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 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 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 • Wolfgang Larrazábal 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 (147,737) • only work on referencing and citation (43,151) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,849) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,613) • work on structure (32,262) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,677) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (33,213) • only work on supporting materials (1,335) • assessment (18) • assessment as lists (121) • project tags fixed (8) • assessment checklists added (10) • assessment checklists completed (519) • task forces added (298) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2013 now open!

Military historian of the year 2013

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

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

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nominations

• Anotherclown (talk · contribs) While Anotherclown probably deserves to be nominated for the strength of his work on the Battle of Long Tan article alone, he is another hugely prolific contributor and played a key role in getting three articles to GA status. He has also performed sterling work as a coordinator and makes a huge contribution to tagging, assessing and maintaining articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) AustralianRupert's two successful A-class nominations, five successful GANs and many articles developed to B-class standard are only the tip of the iceberg of his contributions. As well as serving as a coordinator, he does a huge amount of "wiki-gnoming" style work to assess, improve and maintain articles and contributed one of the best op-eds to have been published in the Bugle. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cdtew (talk · contribs) During 2013 Cdtew has developed eight articles on North Carolina's role in the American Revolutionary War to GA or higher status, representing a huge improvement to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cliftonian: for continued efforts to improve Rhodesian military history coverage, including four FAs and several GAs this year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Dank: for his active role in four FAs this year, as well as his contribution to other quality articles though constant reviewing/copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) for his dedication and work on World War I flying aces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7: for dedication to improving coverage related to the atomic bomb and other subjects, including 10 FAs this year, and as the inaugural recipient of the ACM with Diamonds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ian Rose (talk · contribs): a major content contributor, tireless co-ord and diligent reviewer. Achievements this year include 8 x FAs, 6 x As, and 15 x GAs. Strong reviewer at GA and A and goes the extra mile to ensure accuracy. Other good works include role as FA delegate and on the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs): for long term contributions. Jim has over 98,000 edits, including 34 x GAs, 4 x As, 2 x FAs and a Good topic (not to mention his ongoing efforts to assist reviewing – 112 x GA reviews and many A class reviews). Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keith-264 (talk · contribs): for his prolific contributions to World War I articles. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Mongo (talk · contribs): for pushing for and getting the Fort Yellowstone article up to FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nick-D (talk · contribs): for continuing sterling work as a content contributor and co-ord. Has encouraged and mentored many editors as they got started and helped established editors maintain focus. His achievements this year include at least 5 x FAs, 1 x A, and 2 x GAs. Not to mention work with the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs): for his work on World War II articles and work as a reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs): What can I say? The guy's a machine on FAs, As and GAs and always gives a great review as well. It's largely down to him that MILHIST now boasts the largest featured topic ever, "Battlecruisers of the world". —Cliftonian (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the nomination, but as a previous winner, I must decline the nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
    • A gentleman as well. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Tomobe03 (talk · contribs): for his work on Balkans-related articles and GA reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wild Wolf (talk · contribs): for his continuing work on ACW articles. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Zawed (talk · contribs) Another editor working on an under-represented topic, Zawed has made a major contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand military history by developing five articles on the topic to A-class status and 10 to GA. Zawed is also among the most regular assessors of articles nominated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2013 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2013

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

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

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

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jimfbleak (talk · contribs): although an old and wise hand around wiki, he is a very recent member of the project. Recently took his first MILHIST article (that I’m aware of) – Melbourne Castle – to FA. Anotherclown (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • He has also nommed these at FAC: Titchwell Marsh, North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Cley Marshes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Khanate General (previously Typing General): Although only active since mid-year, Khanate is already making his presence felt as an editor of quality Central and East Asian military history articles, including a Featured List and several GAs, and as a reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Omnedon (talk · contribs): generally more focused on geography and local history, he this year brought the important article Jefferson Davis up to FA standard. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ssriram mt: An experienced editor on wider Indian topics, Ssriram has made a welcome appearance to editing articles within the MilHist area, and has been recently improving article on a number of Indian forts, including getting Fort Dansborg up to GA standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British Library free use images

A colleague has brought to my attention this collection of 1M free use images taken from old books

http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary

They may be well known to some editors - others like me may not have seen them before.

They are tagged but not it seems indexed. A quick look showed there are military images in there, including useful maps. If anyone has the time, it might reveal some hidden treasures.Monstrelet (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone has very kindly listed all the books that have been scanned to create this collection at the seven pages starting at commons:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Full list of books 1. NtheP (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Simultaneous reviews

What is the preferred procedure if I would like to simultaneously list an article for WP:PR and MILHIST A-Class review? Also what is policy regarding two simultaneous A-Class reviews?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think it is generally accepted that if an article would benefit from PR, it should wait until the PR is finished and those issues addressed before nominating it for ACR. To my knowledge there are no restrictions on having two articles at ACR at the same time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had up to three at a time for ACR, but it would be most helpful if you would do a review of other ACRs for each one you have up yourself. I've noticed things move a lot faster that way. —Ed!^(talk) 18:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attempt

Just so younz know, there be chatter on the talk page about the title and whether or not it should be changed since at the moment this is shaping up to be more of a civil war than a coup d ta. Input over there may prove useful, all the more so since the article be linked from the main page at the moment. 24.92.109.251 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

GA backlog

Gday all. Bit of a backlog building up at GA at the moment, currently up to 45 articles. If anyone is looking for a way to contribute doing a review would be quite helpful. Pls see Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Warfare. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone could review my German occupation of Belgium during World War II (the oldest article so far unreviewed) then I'd be extremely grateful! Brigade Piron (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Howdy. As this request has been sitting since 19 Sep 13 without any interest I will take this on. That said I will state from the outset that I am out of my depth as this topic is well outside my lane. I will do my best but will also ask a few other editors for their opinions to (hopefully) ensure a thorough review is completed of this important topic. As such if anyone is interested pls go to the review page and add your cmts. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Been some progress here with the backlog now down to 40 GA reviews (of which) 27 are still awaiting a reviewer. That said still plenty of scope for people to pitch in if you are interested. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WW1 Reparations

Hi, I am working on the World War I reparations article. I am currently expanding the information on the Bulgarian reparation demands and payments. Thus far, I have established the following:

1 - Treaty of Neuilly established that Bulgaria had to pay 2.250 billion Gold francs in reparations.(Treaty of Neuilly, Article 121)
2 - In 1923, the Bulgarian reparation sum was "revised downwards" to 550 million gold francs "plus a lump sum payment of 25 million francs for occupation costs".(Marks, Myths of Reparations, pp. 234-5)
3 - Between the treaty signing and April 1922, 173 million gold francs were paid (1)
4 - Between 1925 and 1929, Bulgaria paid a further 41 million gold francs, before reparations were abandoned at the Lausanne conference of 1932.(2)

Can anyone provide additional information (including sources)? Such as:

1 - Do the above figures represent total Bulgarian reparation payment, and if not what was it?
2 - Did an event, such as the Dawes Plan for example, occur to revise down the Bulgarian reparation payments?

Thanks for any help provided.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Number 4: Between 1925 and 1925? Possibly mid to late 1920s? Adamdaley (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo on my part, it should read 1925-1929. I have amended the text above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeat reviews

If an article passes A-class review, can it be put up for review again if it changes enough or if the review was far enough in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Peer Reviews are OK as long as the rules at WP:PR are followed. That's an overall Wikipedia review vs. a Wikipedia Project review like MilHist's A-class review. I'm not sure if a peer review will help an article much that passed A-class review. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting for military historian of the year for 2013 now open!

Military historian of the year 2013

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

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

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to keep their votes to a total of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2013.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

• Anotherclown (talk · contribs) While Anotherclown probably deserves to be nominated for the strength of his work on the Battle of Long Tan article alone, he is another hugely prolific contributor and played a key role in getting three articles to GA status. He has also performed sterling work as a coordinator and makes a huge contribution to tagging, assessing and maintaining articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) AustralianRupert's two successful A-class nominations, five successful GANs and many articles developed to B-class standard are only the tip of the iceberg of his contributions. As well as serving as a coordinator, he does a huge amount of "wiki-gnoming" style work to assess, improve and maintain articles and contributed one of the best op-eds to have been published in the Bugle. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
7. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
9. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cdtew (talk · contribs) During 2013 Cdtew has developed eight articles on North Carolina's role in the American Revolutionary War to GA or higher status, representing a huge improvement to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cliftonian: for continued efforts to improve Rhodesian military history coverage, including four FAs and several GAs this year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dank: for his active role in four FAs this year, as well as his contribution to other quality articles though constant reviewing/copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) for his dedication and work on World War I flying aces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nominator) MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7: for dedication to improving coverage related to the atomic bomb and other subjects, including 10 FAs this year, and as the inaugural recipient of the ACM with Diamonds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. 10 FAs this year! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ian Rose (talk · contribs): a major content contributor, tireless co-ord and diligent reviewer. Achievements this year include 8 x FAs, 6 x As, and 15 x GAs. Strong reviewer at GA and A and goes the extra mile to ensure accuracy. Other good works include role as FA delegate and on the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs): for long term contributions. Jim has over 98,000 edits, including 34 x GAs, 4 x As, 2 x FAs and a Good topic (not to mention his ongoing efforts to assist reviewing – 112 x GA reviews and many A class reviews). Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keith-264 (talk · contribs): for his prolific contributions to World War I articles. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Mongo (talk · contribs): for pushing for and getting the Fort Yellowstone article up to FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nick-D (talk · contribs): for continuing sterling work as a content contributor and co-ord. Has encouraged and mentored many editors as they got started and helped established editors maintain focus. His achievements this year include at least 5 x FAs, 1 x A, and 2 x GAs. Not to mention work with the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs): for his work on World War II articles and work as a reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tomobe03 (talk · contribs): for his work on Balkans-related articles and GA reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Quality, balanced work on 1990's Balkans articles is hard to achieve, Has made real advances in WP's coverage in this area. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wild Wolf (talk · contribs): for his continuing work on ACW articles. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Zawed (talk · contribs) Another editor working on an under-represented topic, Zawed has made a major contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand military history by developing five articles on the topic to A-class status and 10 to GA. Zawed is also among the most regular assessors of articles nominated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
2. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting for military history newcomer of the year for 2013 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2013

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

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

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to only vote for only one candidate. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2013. The top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

• Jimfbleak (talk · contribs): although an old and wise hand around wiki, he is a very recent member of the project. Recently took his first MILHIST article (that I’m aware of) – Melbourne Castle – to FA. Anotherclown (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) He has also nommed these at FAC: Titchwell Marsh, North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Cley Marshes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Khanate General (previously Typing General): Although only active since mid-year, Khanate is already making his presence felt as an editor of quality Central and East Asian military history articles, including a Featured List and several GAs, and as a reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Even though I'm not nominated, I believe all the nominated this year deserve a vote. Season's greetings! Arius1998 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
4. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
8. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Omnedon (talk · contribs): generally more focused on geography and local history, he this year brought the important article Jefferson Davis up to FA standard. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nominator) —Cliftonian (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ssriram mt: An experienced editor on wider Indian topics, Ssriram has made a welcome appearance to editing articles within the MilHist area, and has been recently improving article on a number of Indian forts, including getting Fort Dansborg up to GA standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Flow news update

Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.

For this page, one of the most active and complex WikiProjects around, the Flow team has decided that it makes more sense to hold off for a few more development sprints (2-week time chunks), until certain features have been further developed (such as a more condensed view for navigating many long conversations) and new features (such as closing and summarizing topics) added. We'll be starting off with the other 3 smaller WikiProjects that volunteered - Video games, Hampshire, and Breakfast - and aiming to launch in mid-January if you'd like to follow the progress of Flow there.

Please continue to test out the mw:Talk:Sandbox, and leave feedback and suggestions at mw:Talk:Flow (or here at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ) - the more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

HMS Cabinet

Does anyone know anything about the loss of HMS Cabinet in 1827/8? Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#FLAGS and WWI flags of Commonwealth dominions

There is debate at Arthur Currie relating to the employment of "British Empire" (and associated flag) vs. Canada (and associated flag) for topics that relate to individuals from the dominions prior to the Treaty of Westminster. Looking for verification that the general consensus is to leave dominion flags and allegiance where it's clearly determinable. I know it's a long-standing approach but looking for confirmation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• The issue now involves a long list of articles editing by User:Bardrick in the last two days. including: John George Pattison, Charles Merritt, John Hamilton Roberts, John Hamilton Roberts, Bernard Freyberg, 1st Baron Freyberg, Howard Kippenberger,John Monash, Peter Walls, Quintin Brand, Keith Park, Adolph Malan, Billy Bishop, Leslie Powell.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is partly my dearly-held belief, but WP:INFOBOXFLAG trumps MILMOS, and states as follows: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used."

For those reasons, I am of the strong opinion that no flags at all should appear in these sorts of biographies, as they are leading to exactly the sort of "unnecessary disputes" the MOS talks about. Unless the flags convey additional information not already conveyed by the text, they should be avoided. Cdtew (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree fully with Cdtew re. the flags. I've also noticed Bardrick making these edits and have reverted "British Empire" in the case of an article I largely wrote on the basis that the subject only served in British units for a small proportion of his service life, and even then the allegiance should have been considered to the UK, which has long been the MilHist convention, not the "British Empire". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Name of empire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could the MILHIST discussion revisit its decision [1] on the basis that –

a) the common name which is relevant to the choice of article name Wikipedia:Article name#Use commonly recognizable names, should not be used when naming an historical state, country or government, and

b) there is nothing in the original quote relied on to change the name of an empire, to sustain such action. The exact wording reads:

"[m]any 'Western' history books (including virtually all histories of the Gallipoli campaign) use the terms 'Ottomans' and 'Turks', and 'Ottoman Empire' and 'Turkey' as if they are interchangeable. The words may be synonymous to English-speaking peoples, but in fact they have quite specific historical meanings." [Fewster, Basarin, Basarin pp. xi-ii] --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well part "a" of your argument already fails, if you look at the list at WP:UCN you'll see "United Kingdom (not: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)", which accounts for all 3 in terms of being referred to as a historical state, country and government.

In this case it could be argued that "Turkey" is not a common name, it is not a shortened term or popular term socially, it is an alternative term, between "Turkey" and "Ottoman".

By "historical meanings" do you mean "Turkey" meant something different then to now? I would suggest the contemporary term is more important here, per WP:MODERN. You're writing for a 21st century audience, doesn't matter if "Turkish" was once offensive, it isn't now and is widely more known than "Ottoman" without the need for readers unfamiliar with the Ottomans to have to do some background reading, because the word "Turkish" describes the nation who governed the Ottomans, the word "Ottoman" is broad and ambiguous.

I would also suggest that it might be too soon for this debate. The consensus was just a few weeks ago.. opinions don't change that fast on Wiki, and you haven't really presented a strong opening argument above to convince anyone, I doubt, to sway their views so soon. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not revisit this issue yet again: this was resolved only a few weeks ago, and there's no reason to think that consensus will have changed over such a short period. Rskp, this is unhelpful conduct in a field in which you have recently been sanctioned by ArbCom, and you really need to move on - it clearly goes against the spirit of the first sanction which has been imposed on you in which you have been banned from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' in any article. I will be asking an uninvolved admin to intervene in this matter if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the safest option would be to close this discussion as premature, and RoslynSKP should probably not return to it for at least a few months to give time for the Arbcom sanction to prove its effectiveness. The WWI centenary starts from next June 28, if we go by the assassination of Ferdinand, I think that once the focus on WWI becomes more dedicated, it would better to discuss this matter in detail then when there are more editors around looking at the topic objectively. Opinions? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've asked uninvolved coordinators to consider closing this thread. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good plan, to revisit this issue when more editors are around, who might be able to focus on the topic. --Rskp (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant at all: please drop this issue permanently. Re-raising issues where there is a clear consensus and which relate to an active ArbCom sanction is not a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.