Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The May 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 Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Battle of Plum Point Bend • Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers Good article nominees Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) • Cultybraggan Camp • HMS Basilisk (1910) Good article reassessments Golubac Fortress Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,237) • only work on referencing and citation (43,162) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,345) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,615) • work on structure (31,773) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,183) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,713) • only work on supporting materials (1,333) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (120) • project tags fixed (8) • assessment checklists added (10) • assessment checklists completed (26) • task forces added (297) • attention to task force coverage (680)

News and announcements The November newsletter is now available! Nominations and voting for the "Military Historian of the Year" are open; all editors are encouraged to support the editor they believe did the most during 2010 to improve the coverage of military history on Wikipedia. An incubator for new initiatives within the project has been launched. A discussion about adopting C-Class has begun; comments from all editors are welcome! If you are in need of a quick response, please feel free to ask your question on our IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist). Counterparts to this discussion page also exist in several other languages, including Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Polski, and Русский.

C-Class adoption revisited

In March 2009 the Military history WikiProject decided in a referendum not to make use of C-Class within our project quality scale.

Further to recent discussion at the Strategy think tank, we believe the time is right to revisit our position. It has been suggested that one way our project could adopt C-Class, if we decide we want it, is by automatically assigning it (via our template) to articles that meet some, but not all, of our B-Class criteria. We would therefore like to put the following discussion points to our members:

1. Should Milhist adopt C-Class, perhaps by assigning it to articles that meet a subset of our B-Class criteria?
2. If so, which of the B-Class criteria should we use?

Discussion

This proposal is at the early consensus-gathering stage and intended to prompt discussion rather than garner "support" or "oppose" !votes. If you do !vote, it would be helpful in judging consensus if you could also leave a detailed rationale. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For something less than B but greater than Start: Meets B1 - cited, B3 - structured. Failure to be complete seems okay, but should be well along the way to covering the most encylopaedically interesting point. Infoboxes and writing seem okay to ignore. I'm not sure that MILHIST needs a C class... it encourages people to take Starts directly to B. Other opinions? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to implement C class - it's hard to see what the difference between a C class and a start class article would be in most cases. I agree that it could also encourage some editors to aim lower than B class, which in my view is the minimum for an article to be genuinely useful. I can't say that I feel strongly about the topic though. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done a lot of assessment for another project and I found my main criteria for differentiating between B, C & Start was if an article meets B2, B3 & B4 only, then more than likely I'd rate an article C. Not meeting B5 wasn't really an issue. Any less than meeting B2-B4 and it would be Start. I'm fairly neutral about whether this project should use C class but I lean slightly towards using C class. Putting a lot of work into an article to see it classed as Start can be discouraging for (new) editors and using C class is at least a recognition that things are mvoing in the right direction. NtheP (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Everybody above has made thoughtful, reasoned comments and I can't really disagree with any of them. Personally I don't think we need to graft another class onto our present grading system but, like Nick, it's not something I feel incredibly strongly about right now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've been able to deduce, the WP:AVIATION automatic system slaps a 'C' on articles when they're assessed as meeting three of the five B-class criterion. I personally would say B2, 3, and 4 makes sense for C, myself. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's ludicrously easy to make C-class by meeting criteria 3, 4, and 5 which have very little to do with the quality of the article. 1 and 2 are the hard ones to meet and I could see a valid use for C-class if it was 4 out of 5, strictly defined as either 1 or 2, plus the other three, as that would be a significantly better article than one that only met the three easiest requirements. 5 is pretty easy to meet, IMO, with either a picture or an infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sturmvogel. I think C-class is appropriate for articles that have been worked upon more than a simple Start class and are satisfactory in part, but not in whole. In practice, they are either mostly complete but lack citations and/or have grave style problems, or are well-written and referenced, but do not cover the subject as fully as possible. Constantine ✍ 17:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

At least use B5, is subtlely useful to understanding the subject, especially when discussing weapons and vehicles, i.e. battleships and aircraft. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support the introduction. While I might lean towards giving it to articles that have any three of the B class criteria met, I would be OK if it were more along the lines of requiring one or two specific ones and two or one of the other four or three. – Joe N 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My view is that we do need an intermediary stage between start and B. Our start class can vary enormously from literally just started piece to a wideranging and well written article which is only partially cited. I'd like to see a waypoint on the article development of 3 or 4 B criteria are met. I don't think it will be a dis-incentive to go for B - lets be realistic, our B criteria are tough and many don't aim for them (especially B1). I don't see it affecting people in the contests - they'll still press on for B's and A's. Setting an intermediate stage might actually be an incentive to aim higher and might help us target B-class improvement drives. For C, I think B2,B3 and B4 are the basics of a good article. I can take or leave B5, but acknowledge it is an easy one to fix so I'd be happy if it was in. That said, I think Sturmvogel's either B1 or B2 idea also has merit.Monstrelet (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that an intermediate classification might encourage others by giving recognition of effort, and if it can be done programatically from the B checklist then it should be fairly easily achievable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the issue, howver, I do think that the adoption of C class might have some benefits. There is indeed sometimes a large variation in what consistutes a start class article given that as a project we are usually quite strict on handing out B class assessments. The awarding of C class might have benefits such as encouraging new editors who might be disappointed with a "start class" tag, as well as identifying articles that need limited work to bring them up to B class. I would support the banner auto assigning C class to articles that fall down on certain B class criteria (probably B1 and B5 for me, as I think a C class article would need to have coverage, structured and have reasonable grammar). I'm open to other ideas about this, though, and ultimately if the project decides not to implement, I don't think it is a big deal. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(od)I guess this is where I start to respectfully question some of my colleagues' reasoning, mainly about the "encouragement" aspect of C-Class. Yes there is a significant gap between Start and B-Class in MilHist, and that B-class bar is set quite high. Do we have any real evidence however that offering C-Class will encourage more editors who feel slighted by a Start-Class assessment of an article they've worked on? I ask out of genuine curiosity, not rhetorically... ;-) Instead of encouraging a user to aim for B-Class, C might just become the new, lower, benchmark for editors, when they might have been prepared to push themselves further to B-Class in our current "C-less" system. Just a thought... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ian, its a fair question and to be honest, I couldn't provide you with any specific examples, but having spent the majority of last year trying to reduce the number of articles with an incomplete B class checklist, I have had a number of "conversations" by users who've felt slighted by a Start class rating that I've put on their article when assessing. Some of these editors took it quite personally to the extent that upon completion of the "conversation" I have had cause to question whether or not assessment was what I wanted to do on Wiki. I also think that there are editors out there who have found the B class rating too stringent and thus no longer bother asking for an assessment, and simply slap a "C" rating in the Milhist banner themselves (thus showing as an incomplete Start class assessment), but again this is just a personal observation and I couldn't really point to any diffs that show this off the top of my head. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've had that conversation once or twice in the past six months as well. MILHIST has the highest B-class criteria out there, remember it used to be more stringent than the rest of the wiki until they adopted a modified version of our checklist. If we adopt C, it should follow the same idea and be very stringent and in-line with our B-class stance. I think an acceptable C in this regime would be criteria 3, 4, 5 and either 1 or 2. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in line with you here, with the rules for 2, 3, 4 and 5, since coverage and accuracy is probably and arguably (sorry if I'm POV :P) more important than refs. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought. If we convert to C, somebody is going to have to run through the working groups, special operations and start-class lists. This is going to be prodigious work, and if somebody is not going to make a bot, I propose another Tag & Assess. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to be convinced that we have a genuine need for C-Class in the project (or in Wikipedia as a whole for that matter), though if consensus is that we should adopt it then that's fine. I find AustralianRupert's comment re disappointed editors quite compelling, though I suspect the disappointment is as much a function of the class name as anything else. In the original V1.0 C-Class adoption discussion I argued that instead of introducing an additional class we might simply rename "Start" to "C". Although this idea didn't carry the day then, something similar might be a compromise possibility for milhist - we could choose to adopt C-Class and simultaneously retire Start-Class for our own use. This wouldn't address all the issues with article downgrading, but it should remove any perceived stigma over the name "Start" and, if we set our C-Class criteria sufficiently carefully, might help more meaningfully differentiate the bottom end of the quality scale (maybe just B3 and B5?).

Alternatively, if we decide to add C-Class to our existing scale via the B-Class criteria, I think we should be aiming for those that reflect most closely Wikipedia's fundamental site content policies (ie WP:NPOV and WP:V). I guess these would be B1 and B2 at a minimum, though I'd be happy with a weak B1 (ie relaxing the inline citations and accepting a general reference instead). EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't a "weak B1" mean we would have to do this manually, rather than automatically? Monstrelet (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would. For me this is the main potential problem with filtering via the B-Class criteria. It's a huge jump between completely unreferenced (current Start-Class) and inline cites for all major points (B-Class). I'm thinking about the sort of article that maybe has a couple of general references at the end but nothing inline. EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't that be handled by changing the definition of stub i.e. to get a start, there need to be some references, general or inline? There is an "unreferenced" bot which is used for BLPs which could be co-opted to automatically review the multitude starts.Monstrelet (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think changing the definition of "stub" would just cause more confusion; it's a fairly established term in Wikipedia parlance, and editors will expect it to have (roughly) the same meaning wherever they encounter it.

As far as the "all or nothing" problem EyeSerene points out, it could be resolved by using something like the new public policy assessment method, which allows for finer resolution of how well the B-Class criteria are met; but that would require restructuring our assessment infrastructure to work with those numerical ratings across the board. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to change the definition of stub, or even of start and I'm not a fan of the assessment method being tried out by WP:USPP. There may be some reaction to the name "start" as Ian pointed out as I've run into other editors who've objected, mostly, it seemed to me, because of the name, even after I'd pointed out that they didn't meet the B-class requirements. I have no real objection to introducing C-class provided it's implemented roughly as I outlined above, but I'd oppose Wiki's current any three requirement as that's effectively meaningless, IMO. If we decided to introduce it a bot should be able to track them based on completed B-class checklists, so no manual work should be required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "inflating" the definition of a stub would be pretty ineffective - it would take the main problem trying to be addressed here (a fairly heterogenous mass of articles with the same quality rating) and just shift it onto a different set of articles. Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sturm, if we use 3, C will be ridiculously easy to attain. B3, B4 and B5 make for a stub with grammatical and spelling correctness, an image and infobox and one or two sections. If we introduce C with the requirements I listed above, I have no problems with introducing C-class (maybe even into the contest scoring ). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My experience with C-class in other projects has been that it's loosely used to designate a deficient, but potentially B-class article. I concur with the concept of a fairly high bar for C. with 3, 4 and 5 plus 1 or 2. The high bar for a B-class article has served the project well, and a high bar for C would be a spur to push an initial rating of C up to B. I see no reason to alter start or stub, although I personally feel that a start really ought to have some form of reference, even if it's a token effort. Acroterion _(talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2, not 1, per my comments above. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the less convinced I am that it's useful to introduce C-Class based on our B-Class checklist. For me the sticking point is B1. As has been mentioned we rightly have quite a high B-Class bar; our B1 is substantially the same as the Good article referencing criterion.

To illustrate and looking only at verifiability, if we exclude B1 as a potential C-Class criterion our quality scale will be:

• Start (completely unreferenced) → C-Class (completely unreferenced) → B-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations)

If however we include B1 we get:

• Start (completely unreferenced) → C-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations) → B-Class (suitably referenced with all major points having appropriate inline citations)

Neither of the above seem to meaningfully differentiate levels of article quality no matter which of the other B-Class criteria we include. B2 is important and I understand why it's been suggested as a criterion for C-Class, but B2 without B1 is content without verifiability; maybe acceptable (barely) in some Stubs or Starts, but at variance with Wikipedia policy (especially WP:BLP) because we can't tell if the article is WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, or just unsourced. As has been pointed out, B3, 4 and 5 are more about cosmetic presentation than actual quality content and shouldn't form the sole basis for C-Class. I think the only policy-compliant option we have is B1 plus some combination of the others, and whatever combination we choose would be so close to B-Class anyway as to be not worth creating an additional class for. EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What if the hypothetical C1 was less strict? Instead of requiring "all major points cited inline" to mark off B1, a C-class article could either have a reference list but no inline citations (low end), or some facts with inline refs, but not all (high end)... some effort has been made to meet WP:V, but its not 'good' enough to warrant a B. For the record, I don't care either way if C-class is adopted -- saberwyn 10:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that would solve the issue, but it would also defeat the point of an automated assessment based on the template B-Class checklist. I think I posted somewhere above that if we use C-Class I'd be happy with a hypothetical C1 that only looked for, say, verifiable references and not inline cites (unless required by WP:BLP). I realise it's outside the original proposal, but maybe we ought to widen to discussion to include manual assessment as an option? However, I'm aware doing so might also increase opposition to adopting C-Class due to the added overhead.

My preferred option, as I posted above, would be to retire Start-Class for milhist use and replace it (at a slightly higher level) with a C-Class which would include some sort of minimal referencing requirement. I think this might balance out the levels rather more evenly while avoiding introducing an additional class. EyeSerene^talk 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While I find the idea interesting and I agree there is a key quality step between no and some verifiable sources, I think whatever solution has to be automated. We have over 55,000 starts. If we were to scrap start, we have a huge re-assessment task.Monstrelet (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If a automated solution is not found, try a reassesment drive, or put the coords to work ( not really). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the first thing about automation/botting, so I have no idea how easy or insane this will be to apply, but I have a couple of ideas. Would the automated assessbot thingy look at the talkpage only to determine "Start/C/B", or will it look at the article as well. If the latter, could it be programmed to look at the article and say "There are more than two lines of text in a "References/Sources" section, but a distinct lack of <ref> bla bla bla </ref> formatting, </references> or {{reflist}} tagging, so I'll make this a C", or "Multiple entries in "References" and a {{reflist}}, so I need to cast Summon Human to see if it meets B". It might also be able to pick up on article cleanup templates like {{unreferenced}} or {{citation needed}}; articles carrying these kind of templates probably don't meet B1. Secondly, would there be any merit to splitting assessment criteria B1 into two parts: part B will be the one we know and love, but B1-a would be something along the lines of "Multiple reliable sources are provided". Anything that meets A but not B (i.e. several sources listed, but not cited inline) would be a C, anything that meets B but not A (all cited inline, but only a single source relied on) is probably shy of B class anyway. -- saberwyn 20:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The story so far

I think the discussion is in danger of running out of steam without us reaching a conclusion, which would be a shame because we've actually moved forward. In the hope of moving us on, I'll attempt a summary. If it doesn't fit your summary, please engage with it so we can agree where we are at and where we are going. While some remain to be convinced that a new class is necessary, there is a general view that the wide range of levels in start class is a problem. Some would tackle this by using an automatic C class assessment based on 3 or 4 B class criteria. Others have suggested we might scrap start and replace it with C class with the bar at a higher level but less than B class. There is a potential problem with this if we can't automate the process, because of the large number of starts. A particular issue concerns the B1 citation criterion. All are agreed that its current high standard is a good thing but it is a problem that we have no way of distinguishing between unreferenced articles and each paragraph in-line cited articles in quality terms. This lack of an intermediate state seems to be a sticking point in setting C class criteria, whether as an additional class or replacing Start. Further comments/proposals are invited Monstrelet (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to scrap Start, especially since it's used project wide. But I rather think that people are getting a bit too ambitious in trying to breakout various levels of referencing. Most of the articles that I've reviewed have either had some inline cites or none if they don't meet B-1, but almost all have had some list of references if they have any pretension to being a quality article. If we can get a bot to check for the presence of refs then we can use that as one of the criteria, but if we can't then I see no need to worry about it as I have no intention of manually assessing so many articles to see how they rate. Let's not get wrapped around the axle here over B1; any of the proposals above are stricter than the C-class criteria used by any other project as the vast majority of C-class articles Wiki-wide are based on 3, 4, and 5 only. At C-class I'm not worried about verifiability per se; it's recognition of an article that needs a bit of work to get to B-class. It's kinda aggravating to fully reference and expand an article that I can't complete for lack of sources and have it remain a start, just like the ones with only two sections and 15 lines of text. So I'd prefer that we adopt C-class with the criteria of 1 or 2, and 3, 4, and 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sturm, and strongly oppose any notion of scrapping Start. Personally, my idea of a C-class article is one that meets 3, 4, and 5 - the odd unreferenced half-paragraph isn't a big deal for C-class, nor is not having all the details (or, for that matter, a picture, but an infobox or something should be required. Basically, yeah, 3+4+5=y=C is an equasion that works for me. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

3, 4, 5 is one of those 2 paragraph, 15 line articles that looks pretty, but has little substantive information. A start, in other words, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair point, I guess. 1/2+3+4+5 works then. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tentatively support that as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I could also support that (1/2 + 3, 4, 5). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also support 1/2 + 3 + 4 + 5. NtheP (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also be happy with this, especially if Sturmvogel's idea of being able to except completely unreferenced articles by a separate process could be done ( I don't see why not - there is a bot for UBLP, so it should be technically similar)Monstrelet (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This looks sensible to me. (For those watching at home, (1/2)+3+4+5 is an article which is structured, clearly written and has supporting materials (infobox, images), and which is comprehensive but badly referenced, or referenced but does not fully cover the topic. In other words - B but not sourced, or B but missing some aspect of the topic.) Shimgray | talk | 15:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Bushranger's proposal, that's what I'm looking for. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have a firm proposal. Co-ordinators, what happens next?Monstrelet (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll put together a test implementation of the new auto-assessment code sometime in the next few days; assuming everything works as expected, we'll be able to roll this out across the entire project shortly after that. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I stick with my original contention that C-Class is not necessary and may not produce expected benefits, and I also note that the latest proposal of 4 B-Class criteria having to be satisfied for C makes it relatively little different to B and quite a significant jump from Start, which defeats one of the earliest objectives of having it. However, if it does have fairly strong general support, let me bring up another practical question at this point, namely re. C-class and the Monthly Article Writing Contest. As we award points for all current classes of Start and above, I presume we'd expect to include C-Class in the contest as well if it's implemented. If so, how many points? Since Start is 1 point and B is an additional 5 points on top of start, should we make C-Class 4 points as the prevailing mood now seems to be that a MilHist C must satisfy at least 4 B-Class crieria? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. None/stub → C = + 5; Start → C = + 4; C → B = + 1; C → GA = + 6; C → A = + 16; C → FA = + 21. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it does make sense and that's my point -- I was concerned before that C-Class would become the new B, i.e. a new, lower, benchmark that many would aim at rather than the B-Class which is a worthy target, but I think that's even more likely to be the case with the 4-criteria C that's now proposed. If the contest is any motivator for people, they'll be even less reason for many to go for B-Class when it's only one point more than a C, and if the criteria themselves are people's motivator, the same applies. Of course we in MilHist will know that our C-Class is 'better' than everyone else's, but the average reader who glances at a WP article and sees that it's rated "C" is likely to consider it not nearly as close to something rated "B" as will in fact be the case; so I again have to question the point... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a concern I have as well, and why I originally suggested "3 of 5" as WikiProject Aviation uses. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of this issue, but I'd rate a C-class at 3 points, not 4 for the contest. My thought is that criteria 1 and 2 are the hardest ones to meet and a C-class article has one or the other and thus lies halfway between start and B. Criteria 3-5 don't really signify, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what about this then: None/stub → C = + 3; Start → C = + 2; C → B = + 3; C → GA = + 8; C → A = + 18 and C → FA = + 23? I understand that essentially going from Stub to C would be the same as C to B, but doing it that way would treat C class basically as half of B class and encourage improvement from C to B. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's looking closer to what I understood as one of the main points of C-Class, i.e. something more in the middle of Start and B. If we have to have the new class, I could live with this: something that rewards more effort than Start-Class but doesn't let people get too complacent by being worth almost much as B... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really seen anything to make me change my opinion that, without some kind of referencing half-way house, adding C-Class to our scale would be much more than an exercise in instruction creep. It does seem as though we may be making the mistake of looking at C-Class from the point of view of what would be the least trouble for us to implement rather than what would produce the most actual benefit. Whichever set of B-Class criteria is adopted for C, we'll still have a huge gap between "unreferenced" and "fully B1-compliant"... only across a narrower step on the quality scale (ie between Start and C or C and B). EyeSerene^talk 14:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with EyeSerene; IMO all thats been accomplished here is to show the project that once again we have no uniform system in mind for implementation of C-class. I still look upon our decision not to use the class as an important moment for us since it allowed us to skip the middle step in between louse and useful that is now common to nearly every other project. Honestly, I think this is a situation in which we are attempting to fix something that really isn't broke, and to be honest its always been my experience that if it ain't broke it don't fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, progress - such a fickle thing:) I have to totally disagree. The system is broken. The breadth of article quality covered by Start is too great to be of use either to users as a guide to quality or to encourage a widespread aiming at incremental improvement of the article stock. You can tackle that with the current categories by changing their definitions or you can put in an intermediate category. Most seem to feel that putting in C class is better in terms of consistency with other parts of Wikipedia. But whichever you opt for IMO you can't just leave current start where it is. The reason for ease of implementation is the scale of the problem. I don't know how many editors the project has who are willing to get involved in reassessment but manual reassessment of 55,000 articles isn't easy. We can't afford a solution we can't implement, even if that means we have compromise on ideals.Monstrelet (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand your point; the manual reassessment of tens of thousands of articles is not something I'd look forward to with any relish. I also appreciate the argument that an easy but inadequate solution is better than a difficult but full solution, though I disagree that the easy solution is therefore worth implementing just because we can. It's also mistaken to assume that an automated assessment to populate C-Class via the B-Class checklist would remove the need for manual assessment; currently we have 26,569 articles with incomplete checklists. Obviously these need to be assessed manually before the automated assessment could award a class.

If consensus is that we adopt C-Class anyway and assuming we agreed that any minimal level of referencing should be required for C, is manual reassessment the only option? The principle objection to doing anything outside the B-Class criteria seems to be dealing with the size of the current Start-Class list, not future assessments. I wonder if a few bot runs through our Start-Class articles might winnow the list - I'm no bot programmer but it must be possible to check the articles for references in some way. How do unreferenced BLPs get categorised? That's basically the same sort of check as we'd need and it would at least give us a list of articles that we could then perhaps assess via other parts of the B-Class checklist. EyeSerene^talk 09:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can pass any of the criteria automatically, but we can certainly class articles as failing them on specific criteria - for example, an article with no reftags or "reference[s]" section can safely be presumed to fail B1 and be rated accordingly, which I think is basically the mechanism the BLP people use, or an article with few or no section headings beyond notes/references/extlinks can safely be presumed to fail B3. We could do a similar wikitext check for B5, but B2 and B4 would be a lot harder to do - we'd probably have to use things like article quality warning tags, which would mean a low lower hit rate.

This wouldn't help pass articles - we can't identify "sufficient" referencing or coverage or structure or the like without someone reading it and thinking about it - but it would at least be able to identify, with reasonably high confidence, the "worse" ones currently in Start, and cut some work at that end.

At the same time, it would also be worth thinking about what to do with the enormous mass of "stub-class" articles, a sizable fraction of which aren't stubs any more - it's informative to note that 45,183 articles are currently classed by the milhist template as stub, whilst only about 5,000 currently have a milhist stub tag of some form. People are pretty good at removing the tag, but understandably far fewer change the assessment, and perhaps we should think about winnowing these before sorting the mass of start articles - we'd only have to do it again if we reprocess the stubs. We could presumably use a crude bot assessment to look for something like (over a certain size + no stub tag) and reclass accordingly - thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 13:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed about 25 WWI French warship articles (armored cruisers and dreadnoughts), the bulk of which were stub-class and found that most of the stubs lacked a stub tag and I only reassessed one up to start so I'm not at all sure that many of the stubs are genuinely start-class. I generally don't add the stub tag to articles that I work on because there are so many different ones and I usually forget to do so. So I'm not really sure that we can assume anything when it comes to the relationship between stub tags and stub assessments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Juat to throw a real late in the day comment in; i have never understood the need to add, imo, another level of bureaucracy. Keep it simple and with as few layers as possible.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to toss this in so late in the discussion, but my feelings have not changed since the last discussion. I am still opposed to this implementation on the grounds that I feel it is unnecessary bureaucracy and instruction creep, as well as not providing a substantive classification or any real gain. However, I'm not as vehement as I previously was, and lean more towards plain apathethic now on the proposal. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2010

Military historian of the Year 2010

With the end of the year nearly upon us, the time has come to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project should be awarded this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award. Which editor in our project has, in your estimation, contributed the most to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the course of the last year? Any Milhist editor may nominate up to ten editors – this is to prevent any of our resident geniuses from nominating the entire membership list! – but can vote for as many editors as they like. Self-noms are frowned upon.

The top three get the gold wiki, the silver wiki, and the bronze wiki respectively. All other nominees will receive the WikiProject barnstar. Please nominate in the following format, with brief comments (twenty words max). Votes go under the nomination and are approval (ie support) only.

• [user name] [reason] ~~~~

:# Support. ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Thanks!

Nomination and voting

Please try to keep nomination statements to twenty words max. Thanks, and good luck! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Anotherclown: For doing for the Vietnam War what Ed! is doing for the Korean War, contributing a series of fine Cold War battle articles, including 3 A-Class and 5 GAs this year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: Excellent contributions, even while deployed o/s. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert: Another machine of the project, he churns out excellent battalion histories and other articles (including a number of GA and As), does the thanksless administrative tasks behind the scenes as a co-ordinator and is a tireless contributor at GA, A-class and peer reviews. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: As nominator. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support - many high quality reviews and assists. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Amazing work done this year!--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - much help throughout the year and very good at helping with content development, Sadads (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support AustralianRupert's contributions this year have been remarkable. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support' --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support – Joe N 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Support – MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Support – Farawayman (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Support. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Support EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Support bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dank: For incredible copy editing work on many Military History articles through the ACR and FAC process. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: as nominator. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support: per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Helpful and hard working :)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support, always quality work - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Doug (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support – For all the well defined feedback from your copy edits! Farawayman (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Climie.ca, aka Cam. Cam has written two featured articles and four A-class articles this year, with more on the way. He has also made thought-out, intelligent comments in multiple areas of the project. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. – Joe N 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ed!: For significant contributions to the project focusing upon the Korean War. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support as Korean War topic collaborator. Jim101 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support as nom. Need I say more?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support – Joe N 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support – MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7: For 5 FAs and 3 A-Class articles this year plus numerous GAs, regular B-Class assessments, and being prepared to take on and improve controversial subjects like Douglas Macarthur and Manhatten Project. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support per Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support as nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Controversial subjects are much harder ones to improve. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support – Farawayman (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ian Rose: No idea about his stats but Ian has contributed a large number of high quality articles this year including numerous GAs, As and FAs. He has also co-ordinated a number of task forces and contributed strongly to GA, A class and Peer reviews. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: As nominator. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support: Prolific contributor of content and has done a lot of co-ordinator work. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support: Has done yeoman work and always a pleasure to read the work of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Ian is a prolific and consistently good humoured editor Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support – MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• MBK004: For all the important yet widely considered low level work he does to help ensure that our project runs efficiently, in particular his closing of A-class reviews. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: we have greatly missed his services recently. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support: per Tom. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Block Unapproved bot. Support Since he acts like a bot. Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support I still think we need to rename you OMTBot ;)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. – Joe N 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support – MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Dammit Buggie, I was gonna make a bot joke. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nick-D: For continued excellent work on a wide variety of subjects, taking 3 to FA this year (+1 pending), 2 to A-Class, and 1 to GA, and for constant intelligent discussion and assistance to the project. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support: a solid contributor and a tireless administrator. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support as nom.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. – Joe N 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support – MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support --Habap (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Support – Farawayman (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Support EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Parsecboy: One of the most prolific contributors in the project. Currently only the second recipient of the A-Class Medal with Swords. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support If Parsecboy and Sturm were tied onto a generator, the energy crisis would be solved! Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support as one of THE greatest things to happen to MIL since....well I can't remember.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. – Joe N 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Support – MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Support – Farawayman (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Support. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Support EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
16. Support bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sturmvogel 66: For achieving 406 points from 69 articles in the October article writing contest, and many other contributions over the year. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support, what can you say, the guy's a machine... ;-) Plus don't forget he won the 2010 WikiCup as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support': as nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per AR. Impressive statistics. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Nevertiring workhorse. Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support how can I not support the guy who won the Wikicup?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support, for obvious reasons! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. – Joe N 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Support – MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Support – Farawayman (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
16. Support EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
17. Support bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• The ed17: For seven FA-class, two A-class, numerous expansions of articles, lots of new pages, a few DYKs, and multiple other things that have advanced this project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support – MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Ed is a great editor and project coordinator Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. – Joe N 19:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hchc2009 is a prolific editor, launching complete rewrites of at least seven articles on castles. They are exemplary in an under-represented area, being comprehensive and impeccably sourced. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator (and because through Hchc2009's efforts Kenilworth Castle finally has the article it deserves). Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Emeraude has created at least 24 articles on French castles. This is a sadly under-represented area and efforts to rectify that should be congratulated. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Remember that you are able to vote right now! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember, are nominations considered an impicit vote or should we make it explicit (i.e. "support as nom")? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, myself, I've just added "support as nom". I think this should be okay. If this is wrong, please just let me know and I'll strike. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Done so as well, as has Anotherclown -- so at least if we're wrong, we're consistently wrong... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to vote for all of the above, along with many more editors. I think that there's been a remarkable jump in the standards of articles within the scope of this project this year (which has exceeded the significant Wikipedia-wide improvement). Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I share Nick's sentiments, all of the above and many more are worthy of commendation. For what's shaping up to be a run for 3rd place, I picked out 3 of the most prolific and helpful contributors at A-class review. Naturally enough, it's between Sturmvogel and Parsecboy for 1st place ... I decided to toss my vote to Sturm for his Wikicup performance. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I third this. I picked out a top three, then found I couldn't leave out one of the editors, so I added a fourth. Obviously this passed over the other candidates, all of which are worthy IMHO. Apologies to those I left out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - it's almost impossible to single out a few editors from the many who make milhist what it is. Every editor nominated deserves recognition for their superb efforts. EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I realise it's quite late in the voting, but I've nominated two people I've noticed while editing and was wondering when voting closes? Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not really sure, but I suspect that it would be the end of the month. Can anyone confirm or deny? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Going by the date stamps of the voting, Last year's Military historian of the year ran from 16 Dec into early January. We were a week earlier putting this up so I'd say the end of the month is a reasonable guess. I'm not aware of any rigid timetable (though I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong!) EyeSerene^talk 09:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The first one (2008) ran a week, which was a bit short for late nominations. I agree with EyeSerene that closing at the month's end would be right; just in time in fact for the announcement in the next issue of the Bugle.  Roger ^talk 12:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I need to remember to visit this page more often; I might have missed this! bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Réduit and redoubt

Is Réduit another word for redoubt? Please see Talk:Réduit#Proposed Merger With National Redoubt. -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Réduit means reduce/reduced. The french for redoubt would be"redoute", so it is doubtful that both would mean the same thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Inspection of the interwiki links also show that there is a distinct usage between réduit and redout in other languages. Compare de:Reduit and de:Redoute, for example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

SM-65 Atlas Merge variants

I've suggested that the various variants for the SM-65 Atlas missile articles be merged into the main article. Normally variants of the same weapons system are written as subsections, rather than seperate articles. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, sounds like a good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Completed Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A-class review

People have been voting with their feet lately and submitting fewer articles at Featured article candidates and more articles at A-class review. Not surprising; FAC is very time-intensive and not all of us have the time. This is hardly a tragedy; you can always wait and do FAC later, or never. But the downtick at FAC and uptick at A-class is getting to be a little burdensome for me, and maybe for some of the other reviewers, I don't know. I'd like to suggest that we insert a new section at the top of WP:MILMOS covering maybe 25 of the things most commonly and easily fixed at A-class, and ask all you writers to either check your articles against the list before submission or get someone else to do it for you. (You can probably find someone who can get it done in less than 30 minutes, and if you can't, post an offer to swap favors here or at the Guild of Copy Editors.)

I want to stress that submitting something to A-class and getting 100 "corrections" doesn't mean you're a bad writer; professional writers don't do all their own copyediting. In fact, in some ways it's a sign your writer's brain is working efficiently, ignoring details that don't matter to you. But it seems reasonable to me for reviewers to expect at least a little help with the workload; there are a lot of submissions and not so many of us. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a very good idea. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this is a good idea. I'd suggest placing this somewhere in the Academy (and linking to it from the ACR nomination instructions) rather than MILMOS, as it's probably not prescriptive enough for the latter. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The more assistance we can give our hard-working reviewers, the better :) EyeSerene^talk 17:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, why have we not thought of this before? That's an excellent idea. We can have a few different sections, even – referencing, writing (ie look for ambiguous "it", "they", "them"; redundant words), etc. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. I would offer to write it myself... but I don't know what the tips would be! Hence, why I don't normally submit articles, and I think my prescence at PR is cursed by those unlucky enough to see it. However, I offer to help with the writing; if someone can give me the bare essentials, I can to the scutwork with turning it to readable prose and wikilinks and the like. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why I love you guys ... I've generally gotten blank stares or grumbling when I've suggested similar ideas elsewhere on Wikipedia. I created a section for ideas on the talk page of the Academy (per Kirill's suggestion), here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Reimann (US Navy officer)

This officer's article is completely unreferenced. While a one/two star, his only flag command tour was Pearl Harbour Naval Base. Personally I do not believe he is notable, but a Prod was removed. What do others feel? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I realize I am not a member of the task force but I feel compelled to comment. The last year has seen the introduction of a plethora of articles whose sole purpose is to note winners of the Knight's Cross awarded by the Third Reich (see this article as an example). Note that Back was a brigadier, however, the article makes no mention of his career other than being essentially a list of awards. While I really don't care if Wikipedia chooses to present individual articles for each winner of a high military honor, I must question the value of biographies which note nothing other than the fact that an individual attained a particular award. And Back's article is only one of many that present the same (lack of) information. This boils down to the question: what about a career is truly notable? One has to wonder, given the "politics" found in military services, if simply the award of a high decoration is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it depends on the sourcing. Given that this (the Reimann article) appears to be a biography of a living person, it needs referencing. Without references it is not verifiable and therefore fails the WP:GNG and should be deleted. If adequate sourcing can be found, per WP:MILPEOPLE, it meets the notability guidelines. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

From a quick skim of the article in question I tend to agree with Buckshot and Rupert that the subject of this article is likely to be non-notable. Arguments that other stuff exists are not likely to be accepted at AfD as a reason to keep either. Anotherclown (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found and added a couple of references, but whether they are "significant" and "independent" is open to argument. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Reimann, my assessment is that there is nothing particularly notable about the subject of the article. As to "other stuff exists" . . ., it does, and how -- and note I am not in favor of retaining such articles. They are the MILHIST version of fluff IMO. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Buckshot, do you feel up to another AfD for this one? Otherwise I'll have a crack. Anotherclown (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Buck, I think you ought to put it up for discussion. You have seen me at AfD to know that I feel that merely having a star is not automatically enough, especially if the individual has only had staff assignments. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

USS Governor Buckingham (1863) → USS Governor Buckingham

USS Governor Buckingham (1863) has been nominated for speedy renaming to USS Governor Buckingham at WP:RM ... NOTE: This is a different ship from USS Buckingham (USS Buckingham (APA-141)) . 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Governor Buckingham doesn't exist... 65.93.13.227 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

fortress category tree

The entire fortress category tree has been proposed to be merged into the fort category tree, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 15. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

USS Indianapolis in popular culture

USS Indianapolis in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move notice for "An Shi Rebellion"

• An Shi Rebellion → ? —(Discuss)— As this topic is bannered by your wikiproject, I have taken the step to inform you of a move request —65.93.13.227 (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Territorial Army and disambiguation

Rather than make a fool of myself by recommending something which does not have support, I thought I ought to check here. I've commented on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_16#Category:Territorial_Army, which is up for renaming, to the extent that Territorial Army (United Kingdom) is likely to be the primary topic for the phrase "Territorial Army" and that Territorial Army ought to redirect to the British TA article rather than being a disambiguation page (which links to the British, Indian and Malaysian TAs). Does my opinion have any merit? If not I guess I ought to get back to the CfD page and withdraw it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Indian Army is about a million personnel, one could be forgiven for arguing that the Indian Army's Territorial Army should be the default. I don't think there's any support for that, but I think the position might be left as it is, because there may be other TAs around as well. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Josef Fitzthum now open

The peer review for Josef Fitzthum is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Yongdong now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Yongdong is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for 29th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry now open

The A-Class review for 29th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Move "Argentina-Brazil War" to "Cisplatine War" - Need help there, please

Hi, everyone. Could someone take a look in a present discussion and your opinion about it moving or not "Argentina-Brazil War" to "Cisplatine War"?. Its in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War#Requested move. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Iowa class battleship now open

The peer review for Iowa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback is in need of a few extra hands. In particular, it's sometimes difficult to usefully review new articles if you know nothing about the subject at hand. Would someone here be willing to check the feedback listings every day or two, and let their fellow MILHISTers know if anyone's asking for a review on an article that should be within the scope of this project?

Most days, this task probably entails clicking on a dozen links (they're almost all newbies, so sometimes you have to search to find the article they're talking about) to see what the article is about, and if there's anything within the scope, either doing a quick review (typically, encouraging them find some WP:Independent sources and to add appropriate categories) or letting people here know that a review is needed.

It's not difficult work, and anyone who likes dealing with brand-new editors would probably think it was fun. It would be ideal if someone could do this systematically, at least twice a week, to make sure that articles you're interested in aren't getting missed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

A few proposals at Template talk:The Holocaust#Suggestions to improve neutrality and order. Comments are very much appreciated. Cheers! theFace 15:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MILHIST tags on fantasy novels

I have noticed that the fantasy novel Under Heaven is awaiting assessment by MILHIST. While I am aware that historical fiction with a military theme comes under the project remit, as do some "hard sci-fi" novels with a future war subjects, how do fantasy novels fit? I can imagine a justification perhaps for a retelling of a myth like the Trojan War but this seems to be a straight fantasy novel, albeit influenced by Chinese history. Guidance in such cases would be appreciated Monstrelet (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a straight fantasy novel. There's almost no fantasy in it, apart from one ghost scene, and some shamans in a sidestory/sideplot that is largely unconnected with the main plot of the novel. It's a straight historical novel, with some fantastical elements for windowdressing. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your argument being that novels with small amounts of fantasy content should be acceptable in MILHIST? As I've said, fantasy treatments of martial legends like the Trojan War or Arthurian legend might also be considered. However, current guidance isn't clear on this and I'd suggest by simple extrapolation it isn't currently allowed. Hence the query - do we need clearer guidance on this? Monstrelet (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Our front page guidance note says

We generally cover only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable. A distinction is made between fictionalized depictions of historical warfare and purely invented depictions of fictional warfare; topics sufficiently divorced from actual history that a discussion of actual military history would no longer be relevant to them—such as futuristic warfare in Star Wars—are not considered to be within the project's scope.

For this particular article I'd say it doesn't on the face of it seem to fall within milhist's scope; there's nothing within the actual article text that indicates "a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable". EyeSerene^talk 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd concur with EyeSerene that unless this fictional work is dealing with events which occurred in actual military history, it doesn't fall under our purview. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't enjoy reading it.... --Habap (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy .ne. History Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a note on the Under Heaven talk page asking for a justification to keep its MILHIST tag, quoting the criteria. I note it is listed under war, rather than fantasy, novel. Monstrelet (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

People should remember that wikiproject tags are not intended to work like categories. In this case, a wikiproject about military history is not for any article that involves somewhere a group of people using weapons to kill another group of people. Trivial tags at unrelated projects should be simply removed. MBelgrano (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Yugoslav Army

Royal Yugoslav Army is an interesting topic that is unfortunately not done much justice by its article. I do not have the materials required to write a better article, but I would like to mention that this article could use some expert attention. By way of suggestions, I think the 1941 order of battle could be moved to a separate article and that some information on the period 1919-1941 would be very helpful. It is not even really clear in the article that that the RYA was primarily formed from the Serbian Army of the First World War. Perhaps there are editors who are familiar with Yugoslav history and can contribute something to this article? Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Military aircraft category renaming

Several hundred categories have been nominated for renaming. See WP:CFDALL in the "speedy" renaming section. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually over 2,000 aircraft categories but not all military, has been opposed and is now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_20#Speedy_hyphen_changes_with_objection MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

There are a number of military-related templates up for discussion. Project members in fields such as the American Civil War, the Korean War, Chinese military history, sniper biographies, etc. may wish to participate in these discussions. Most of them are listed here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 16. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fort Apache

the usage of Fort Apache is under discussion at Talk:Fort Apache (film) . 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

SORT

SORT has been requested to be renamed Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, see Talk:SORT

65.95.13.158 (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ian Dougald McLachlan now open

The A-Class review for Ian Dougald McLachlan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer and reference-adder available

Hi everyone, I'm feeling a bit burned out from working on articles for the moment, but would be very happy to help out with other articles by providing an informal review and/or providing references (a sub-set of the books in my library is available here - I've also got loads more books on World War II and Australian military history which I haven't listed yet). Please leave a message here or on my talk page if I can be of assistance. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greek destroyer Lonchi

The article Greek destroyer Lonchi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found only a minor published (gBooks) mention of Greek "Cruiser" named Lonchi. Fails WP:V and by extension WP:N if any content here is true

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have contested this because IMO it is still notable under the MILHIST guidelines at WP:MILMOS/N. Of course we should try to add some references to it however. Anotherclown (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article can be sourced by Conway's All the World's Fighting Warships 1906–1921, which I've added to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Added reference to Janes Fighting Ships of WWI as well. Farawayman (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Classified material

There is a Request for Comment open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents that impacts a few articles in the scope of our project, as well as the potential for references and content in others. Please take the time to join the discussion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)