmed by archival records. My proposal is to (1) keep entries on notable subjects (with either proven or presumed notability per WP:Soldier, such as "commanded a division or higher", or "was a general officer", etc, and/or those notable for other reasons, i.e. the 20 July plot); (2) exclude entries where a single KC is the only claim to notability. This would keep the entries of those subject whose notability does not rely solely on the KC award. Since RS coverage exists or is presumed to exists on them, readers could have learned about these subjects elsewhere, so it would be useful to include Scherzer's info on their status. Those presumed non-notable will not be included in the lists.

Item 4: Adjust individual articles of notable "disputed" recipients to reflect Scherzer's position, such as by incorporating Scherzer's commentary into either the main body of the article, or as material within the Awards subsections. Do not list the KC in the infobox or the lead, unless accompanied by statements such as "may have received" or "was nominated" etc.

Item 5: Apply a similar method to the overall topic of disputed recipients. My suggestion is to create the Disputed recipients of the Knight's Cross article to cover in general terms how these "questionable" awards came to be (loss of records; general collapse; unlawful presentations, etc). Within this article, include a list section with blue-linked articles only, i.e. only those disputed recipients who are otherwise notable (per discussion above), and not include a full list of all disputed recipients. I think this will be both useful to readers, while not including subjects that are otherwise non notable.

References

I believe these adjustments would address some of the POV issues I brought up and will give due weight to the two sources (Fellgiebel and Scherzer), while maintaining the encyclopedic value of these lists. Any feedback on these proposals? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Without making any comment on these proposals overall, I think the lists should use the term "questionable" rather than "disputed" if that is the correct translation of the term Scherzer uses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal, in parts, suggests that Wikipedia presents to its readers a subset of those people listed by both Scherzer and Fellgiebel. This Wikipedia editorial selection is based on your personal interpretation and judgement of the data presented by Scherzer and Scherzer's analysis of the German National Archives. These resulting listings (fully acknowledged and questionable recipients) would then be further constraint and limited by the guidelines of the Wikipedia notability criteria. The result of this proposal, an editorial judgement by a Wikipedia editor and not by a referenceable historian or author, is a deviation from the sources used. I can't tell if this approach violates WP:OR or WP:VER but it would surely require more verbiage to explain to the general audience whom you included and whom you ruled out. A cross-check of these WP-lists with the books from Von Seemen, Fellgiebel and/or Scherzer will reveal missing names on the WP-lists. Before I can endorse this proposal, I would first like to see progress on the suggested "Questionable recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross" article. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Separate infobox for militants

Hello, I will like to request the creation of a separate infobox specifically for militants. As you might know the military person infobox is the one that is used to show activities of a militant. While most of it is okay, there are a few problems with it which can cause confusion among some readers and editors. First is of course that a military person is someone who serves in a country's armed forces. Therefore I highly doubt a military person infobox should be used for militants.

Another problem is the "Service years" section in the infobox. Service years is the time someone serves for in an armed force, using it on militants might cause confusion as it might read like an army description. This has also led to disputes and edit-warring, see for example history of the article about militant Burhan Wani where some sections of the infobox have been removed because of confusion about the infobox. Also see Talk:Burhan Muzaffar Wani#Removal of service years, battles/wars and rank.

In addition to the above mentioned problems, some sections of the infobox like "Awards" aren't ever even used in case of militants. The "military person infobox" is clearly not suited for militants. I will therefore based on all these grounds like to request creation of a separate infobox type for militants. I hope you will find all the reasons I gave as satisfactory. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed additions

I propose these additions to the new infobox is "Active years" or "Activity years" instead of "Service years" to show years during which they have been in militancy. A "Position/rank" section instead of just "Rank". Say for example a militant is appointed a War Minister/Information Minister by a militant group, it can't be called a "rank". In addition sections typical of military persons shouldn't be there in a militant infobox, example "Service/branch", "Service number", "Commands held", "Awards" and "Memorials". DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

So, essentially, we need to add two label overrides, once for "Service years" and one for "Rank"; that's easy enough to do. Are there other fields that are missing, or whose labels would need to be adjusted? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This will be better suited for a discussion. But yes these are the changes needed. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should also add a separate section for what they are wanted by a state for. For example, a infobox of a militant can say they were wanted for terrorist activities, involvement in attacks, funding terror groups etc. I am not too sure about it though. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

DinoBambinoNFS, I've added two new parameters ("serviceyears_label" and "rank_label") to the template; setting them will allow you to replace the displayed labels on those fields with text of your choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why discriminate between agents of the state and agents of any other kind? Will George Washington become a militant? Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  User:Keith-264 Washington became leader of a free country and his revolution was organised and had support of a large number of people unlike modern-day militancy which are carried out by armed organised groups who usually don't have broad support for either their methods or even their cause. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  I took the liberty to shift your comment here since we are discussing the issue. Hope you don't mind. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  So some militants become respectable? What about Menachem Begin, Polish deserter, terrorist and mass murderer or Yitzhak Shamir, terrorist, mass murderer and nazi collaborator to boot? You could be setting yourself up for a Judgement of Solomon. Keith-264 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I see no reason why we would need or want to create an entirely new template to maintain when we could achieve the same result by improving an existing template. If there are parameters that we need to add to {{infobox military person}} to better cater to non-uniformed personnel, that's easy enough to do; but the purpose of that template is to be used for everyone who acted in a military capacity, not just for uniformed personnel.

  I should add that the notion of a clear distinction between "militant" and "person serving in the armed forces" is a very modern concept. Consider, for example, that the same infobox is used for military figures during antiquity and the middle ages, where the concept of "armed forces" is much less clearly defined than it is in the modern era. Is a feudal baron besieging his neighbor's castle a "person serving in the armed forces" or a "militant"? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say Washington was respected militant. American revolution was not an insurgency or a militancy. The word "military" is always used in relation to armed forces of a country not militant groups. A feudal baron cannot be considered "serving in the armed forces" or a "militant". He's not technically serving in an army, he owns the army. And unlike militants he is not mounting an insurgency and he is not breaking the law. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Besides armed forces are always used to refer to a government-sanctioned military organisation not a militant group. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I think you're looking at this from an exclusively modern standpoint. In numerous places and periods, the "armed forces of a country" didn't exist as a clearly-defined, uniformed service (to the degree that they existed at all); instead, the military forces we have to deal with were groups like feudal levies, mercenary companies, nobles' private armies, and so forth. We shouldn't base our template designs exclusively around a 20th-century distinction between "military" versus "militant" when the same templates need to be useful for the rest of military history as well. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No I am not. You are confusing military and armed forces with non-state actors. A feudal baron sieging his neighbour will not be a militant, an organised rebellion with support of the population and a vast fighting force is not a militancy. Militancy is not equal to military. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Talking about medieval history. A warring feudal lord is not a militant, but a person like Guy Fawkes is a militant. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you using "militant" as a euphemism for "terrorist" or "insurgent"? Historical "militant" groups cover a broader spectrum than modern ones; consider, for example, groups like the ikkō-ikki, the Freikorps, the Black Guards and White Guards, and so forth. All of these were non-state actors, in the modern meaning of that term, but had a distinctly different structure and form than the modern insurgencies you seem to have in mind. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No I didn't, but every terrorist is a militant. And you are again confusing what militancy is. Ikko-ikki was a popular revolutionary group. Freikorps were mercenaries. White guards and Black Guards were part of armed forces of popular anti-Communist movements and hence were militias just like the ones that exist in Libya who oppose the rival government. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Where are you getting your definition of "militant"? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oxford. But why are we arguing about definition of militants anyway? I was here for a separate infobox. Non-state armed groups cannot be clubbed together to an armed force of a nation. I believe militancy is significant enough to have its own infobox. The term "military person" cannot be used for their members. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that definition accurately reflects the usage of the term in modern historiography, as I've seen it applied to the groups you dismiss above. Consequently, I think the proposed distinction between "military" and "militant" doesn't make sense when applied across the board.

Having said that, to return to the infobox question in particular: {{infobox military person}} is meant to be usable for any person who has engaged in some form of military activity that's within the scope of this project, whether they did so as part of a government-sanctioned armed service, a paramilitary group, an insurgency, or anything in between. Of course, if there are improvements that need to be made to make the template more useful for particular categories of individuals, we can certainly make them. (If the name of the template bothers you, incidentally, it would be easy enough to create {{infobox militant}} as a redirect to it.)

Conversely, if what you're really looking for is a template that can be used for individuals that did not engage in military activities, then this isn't the best project to approach to about it; WikiProject Terrorism is probably a better forum for such a discussion. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read Template:Infobox military person. Here's what it says about its usage: "A military person infobox may be used to summarize information about an individual military person, such as a soldier or military leader." Insurgents and/or militants are not listed. The template's page clearly says the infobox is for those serving in government-sanctioned armed forces. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of what "military person" means; this project has always applied that term in its broadest sense, to cover both state and non-state actors engaged in military activity. However, let's set that aside for the moment: if you believe that the people you have in mind aren't "military people", then they're not within the scope of this project, and this discussion should take place with a more appropriate one (such as WikiProject Terrorism, which I suggested above). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You should look up the definition of "military person". The definition only refers to someone serving in the armed forces. In addition, even the template itself says that it is meant for a soldier or a military leader. In addition, the people I have in mind are any non-sanctioned groups involved in armed struggle which includes more than just terrorists. Not every armed group is a terrorist, I know that already. I'm not here for an infobox on terrorists, but on all armed non-state groups not sanctioned by the government. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going nowhere. User:Kirill Lokshin If not a new infobox then can atleast the changes I suggested be made to the military infobox? DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Separate infobox for military commanders

I propose for the creation of a separate infobox template for military commanders. The proposed infobox is expected to contain parameters form {{Infobox military person}} and {{Infobox officeholder}}. I mean mostly some four to five parameters from Infobox officeholder are to be added to Infobox military person. For example, the parameters such as order, office, term_start, term_end, alongside, predecessor, successor, president, prime minister etc. Additionally parameters such as chief of the staff, defence_minister and required label can be added. This type of infobox will be useful for usage in the article of military commanders such as the articles of commanders of United States Unified Combatant Commands, the chiefs of the staff, flag officers and other three-star rank officers. The present code of Infobox military person doesn't have any option for mentioning the pivotal offices held by the subject. Although Infobox officeholder has a section for military service, many of the parameters that are required for a article presenting a military biography or subject were dropped. Please share your opinion accordingly. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the related discussion above. If we need to add functionality to {{infobox military person}}, we can certainly do that, but there is no reason to create entirely new infobox templates, considering how much time and energy we spent consolidating everything to a single infobox in the first place. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that navboxes are usually added at the bottom of articles on commanders, showing dates in command, predecessor and successor. See Artur Phleps for an example. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I know about the navboxes used at the end of the articles, but I think it would be good if that information in made available in the infobox itself. I agree with Kirill Lokshin on his idea of adding the required parameters to {{Infobox military person}}. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 11:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeking advice on copyright

Wonder if someone can help. In my sandbox I've created a list of the vessels of Task Force O, the naval component of the landings at Omaha Beach. I've used Badsey & Bean's "Omaha Beach" as a source, but I don't see how such a list can be compiled without basically just lifting the info from that book (or indeed, any other published source). Is this a copyright violation? Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The intellectual property in a list consists in the selection and arrangement of the items included, but the bare facts themselves are not copyrightable. Did B&B exercise significant editorial judgment in compiling the list? Or would anyone else, given the same primary sources (and the necessary background knowledge), produce essentially the same thing? Likewise for the groupings by command structure and type of vessel: are these standard or obvious enough that there’s little latitude for original thought, or do they reflect a creative or innovative approach on the authors’ part? Another consideration is the sequence, which doesn’t seem to apply in this case—alphabetical & numerical ordering is pretty obvious—but a ranking by importance, relevance, quality, or other such subjective criteria could also accrue copyright.—Odysseus1479 22:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Thank you. FactotEm (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Transpolitania"?

I was reading through Rommel myth and found reference to a place called "Transpolitania", apparently a city among Italian-held north Africa during World War II. There are only three mentions of the place on Wikipedia, all in identical language about the Italian government stymieing Nazi efforts to ethnically cleanse Jews who were Italian citizens. On Google, I could only find two uses of the name that aren't from Wikipedia mirrors (or at least using our exact language). Google asks if I mean Tripolitania. Anyone know what's going on here? --BDD (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am seriously thinking typo here. I would suggest Tripolitania is indeed what is meant. Irondome (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no typo here. Transpolitania does indeed exist. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a map or anything tangible? Irondome (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No map though there is a book. The book "The Biblical Archaeologist" states that archaeologist Max Mallowan served in Transpolitania in the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (not the one by the same name in Asia during World War 1) in 1943. Doesn't say anything else about it however. I found a snippet preview of it on Google Books, here. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that is exactly what I came up with. Nothing else. Odd. Irondome (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Mallowan served for part of 1943 at Sabratha, which is in Tripolitania. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Any chance it's a typo for Tripolitania? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it, the book/magazine was a long-running research journal about Oriental studies. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it is the only published usage of the term. google, google books, and google scholar all come up with nothing. Irondome (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The only published usage available online it seems. The article Rommel myth uses a source "Rommel's Desert War: Waging World War II in North Africa, 1941–1943". It isn't available online though but I doubt it would have been used if Transpolitania wasn't mentioned in it. The only way will to be 100% sure is by buying and reading it. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it was a typo of Tripolitania (probably from somebody thinking of Transylvania), and that the typo was copied several times. If there's no source that gives a tangible, distinct location, I suggest treating it as such. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Searching for "Transpolitania" on the Italian Wikipedia returned no hits. Freedom of Religion: The Parable of the Bell Tower is interesting--but improbable--only because it makes no mention of Rommel.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There's also Chapter Libya-Tripolitania (in Italian), which is not searchable or machine-translatable It's cited on Italian Tripolitania which has the feel itself of being a translated text.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for input everyone. As I said at the top of the thread, it is an obvious typo. The trouble with typos is that they can take on a life of their own. Shades of Prester John here, except that wasn't a typo, just garbled news compounded and exploited by satirical hoaxers! Irondome (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of setting this question before the collective brains of the Wikipedia Reference Desk at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Transpolitania.3F. One editor contends that the typo first appeared in Liddel Hart's 1953 book - I have asked him if he can provide any concrete backup that we can use to correct the WP articles. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Using Google. The very short list of books where "Transpolitania" can be located in all are about Rommel, except one, but which refers to the same period and place. The oldest in that list is the 1953 "Rommel Papers". Cross-checking, the Rommel tripolitania search does not find "The Rommel Papers", which is not normal if Transpolinia was not a typo. Other searches, including selected keywords such as "Cyrenaica" or "Tunisia" etc., taken from the resulting set of notices will bring the same sets than the previous, but including "the Papers" this time and in good rank. There is no reason to imagine the Rommel biographies with Transpolinia are not about exactly the same subject than the other biographies. Consequently it's originally a typo. Is the 1953 the first ever occurence of the "name" ? Some 33k+ results come for Tripolitania+meaning against 6 of varying quality if asking about Transpolitania+meaning. ngram viewer gives the same results, whereas Tripolitania is well known, Transpolitania matches 0 result. I suppose that can be used. --Askedonty (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hired armed tender Elizabeth

I had listed this PRODed article on WPMIL article alerts yesterday. It's no longer listed there, so I'm mentioning here. I don't know if Hired armed tender Elizabeth is a viable article or not, but with a PROD on it, there is limited time to decide either direction. — Maile (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

More of a dab page style, is it not? If deleted, I'm happy to restore it to someone's userspace for improvement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree it's a candidate for a DAB, but don't both vessels qualify under WP:MILUNIT?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Both vessels fall under WP:SHIPS remit, being over 100 tons (b.o.m, GRT, GT) / 100' long. There's a fair chance that both should be capable of sustaining articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Category discussion

There is a discussion re the categorization of ship articles at WT:SHIPWRECK#Categorization issue. Input from members of this Wikiproject is requested. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 29, 2016

This FA on the 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident was promoted in 2008. Eyes on the article would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from London Gazette versus Wehrmachtbericht

How does the verbatim quoting from the London Gazette in the article Brendan Finucane or Douglas Bader differ from Wehrmachtbericht quoting (now removed with the justification "Wehrmachtbericht references: Undue -- pls see Talk:Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski#Wehrmachtbericht_report") in article Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer or Gordon Gollob? Examples:

• Brendan Finucane: "Recently during two sorties on consecutive days, Flight Lieutenant Finucane destroyed five Messerschmitt 109's bringing his total victories to at least 20. He has flown with this squadron since June 1941, during which time the squadron has destroyed 42 enemy aircraft of which Flight Lieutenant Finucane had personally destroyed 15. The successes achieved are undoubtedly due to this officer's brilliant leadership and example— London Gazette"
• Brendan Finucane: "This officer has led his flight with great dash, determination and courage in the face of the enemy. Since July 1941, he has destroyed three enemy aircraft and assisted in the destruction of a further two. Flight Lieutenant Finucane has been largely responsible for the fine fighting spirit of the unit.— London Gazette"
• Douglas Bader: "This officer had displayed, gallantry and leadership of the highest order. During three recent engagements he has led his squadron with such skill and ability that thirty-three enemy aircraft have been destroyed. In the course of these engagements Squadron Leader Bader had added to his previous successes by destroying six enemy aircraft—London Gazette"
• Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer: "During the night of the 9th to the 10th October Haupmann Schnaufer, Gruppenkommandeur (group commander) in a Nachtjagdgeschwader (night fighter wing), whom the Führer has decorated with the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, scored his 100th night aerial victory.—Wehrmachtbericht"
• Gordon Gollob: "Hauptmann Gollob, commander of a fighter wing, achieved his 101st aerial victory.—Wehrmachtbericht"

Acknowledging the fact that both references have a propaganda aspect as well as a legitimate meritorious aspect, how do they differ from a Wikipedia point of view? If they are not fundamentally different, should the British references be removed as well or should the German references be retained? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't see a problem in retaining the Gazette quotes in the articles mentioned. They are being used as citations for, and explanations of, various gallantry awards. If the Wehrmachtbericht entries did the same I would support their retention but in the examples quoted they appear to be news items of combat milestones rather than announcing the award of decorations. Nthep (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Nthep. I think the difference is that whereas the Wehrmachtbericht was "the daily Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) mass-media communiqué and a key component of Nazi propaganda during World War II", the London Gazette was (long before the concepts of mass media or propaganda were thought of), and to some extent still is, an official report of acts of government. It has a legal function; it's not widely circulated except to those with a professional interest in the contents. It's used as a source by mass media, especially about medals and honours, and also by historians.
  In Wikipedia the London Gazette provides confirmation of facts. For example, if an article states that a British person had a certain honour (e.g. knighthood), then if challenged, the claim is substantiated by a London Gazette reference. For medal citations, such as those quoted above for Brendan Finucane and Douglas Bader, the London Gazette reports what the recipient's commanding officer wrote when recommending the award. Newspaper articles covering such an award use the London Gazette as a source but often re-word, and sometimes mangle, the original text; unfortunately this can be the case even in histories; which is why I maintain that the official London Gazette text should be quoted in preference to some reporter's version.
  — Stanning (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment : On 27 April 1940, Walther von Brauchitsch, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, ordered that the named-mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht was a special distinction for those soldiers who have distinguished themselves in combat with a deed worth communicating to the public. In this context, to be personally named in the Wehrmachtbericht was an award and the wording a citation not just Nazi propaganda. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• That sounds like it makes it a sort of Mentioned in dispatches and I wouldn't advocate quoting each one, we often list the numbers and occurrences of MIDs in infoboxes and text but don't often quote the MID itself. Nthep (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• In this case, shouldn't "Mentioned in dispatches" be expanded with "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht"? It has other country-specific sections already. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thats what they did on de:wiki ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't quite see the point of quoting the daily communiqué verbatim, as its information content is virtually nil. More so, the claims often don't have any foundation in fact and would necessitate profound cross-referencing and double-checking. E.g. Albrecht Brandi is credited with sinking two warships and a transport in the Mediterranean in April 1943, however, there are no records of any ships hit by his U-boat in that time frame. This has to be discussed in more detail, rather than merely stating what the OKW said about an event. Especially as the articles themselves often contain information to the contrary in the form of lists of ships attacked or planes downed. It's tedious work and not really worthwhile, I would say. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that the British one is inherently honest and the German one isn't but wouldn't Wiki prefer a source closer to 2016? (Says the man who has used 100-year-old sources).Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Single combat

Please take a look at this article. It appears to conflate two rather different concepts: a specific tradition of pre-battle combat of two chosen warriors and an ordinary "vis-a-vis" combat of e.g., two knights or two aces. I have two questions with this:

• Is there a special English term for the pre-battle combat, such as Polish pl:Harce?
• Should the article Single combat
  • split in two
  • or at least some of it moved to "duel"
  • or turned into a disambiguation page?

I believe in this case the principle of wikipedia "one subject per article" is a bit violated. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)