# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

## Which is higher, Navy Cross or Distinguished Service Cross

John W. Overton was awarded both posthumously in 1918. Currently the citations for both are in the page and I'd like to remove at least one. It seems sensible to leave the one of higher rank, but I don't know which that may be. Since he was a Marine, perhaps the Navy Cross should remain. But since the award was given in 1918, perhaps there was an ordering of them at that time. Any thoughts? Smmurphy(Talk) 01:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I'm pretty sure that the Navy Cross and Distinguished Service Cross are equivalent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I know (sort of), but wonder if one is more equivalent than the other. If truly equivalent, is there any reason to prefer including the text of one citation (and which). On the other hand, perhaps both texts should be cut out. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
They're exactly equivalent. He got both because he was a Marine (thus the Navy Cross) and the Marines were under Army command (and thus the DSC). I'd be inclined to delete the citation, myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
How odd that he was awarded both for the same action. Personally I like including citations of high awards, but usually integrate them into the relevant section of the career using a quote template rather than in separate sections like that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Before the HEY, the article consisted only of an uncited statement that he held a world record in the indoor mile and the text of the two citations, so I am hesitant to cut them both. I've gone ahead and cut the Navy Cross citation and reformatted similar to how Peacemaker67 described. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Marine Corps MoH recipients in World War I were awarded both the Army and Navy Medals of Honor for the same action. I'm sure this dual award of the DSC and Navy Cross is in the same vein, but does not settle the question of which ranks higher. Regardless, if the deleted citation provides additional information, that information should also be in the article somewhere. RobDuch (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
From what I know of the Marines (having once suffered an enlistment with them), the Navy Cross is the medal that should be saved. The medals may be equivalent, but no self-respecting Marine would want to wear a bleeping Army medal.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and switched to the Navy Cross citation. Thanks everyone, the article has been accepted at DYK and should be on the front page in a few days. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

## French frigate Cléopâtre

What is the identity of the French frigate Cléopâtre that was in service in 1843 please? Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like French frigate Cléopâtre (1838), apparently a 52-gun Artémise class - per List of French sail frigates. Some further information in this book. Launched 1838 and briefly in commission (less than three months) to be towed from its shipyard at Saint-Servan to Brest. Commissioned again 1842 and used as a transport in the Crimean War before ending its days as a storage hulk (broken up 1869). This book states it was in Japan in 1846 as a demonstration of force to try to open up trade with the country - Dumelow (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks, Dumelow. I did a search of the net and was unable to find anything. She rescued those onboard the East Indiaman Regular which was abandoned in the Indian Ocean on 12 July 1843. Will add a link to the shipwrecks list. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I will see if I can get time to create an article later today, though it won't be much more than a stub unfortunately - Dumelow (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

## Hyperwar

Came across this in the new pages feed. Looks a bit OR/essayish to me currently, and I'm not sure if it is a notable term. I thought it'd be better to check here, however, before sending it ot AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a genuine term used by some pop-historians to refer to "massive coordinated precision strikes at the start of hostilities in the hope that the disruption to logistics will force the enemy to surrender without a fight, or at least severely impair the ability to counter-attack" (e.g. the Nazi attack on Rotterdam, or assorted NATO plans for pre-emptive strikes on Soviet infrastructure, and most famously the initial phase of the US invasion of Iraq), but AFAIK doesn't have either any significant usage, or any accepted definition. The terms virtually every credible historian use for the concept are "rapid dominance" or "shock and awe", to which this should probably redirect. (I appreciate that The Gulf conflict was also the first example of "hyperwar"— one that capitalizes on high technology, unprecedented accuracy, operational and strategic surprise through stealth, and the ability to bring all of an enemy's key operational and strategic nodes under near-simultaneous attack. is a quotation and not being said in Wikipedia's voice, but I imagine anyone with even the slightest knowledge of World War II is raising an eyebrow at the claim.) ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear.Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest sending this to AfD. The article is OR, with the lead reference about what 'hyperwar' apparently is not even using the term. At best it's an occasionally-used term used to refer to elements of the Revolution in Military Affairs (a frequently cited concept). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've gone ahead and sent it to AfD because there at least seems to be agreement that there shouldn't be an article. People can discuss the merits of a redirect vs. deletion there. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

## Likely hoaxes

Battle of Pęcice has existed since January 5, 2008. A quick Google search shows absolutely no results that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Also from the same author is Żaglowiec Group, around since February 5, 2008. Can anyone prove that these are unquestionably hoaxes? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you carried out even the slightest WP:BEFORE checks here? If Battle of Pęcice is a hoax, it's a hoax that's fooled numerous veterans into attending a service for the survivors on its anniversary, and that took all of ten seconds to find. Here's the monument marking the spot where it took place. Meanwhile, here's the enormous and exhaustively-sourced article on Żaglowiec Group on Polish Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is exactly the type of article you would expect to be more developed in the home language wiki, in this case Polish. A look at the Polish wiki article, which is seemingly well sourced, longer, and better written, does not scream hoax.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Then why was I unable to find anything that wasn't a Wikipedia mirror? If something turns up only 40 hits on Google, all from WP mirrors, then yes I'm going to bat an eye and suspect a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm going with "because you're sloppy and didn't conduct the most basic checks" as my working hypotheses, given my experience of your usual "anything I've never heard of is non-notable" approach to deletion. (Just going to put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad–Sudan relations here…) Unless you think that in the six minutes between your comment and my reply I persuaded the council of Gmina Michałowice (whose website this is) to create a fake web-site about the Service of Remembrance, created an entire category on Commons dedicated to images of the memorial to the battle, and then faked the informational sign on the battlefield. ‑ Iridescent 20:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
To add to Iridescent's comments, searching for the Polish name in Google Books produces several clear mentions predating the Internet. This is pretty basic since the Polish version is linked at the side of the article. Kges1901 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
TPH, please take a step back, take a deep breath, and more thoroughly consider how you approach these - while it's certainly good that you came here first, the reactions above are pretty reflective of your approach to the notability and deletion process, and this hasn't changed in literal years. That isn't good for the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The Bushranger, TPH didn't come here first; he tagged them for deletion first (which I unsurprisingly immediately declined). ‑ Iridescent 23:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Is a sledgehammer being used to crush a walnut? The originator made a mistake by being, perhaps, a little careless. I think the avalanche of destructive criticism that follows is unfair.Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to put this in context. We're not talking about a good-faith newbie making an innocent mistake, we're talking someone who's been making sloppy "I didn't bother checking myself but I've not heard of it so I'll assume it's non-notable" deletion nominations—and been being warned to be more careful—for over a decade now. See also his AfD nomination record; at the time of writing of the last 250 AfD nominations he made 61 were deleted, an accuracy rate of less than 1 in 4, and that "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" pattern of inappropriate nominations is consistent however far back you look. (Just head on over here and dip-sample away if you think the tool is misreading the stats, or that I'm mischaracterising TPH's approach to deletion.) ‑ Iridescent 09:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Give the lad some encouragement, this isn't the place for a vendetta.Keith-264 (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Keith, it's not meant as sledgehammering, but this is a consistent pattern of behavior by TPH over eight or more years, including some that make it obvious the item sent to deletion wasn't even read. At a certain point even a saint runs out of patience. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If it's been going on that long, I suggest that you change your approach, it isn't working. Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The approach that's been taken, it would appear, is that of a large number of individual editors consistently and continually assuming good faith, rather than eventually comparing notes and calling in adminstrative action. Since, as you agree, the former isn't working, I suppose we can take it that you agree with the latter...? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Pitchforks for sale! I got them all: ---{, ---€, ---£, ---E. Buy one get one for free!--Catlemur (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Setting aside the comments above, the article needs a lot of work, so I'd encourage people to help improve it if possible. I did a little bit, but haven't got the knowledge or resources to do much more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
My pitchfork (---\$) doesn't work well and isn't worth much. I'd like a refund, or a pitchfork that's shaped right. SpartaN (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

## A-Class review for Battle of Halmyros needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Halmyros; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, one more needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

## ORDATA template

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ORDATA

ORDATA has moved: it's now at https://ordata.info

Worse: all the ID numbers have been reassigned, so all 61 pages that use the template must presumably be individually updated. It looks like accurately matching Wikipedia entries to ORDATA entries requires domain knowledge which I don't have.

I've posted on the template's talk page, and notified its original author, who appears to be active in this project. Primefac offered to make the necessary changes if supplied with a list of old and new IDs.

Rural Spaceman (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

## Wikiproject Template

I have to say that it is something of a hassle that the talk page template for this WikiProject does not seem to be one of the options for AFCH and that it is also kind of hard to find even when I am trying to add it manually ... SeraphWiki (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

{{WPMILHIST}}? Seems simple enough to me, but I know I'm odd in a lot of ways. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
G'day, might be a query for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script? Potentially, someone there could help add it as an option. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK the AFC script looks for the "conventional" banner template title format {{WikiProject Whatever}} Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That'd be {{WikiProject Military history}}, then. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A task force covering the Post-Cold War era is being incubated at Draft:WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force. Interested editors are invited to participate. This step has been taken after several attempts to discuss the issue here had been prematurely archived. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

## Generals of World War I and World War II

I started this article with the intention of providing data on every Allied and Axis military leader who was promoted to general before November 11 1918 and who later participated in World War II. However, other users think the title is confusing and have doubts about its relevance. I would like to invite others interested in military history to provide some advice on improving this article so it doesn't get deleted (see also deletion talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talkcontribs) 00:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

## Could I get a fresh set of eyes on a cool new page?

I've been doing some AfC reviewing and came across a very well written and cited page Draft:Officer in Charge of Construction RVN. My primary concern is the style of the citation. Other than that (and I've checked for copy vio) I think this is close to B class in draft space. Will someone look at the citation style? I haven't seen this used much recently. BusterD (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@BusterD: As you now know, using that particular form of citation— consistently throughout the draft—is no reason to decline the AfC. However, your way of thinking was still, to my mind, in time with the realities of articlespace. There's enough editors equally unaware of the myriad citation styles we allow that it would almost certainly not have survived in its present form. Someone would certainly have come along and "fixed" them—and probably repeatedly. Even though a citation style shouldn't be changed without good reason, which there would not be. I think you're good to go with it now; as you say, very nice little article. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, references and inline footnotes are totally valid. Citations only have to meet the general criteria at WP:IRS. This specifies no hard requirement to use citation templates to meet them. -Finlayson (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. After brief conversation, I was leaning that way. I want to encourage this new contributor, not discourage them with excessive hoops. If this is the person's FIRST contribution, I can hardly wait to find out what's next. Appreciate the eyes. BusterD (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The article contains the most desirable approach to references, which is beyond the reach of many editors: the ability to repeatedly cite different pages within a reference without repeating the whole reference. User:HopsonRoad 16:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could direct this good fellow over to WP:GAN? -Indy beetle (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Do you mean the Officer in Charge article? -Finlayson (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I meant the author of it, but yes I'm suggesting putting the article through the GA process. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

## Aces who fought in both World Wars

Hello, all,

I specialize in writing about WWI flying aces. There is a significant group who rose to command positions in various air forces of The Big Deuce. I can write some pretty good coverage on these aces up to about 1920. After that, I am out of my depth, and can only offer sporadic info. I am seeking editor(s) who will complete those articles. Perhaps we can set up a referral system, so I can speed these half-done articles to someone who can complete them.

Volunteers? Suggestions? How about posting them to my Talk page?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi George, I'm sure we have some people interested in WWII USAAF (or naval aviator) commanders. Please do keep us updated with the project. My suggestion would be to create the articles in mainspace (assuming the subjects are notable) and just add in the details you have about their later careers, even if it's not much more than a list of roles/ranks/commands held. Then you can advertise the article here and ask for help digging up more info. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The articles are already in existence; all I have to do is pass them along. To start, how about the U.S. Navy's first flying ace, David Sinton Ingalls? He became a Rear Admiral in The Big Deuce.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thomas Gantz Cassady was one of the founders of the Office of Strategic Services in WW II.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Charles Gossage Grey was also prominent in the OSS.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Gorman DeFreest Larner helped found the Air National Guard in the 1920s, and served as a colonel in WW II.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Edwin Charles Parsons had a colorful career that saw him become a Rear Admiral during the Second World War.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Arthur Edmund Easterbrook rose to Brigadier General in the Second War.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
James Alfred Keating served as a colonel in WW II.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Frederic Ives Lord not only fought in WW II, but in three other wars.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
So there's your first batch. Care for more?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Herman Goring.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Strzhizhevsky was a flying ace in the Tsarist air force, and served with the Yugoslav military until 1940.

Josef Bashko was an Ilya Muromets bomber pilot with the Tsarist air force and later the Red Army, and was a general with the Latvian air force until 194353zodiac (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

## Limiting A-class nominations

I've been browsing the A-class nominations page recently and conducting a few reviews. At the nomination for German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz I observed that the nominator, Iazyges, had five other articles in the nomination pool and I suggested that they refrain from nominating any more so as to not overwhelm them. Iazyges responded and said that they would wait before nominating another set of articles. This prompted coordinator AustralianRupert to write [emphasis added]:

I would also recommend caution here. There is a finite capacity for reviewers within our ACR process, and nominating a large number of the same type of article at the same time can result in overloading the system. This can negatively impact upon our throughput as it will make it difficult to achieve a quorum and inevitably reviews will go stale (which wastes our reviewers' time), while other nominators may feel that the process is being diverted to a single line-of-effort. Of course, there are no formal limits, but I would recommend that probably no more than two or three of the same type of article should appear at ACR at any one time. Just my opinion, though.

AR was talking about article type, but I think this can be applied to nomination numbers. Should we enact a formal limit on the number of nominations a user can make? Its not often that we experience this sort of problem (heck at this rate I'm producing one A-class a year) but a rule would prevent such inundation. This is in no way meant to discourage Iazyges or others from improving content, but it might be best for the project. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My personal limit is three at any one time and I was not best pleased when Iazyges nominated two destroyer articles when I was planning on my own battleships. So I'd have no problem limiting people to three, with or without co-noms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes I was thinking three would be a suitable limit -Indy beetle (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• I can back the "three at a time" limit, nominating all of them at once was definitely inadvisable. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Let's consider this proposal. I've written 100 A class articles in the last ten years. That's 10 per year on average ≈ 0.0274 per diem. The last ten I submitted took 30, 60, 60, 60, 60, 90, 90, 50, 30 and 30 days to pass through A class review. That's 560 days total = 56 days on average. Multiply these ≈ 1.533. Distribution is binomial, so we can use Poisson's approximation:

${\displaystyle P(k{\text{ events in interval}})=e^{-\mu }{\frac {\mu ^{k}}{k!}}}$

Sum P(k) from k=0 to k=3 ≈ 0.216 + 0.043 + 0.004 + 0 = 0.263. So there is a 73.7% chance that I will come up against this limit in a given year. Given the excessive review times, our throughput depends on allowing nominators to have multiple articles in the pool at one time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally try to restrict myself to two or at most three at the same time, but they tend to be different sorts of articles. Restricting by type is a little unfair to our specialist content creators. Frankly, I also think it is dependent on how active you are as a reviewer at A-Class. If you are very active, I think others tend to give you more scope to nominate as you are pulling your weight. I certainly see it that way. Perhaps this limiting nominations approach is a bit of over-kill. I trust that this and the review page discussion have emphasised to Iazyges that nominating a bunch all at once isn't really the way ACR works best, and that they'll dribble them through one at a time in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, to clarify, I'm not keen on formal limits, either. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• I rarely write fast enough to have more than one or two articles at ACR at any one time, but I think it's only sensible and polite to wait until the first is making progress before I nominate a second, especially if they're closely related—not least because feedback on the first will be relevant to the next one. I agree that a formal limit probably isn't necessary but nominators should try to space nominations out and make sure they're only nominating as many articles as they can keep track of at once. I've put a few reviews 'on hold' in the past by untranscluding them until comments have been addressed on other reviews by the same nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a holding pen of sorts? -which could fill up with as many ACNs as editors like, with only the most recent ten nineteen (?) being out for review? Any too similar in subject could be returned to the pen and await the passage of the previous nine. At first, that would ensure a gap between similar noms, but in the long run would probably deter editors from nominating too many too soon, as there would be no point (just for them to sit in a HP). Just a thought. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a formal limit or anything of the like - I personally don't generally put more than 2 at a time, and usually I'll only put the second once the first is well along. Other editors can handle keeping up with multiple reviews at the same time, I prefer not to (and since the point of ACR for me is a feeder for FAC, I don't see much point in doing two or three times the number of ACRs than I can feed into FAC). In cases like this, we can use it as a teaching moment - Iazyges now knows not to put so many articles in at once, and we're no worse off. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

From memory, there have only been a few occasions since the formal ACR process was introduced where somebody nominated so many articles at the same time that we struggled to cope with them. As such, I don't think that we need a formal limit on the number of simultaneous nominations like there is at FAC. However, I think it would be a good idea to add a sentence to the instructions for nominators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review suggesting that people not have more than 3 simultaneous nominations. In the unusual cases where this is exceeded and is causing issues, the coordinators should discuss the matter with the nominator and suggest that they temporarily withdraw some of the nominations. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that no matter the reasons, there's no grounds for limiting this process. If somebody has the time, ressources and energy to improve multiple articles, why not take the (probably shorter) time to review it and check if there are other improvements to be made? Even then, the worst that can happen is that some A-class reviews will have to wait, which I understand can be a bit discouraging but I think it isn't something we should regulate this strictly (we're Wikipedia, not the government, and proof that stuff shouldn't always be too regulated is in the inefficiency of the latter...). Although, yes, maybe a short sentence instructing nominators (just to be cautious) not to overuse it might be a good idea. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that makes enough sense. How about making the following addition to the instructions: "Users are strongly encouraged not to nominate more than three articles for A-Class review at one time." -Indy beetle (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd support that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Read all and Hawkeye makes a good case. Having said that, I could live with a general advice, though perhaps "encoraged" rather than "strongly encouraged". Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've nominated more than three ACRs at the same time anyway, so no issue with the advice being added, though I tend to agree with Cinderella's suggestion of simply saying "encouraged". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

## 2nd Anti-Tank Regiment (Australia)

I just approved this article at Articles for Creation, but it seems to be having some issues with Wikipedia's system naming requirements (it should be 2/2nd): I'm assuming this isn't the first time people here have come across that problem, so I figured I'd ask here and maybe get some people to have a look over it at the same time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife, this appears to have been resolved? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

## List of ships of the United States Army

I'm not getting into an edit war, so am asking for opinions here please. CobraDragoon has removed valid WP:REDLINKS from the List of ships of the United States Army, claiming the links are not valid. I say they are valid and should be restored. Mjroots (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

## Combating ignorance about the "Axis minors"

Dear guys, this is something I really want to talk about. You see, the Axis seems to be treated, even today, as only the 3 big countries. Granted they were the founders, but to talk with fellow history enthusiasts and get questions like: "Romania? Did they even fight in the war?" deeply troubles me. Like, what did Romania have to do more, than what it did? Why contributing hundreds of thousands of troops to the Eastern front, take part in numerous major battles, provide the greatest naval force in the Black Sea, have very successful flying aces, get the most German Knight's Crosses out of all the German allies, why isn't all of this enough to at least get Romania a mention here and there when talking about the Axis? It's true that I have a personal stake in this, given that I'm Romanian myself, but I really don't want to overestimate my country's importance, not at all. I am trying to normalize it. Ever since I joined the community in August, I've been doing my best to normalize my country as one of the respectable belligerents to World War II, give it the place at the table that it deserves. I started out with the navy, and am still at this chapter. Hungary too, their contribution is also too great for the disregarding it gets. So, where I'm getting with this, is: What can we do? What can we do, as Wikipedians, to try eradicate this ignorance and have all belligerents given the mentions and honors they deserve within the public talk about WW2? I really wanted to share this with you guys, thankyou for reading. Torpilorul (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to any articles that have issues?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, for one, it's the Axis Powers article in itself. Romania's sub-section is nowhere near as detailed and portioned as the three main countries, despite it having most of their attributes: motivations, resources, ideology and events across the war, you know, the good stuff. It's much briefer in Romania's case, but so is with the rest of the section. I didn't get to it for I believe it should be a common effort to raise all the "Axis minors" to the quality standards (not the quantity, I am aware that's unfeasible) of the section of the "big guys."
Then, it's Constantin Cantacuzino. The top Romanian ace to this day lacks a copyright-free image. Because of this, his picture can't be featured in the gallery of the List of World War II flying aces article, being replaced by the second best Romanian ace.
A major Romanian military unit, the 1st Romanian Tank Division, is yet to have its own article. It fought at Stalingrad and elsewhere, scoring notable successes.
These would be some of the things that should be addressed. Torpilorul (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
In the case of the Axis article this would be because the "Big three" were it founders, the other nations joined latter. Thus much of the article is about it's formation. As to Cantacuzino, that is not an issue we can deal with, this is an off Wiki matter. As to the 1st Armd, we often do not have articles if no one has material to write one up. If you wish to give it a go go ahead as you clearly have access so sources that mention it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a broader issue really. Our coverage of countries in World War II is rather uneven, with good coverage only for the US, UK, Germany and Australia. Despite this being the English speaking Wikipedia, our coverage of Canada is patchy, NZ fairly limited and South Africa pretty basic. Of the "Axis majors", our coverage of Japan is pretty limited and the material on Italy is rather uneven. As such, there's plenty of room for improvements all round. Regarding Romania, please note that we've had some issues with Romanian nationalist POV pushing over recent years. By all means expand the coverage of Romania in the war, as I have no doubt that it's lacking, but please ensure that it's neutral and reflects the weight given in reliable sources and the nature of the war Romania fought, including its role in the Holocaust and other atrocities. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
My own 2 cents - units from the minors, Romania included, who mostly fought in the eastern front (and balkans + some inner squabbles) are often seen as inferior cannon fodder (with inferior equipment and morale) in military history sources. Some of the minors are also perceived to be German puppet states during parts of the war. Arguably Italy's role (as 1 of the 3 majors) is overstated, but it did have its own Africa and Mediterranean agenda. To a certain extent many of these countries have been happy to downplay their participation (and the Soviets as well as the West were not keen on hold them, nor Austria, accountable for allegedly German crimes).Icewhiz (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
As always, any improvement I can make, will be done using mainly book sources, of which I mostly get from Google Books. I do hope we can get as many countries as possible adequately covered. I started out with Romania, and more specifically with what it seems to be its most under-served part: the Navy. Romania and Bulgaria cannot be called puppets - they changed sides. Puppets don't get to do that, so calling them this is an oxymoron. Together with Hungary, the three also had their own agendas, with the notable mention of Romania being the only Axis besides Germany to actually annex Soviet territory (IE Transnistria Governorate) and, on occasion, even leading mixed German-Romanian military units. Also, the perception of "inferior cannon fodder", while in part very true, seems to be used as an excuse to avoid working on coverage on these nations. And, quite frankly, I hate that. This mentality is brought into question further more by Romanian military commanders gaining twice as many Kight's Crosses as Italian commanders. As for the last thing Icewhiz spoke about, yes, it is truly unfortunate that these very countries which need improvement in coverage downplay their role in the war, real change must start with them, and I'm sure the world would follow suit. Torpilorul (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Puppets or satellite states often switch sides to align with the victors. In the case of Romania - they flipped twice - once in September 1940 (following German attacks, and a regime change to pro-fascist elements) and the second in August 1944 - when the Soviet forces were already in Romania and German defeat (on the strategic war level) was inevitable - when they again regime changed (but not far enough - the king abdicated and left in 1947)). Flipping to align with the major power who just invaded you (twice!) is not a sign of independent action (and Romania would remain in firm soviet control in the eventual Warsaw Pact). Regarding the navy - yes - Romania was a major player in the minor theater of the Black Sea, mainly due to geographical reality (as well geopolitics of the Bosphorus).Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Changing sides depending on which of the two is more powerful is in itself an act of free will, that Hungary, who actually became a puppet in March 1944, did not have, for instance. Puppets by definition do not get to make such choices. It is fair to also mention that Romania resisted with Soviet troops on its soil for months before doing it, and even then, it cleared the Germans from its territory before the soviets even entered its capital. And don't even get me started on the Warsaw Pact thing, on how Romania is mentioned and treated as a Soviet satellite for all the Cold War, when it really ceased being one in 1968, if not earlier. Also, I wonder, is it fair to say that Romania became the third Axis when Italy became a full puppet in late 1943? Torpilorul (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This should really be about what the reliable sources say, not people's opinions about some Axis countries being hard done-by (or otherwise). If the consensus of the reliable sources is that they were puppet states, then we say they were, if they say they were satellites, we say that. I have to say that there is a strong case in sources for Hungary as a puppet state after March 1944, but otherwise I believe the reliable sources I've read refer to them both as satellites rather than puppet states. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Oxford Companion to World War II, which usually provides middle of the road summaries, states that the Romanian Government was almost totally dominated by Germany from 1938 to 1943, when it started making some attempts to exit the war which Antonescu was ultimately unwilling to go through with as he didn't want to break his alliance with Germany (hence his overthrow). It also states that the Soviets installed a puppet government in early 1945. The summary of the country's war effort in the book certainly indicates that it was very complex, so there should be lots of scope to develop articles. Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

## Request for input at Natalya Meklin

Additional opinions would be helpful at Talk:Natalya_Meklin#Awards. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a storm in a teacup that should never have been beaten up (IMHO and FWIIW). Appropriate intervention might prevent this from escalating further. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

## Concerning the German Army, WWI and infoboxes

In the context of WWI, should the different constituents of the German Imperial Army (namely, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg and Prussia) be listed separately in infoboxes? 01:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion at Talk:Fifth Battle of Ypres has come to an impasse long ago and further steps do not seem to have produced any definitive consensus. A prior request for discussion (albeit not an RfC) does not seem to have gotten any response. Given the potential of the topic, I think it is warranted to have a proper discussion about it, irrelevant of precise article content or prior disputes. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

### Discussion

It's easy to get lost in the minutiae of turn of the century German politics so it's largely a question of whether or not it serves a purpose for the reader. Some constituent nations of the German Empire fielded their own armies, yes, but they were functionally subsumed by the Imperial German State upon the outbreak of war, losing what little operational or political autonomy they started with, a system not entirely dissimilar to the National Guard in the United States. Because they lacked any military or political autonomy, and were composite forces of the larger German Army, I'm not sure it serves the reader to delineate them by parent Kingdom as there was no functional difference at that level of analysis. Individual Regiments are the more appropriate place for that information, or in the body of the text in the rare instances were it played any military significance. Additionally, as the war worn on, the cultural homogeneity of many units declined to the point were they were functionally no longer actually part of their "home" nations' population. The ultimate question is this: what does the reader gain by having it so delineated and what understanding would they lose were it to go away? Also for consideration is whether or not it is a workable convention across the whole of the project. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That is what my understanding is of the situation, mostly. It doesn't serve the reader much more that sources usually ignore that distinction altogether and just stick with "German", if it isn't for orders of battle or similar endeavours. There is evidence proposed (and rather compelling) that it wasn't as homogeneous as in WWII, however I feel that if that difference need be mentioned anywhere it should be on the page about the German Army. My counter-argument to that is that, as you say, the different constituents mostly lacked autonomy (except maybe for administrative purposes) and were freely mixed together - the example of the 52nd Infantry Division or that of divisions of different origins being indiscriminately (i.e. without any meaningful distinction) used to execute the orders of the overall German command staff. The additional fact is that the German Empire was considered by contemporaries as one entity (most, if not all, WWI non-military sources refer to Germans using only that name). The fact of it being a convention (both here on WP and in reliable sources) seems to indicate that there's no considerable gain in taking the time to look for precise orders of battle to see if units from some of the constituents did not participate in battle X (which again is not a particularly pertinent distinction in the vast majority of cases). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
My passing observation is that the analogy to the US National Guard is pertinent. One wouldn't list the units by state for the constituent states of the US. Don't do it just because you can. It should be meaningful. It appears to fail this test. Were the nations of the German Empire independent states or constituent states in the same or similar sense as the US? It does not appear to be the case. In the case of the British Dominions, these largely retained their national identities. As observed by LargelyRecyclable, this was not the case and certainly not by 5th Ypres. Having said that, World War I does not individually list the constituent dominions and colonies of the British Empire - or for that matter, of the German Empire. On the otherhand, I have seen expanding sections in info boxes. See Second Boer War, where "Australia" expands to the States of Australia - noting that, at the time (start), Australia was not a nation but a collection of independent states that were separate colonies. In short, while there may be specific cases to warrant listing the German states separately in the infobox, in general, I don't see a reasonable reason for doing so. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Where this came about was that Australians and Canadians expected to see the name of their country listed against some of their most famous battles. And too, there was a misconception in some places that the Dominion forces were part of the British Army, which they were not, and which we needed to correct. The German Empire's states were indeed originally fully independent entities, with their own armies, but they evolved into states like those of the US over time. The story of the Dominions is the reverse: they evolved from colonies into fully separate states over time. Americans had trouble with this concept, being wedded to the notion that independence is a sudden break, when it is for many countries more of an evolutionary process. French accounts of the Battle of Amiens refer to the Australians, Americans, British and Canadians as les Anglais, the tribal differences between them being academic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No they didn't, see Sheldon (2017) and Lucas & Schmieschek (2015). The German Empire had a federal structure and contained four national armies and several national contingents with their own chains of command and supply. In time of war they were subject to the authority of the Kaiser. The German federal state did not evolve and there was never a unified homogenous German army until Hitler established the Wehrmacht and Heer in the 30s. The example of the Dominions is a bit of a red herring since they were not sovereign states until well after the Great War. If the Dominions were separate because they were raised outside Britain and their commanders had the right of appeal, the Bavarians and Saxons etc were more separate.

The Royal Saxon Army...was the national army of the Kingdom of Saxony one of the four states of the German Reich to retain its own armed forces.

—  Lucas & Schmieschek p. 8 (2015)

Contrary to what is generally believed an 'Imperial German Army' never existed. The navy was certainly imperial but the army was not, rather it contained several contingents. It is true that it was dominated by Prussia, but there were also substantial contributions from the kingdoms of Bavaria, Wurttemberg and Saxony, with smaller groupings from other parts of the Reich....This meant that the different contingents enjoyed a degree of independence from Prussia. Though in time of war all of these, even Bavaria, gave their allegiance to the Kaiser, in many ways, including the provision of manpower and adjustments to the order of battle, each contingent behaved autonomously.

— Sheldon 2017, p. 34

....Freiherr von Soden....did not have to rely on the Prussians to assist. Instead, acting on his own initiative and pursuing the matter up the Wurttemberg chain of command, he was able, quite legitimately to send a request directly to the Ministry of War in Stuttgart for the raising of a new artillery regiment.

— Sheldon 2017, pp. 34–35
• Could the NZ Division bypass the War Office like this? As for the opinions of other editors, where they are descriptions of RS I don't mind a bit and never have. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Sheldon, pp. 34-35, was the request granted or is that the furthest it went? As for Sheldon p. 34, I'm going to be very bold and say that concluding from the fact the army had several contingents that it wasn't imperial is incorrect (that is what the quote says). It is generally accepted that all contingents of the army were, in the grand scheme of things, subordinate to High Command, which was (yes, as most other things, dominated by Prussia) undoubtedly German and not local (i.e. at the start of the war, all units mobilized according to the plan of Schlieffen (and the subsequent modifications of Motlke). This is again different from the contingents from Canada, Australia, etc... which weren't mobilized according to a British plan but locally - and they weren't as freely mixed together as the German contingents (i.e. per Nicholson, Canadian Divisions were raised separately from British ones and Canada and other Commonwealth nations had strong desires to have their forces fight as one entity, unlike the German states which obviously didn't bother that much with mixing troops from Prussia or Bavaria together). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've read fairly widely on the fighting on the Western Front of World War I, and have never once seen the constituent states of the German Empire treated as separate belligerents in battles like the article's infobox is currently implying. At most, books note the origin of units and/or soldiers, but even this isn't common and there's no suggestion that the governments of the states had any influence whatsoever over how the units were deployed or operated. As such, there's no reason to confuse and mislead readers by listing them as belligerents in this battle. The use of the term German Empire in the infobox is of course inclusive of its member states. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That is what I have seen on my own account, too. Getting back to my comment above, French colonial troops, despite being drawn from different regions (which are today separate countries, unlike the German states), are still usually only listed as "French troops" or "French colonial troops", and the predominant word here is "French". As for "raised independently", that doesn't imply much. Canadian divisions (unquestionably independent) still had to get approval from the British War Office (Nicholson, 1962), and Canada had some autonomy since 1867, unlike the German states which don't seem to have had much... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)