Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members

Iron Coffins[edit]

I notice we have a number of articles that draw heavily on Herbert Werner's book “Iron Coffins” as a source and I'm wondering how good an idea this is: How reliable is it as a source?
I know its veracity has been questioned (Clay Blair lists it in the bibliography to Hitler's U-boat War, but is careful to say in the text “Werner claims...” or “Werner implies..” and in at least one place says Werner's “assertion... cannot be substantiated from German records” (vol I, p313)
I've just re-arranged his biography article, for the reasons given on the talk page and in the (new) book section, but I'm wondering what to do about the other articles (U-557, for example, and U-230, U-415 etc). Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am the main culprit as far as the Herbert Werner, U-230, U-557 articles are concerned, indeed, I started them off, so I had better comment.
Concentrating on the Werner offering, I simply used the book as a source, as it was available from my local library (which has since closed down). Perhaps, rather naively, I did not question its veracity, because a) I thought it could be relied upon, and b) I assumed others with far more knowledge than I, could check on its facts, such as Xyl 54.
One thing I would say - I'm not sure that putting chapter numbers before the sub-section headings (e.g. 'CH 1:The Early Years', 'CH 25:The End' and so on), are correct and are the best way forward. As it was, it took me a while to figure out the 'new' version, even with the Iron Coffins title near the top of his page.
RASAM (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears it's rife with factual errors, & it's widely known to be. That being true, any claim resting on it would obviously seem to require verification from an additional source. Isn't that always the case? A single source, even a reliable one, isn't an ideal. If there are claims based on Iron Coffins that are supported elsewhere, delete Iron Coffins & save having WP undermined. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been decades since I read it, but I agree with Trekphiler; check other sources against Iron Coffins and see what the majority of them say about the incident or fact in question.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
TY. :D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you one and all for replying...
RASAM: I don't blame you at all for bring taken in by this. I remember when I read it (a looong time ago, now) and just thought it was a jolly good read. It is only after re-viewing it recently (and with a bit more knowledge of the subject) that I noticed a lot of things that didn't sit right.
All:Regarding the U-boat Pages, there are enough sources around (I reckon) to make decently referenced articles from them, comparable to other, similar, U-boat pages anyway. But I don't think we will be doing ourselves any favours using Werner as a source; except perhaps to say “ between (dates) Herbert Werner, author of the best-selling book Iron Coffins, was watch officer/commander of U-(whichever) and took part in the following operations...”
As for the HW page I'm not sold out on the chapter number/heading arrangement; my main aim was to separate the book material from the rest, and as the paragraphs corresponded roughly to the chapters I just went with that. But we could lose the chapter headings (they aren't in the book, just handy descriptions of the content) or collapse it down to the three-part arrangement Werner used, or collapse further to a Synopsis/Plot summary section (like we have with Papillon). I'm also wondering if it is worth splitting the book stuff into a separate book article (again, like with Papillon); I'd say it was notable enough. What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
♠Influential as it was (& I read it, too, longer ago than I can recall, :( tho I do recall liking it a lot), I'd agree, it merits a page.
♠After a quick glance at the U-boat pages linked to, I have some concern about deleting the cites but leaving in the claims; am I right thinking the claims would need to come out, too? (Absent confirmation.)
♠On a broader issue, this raises something that might justify a mention somewhere (not sure it could carry a page on its own), tho offhand, I couldn't say where: namely, the overclaiming of successes. I have a suspicion at least some of Werner's overclaims were good faith belief he'd done it, just as there were good faith mistakes by USN sub skippers in the Pacific. (If that's not borne out by his patrol reports, OTOH...) In any case, perhaps we could come up with something, since this doesn't stop with Werner, or subs. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. On the split at HW I'll post the proposal there, just to keep things open and above board and if there are no objections from anywhere else get on and do that.
For the U-boat pages I've done a rough draft on one of them (and paralleled it for comparison) here.
And yes, I think the claims that are reliant on Werner need to come out.
On the subject of overclaiming, I'd like to assume good faith on Werner's part, but I wonder if it is something more than just believable overclaiming, or poor memory over the passage of time, in his case. For instance, his description of U-230's first patrol: Seigmann attacked SC 121, fired and hit one freighter Egyptian of 2,900 tons; he claimed hits on two ships of 5000t each: W in IC says they sank three. He then buttressed the story with a tale of an attack on SC 118 (identified by the losses he mentions; U-187, U-609, U-624 ) which U-230 had no part of, and on SC 122, (which, again, U-230 wasn't involved in) each with claims of ships sunk.  And he was writing in 1967, when the official histories were out, so he could have checked if he'd been minded to.
On the broader aspect of overclaiming at sea, we have an article on Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II so it probably is worth expanding on it somewhere, though the aerial victories page is addressing a particular issue (whether the huge scores of some German aces were believable, or just cases of overclaiming). I don't know that the scores of U-boat aces are unbelievable, though I think playing the whole aces game rather obscures the wider issue.
It may look good if, say, some of your fighter pilots have massive scores, but the real issue is who has air superiority; there may have been many more German fighter aces than Allied ones in WWII but also there were were, for example, many more North Vietnamese fighter aces than American ones during the Vietnam War and for many of the same reasons. Likewise focusing on the tonnage sunk by certain U-boat aces tends to distract from the more fundamental questions of who had naval superiority in the Atlantic during the conflicts, and whether the war on commerce was succeeding.
Overclaiming is possibly of significance only to German navy, as in both world wars they were reduced to waging a war on commerce, and a tonnage war at that. OTOH the RN, which had naval superiority in the Atlantic, in both conflicts, aimed at a total blockade and the measure of success there was how few ships arrive at their destination; in WWI and WWII they were able to choke off German commerce within weeks of the start of the war (though in WWII Germany found ways of getting around that). By contrast Germany, which aimed only at sinking a set monthly amount of shipping, regardless of where, whose, and what it was carrying, failed to meet that target in most months of both wars. Overclaiming may have obscured how badly they were doing in some months, but for at least half time they must have known. Anyway, I should stop there...Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
♠"On the subject of overclaiming, I'd like to assume good faith on Werner's part, but I wonder if it is something more than just believable overclaiming, or poor memory over the passage of time" I'm offering no reason for it; it could be bad memory or something else.
♠"On the broader aspect of overclaiming at sea" I was unaware of that one; thx for the link. It's evident there were false claims among German fighter aces (IIRC, Marseilles at least once claimed on a day with no British losses at all); mostly, tho, IMO false claims are in good faith. (Separating that out, this late in the game, may be impossible...) I also know U.S. Sub Force overclaims were, in part, driven by a need to justify using more of the (faulty) Mark XIVs...; it's possible German claims were, too. And the "overclaims" are complicated by loss of records; Japan's postwar were in chaos, so even sinkings with photographic support couldn't be confirmed... I daresay German records were in a pretty chaotic state, too. Nor would Britain's have, necessarily, have been perfect.
♠As for the "tonnage war" remark, for Germany, that's probably the case; why it happened is for the same reasons it did in anybody's navy: short periscope views, weather, target similarities, simple mistakes... How many "battleships" did USAAF attack that turned out to be USN subs? ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Overclaiming was easy to do. A submarine would fire torpedoes at a freighter, then dive when the escorts responded to the torpedo wakes. Explosions and breaking up noises would be heard by the whole crew. The submarine would surface later and find a lot of wreckage but no freighter, and conclude that it had gone down. Or even picking up survivors, without realising that they were from a ship torpedoed by another submarine. Tonnages were little more than an educated guess from looking at a ship, often in the dark and from some distance away. Post-war reconciling of the records was no easy task. There were a number of cases of ships whose destruction was witnessed and even photographed, but no record of a ship being sunk. There were also cases of ships that were definitely sunk, but were not claimed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; both of these explanations sound reasonable to me. Another factor (maybe less forgiveable, but probably no less unintentional) could be confirmation bias; “seeing what you want to see”.
Some examples of overclaiming might be:
  • Albrecht Brandi, of U-617, etc. who sank a number of ships and warships (tougher targets), in the Med (a tougher room) and (I reckon) fully deserved the Knights Cross he was awarded, but none-the-less massively overclaimed (or was massively over-credited): 26 ships, 100,000t, the true tally being "startlingly less"; 12 ships, 32,000t
  • The captain of the Italian submarine (Blair mentions him; I cannot just now remember his name) who misidentified US destroyers as battleships on two occasions and was credited both times with sinking them; no confirmation of hits on either ship.
  • Lunin, of K-21, who fired on Tirpitz and scored two hits, though German records have no knowledge of this (though, coincidentally, Tirpitz abandoned her mission, and spent the next six months in dock “refitting”: I'm just saying...)
  • Morton, of Wahoo, who after sinking Buyo Maru claimed to have killed 10,000 “sonzabitches” which, later analysts say was actually several hundred, and they were Indian POWs in any case (as if that makes it better in some way)
  • there is undoubtedly a RN example, though off the top of my head I can't think of one.
On the other side of the coin, anti-submarine commanders had similar problems (if a U-boat sinks, was it what they had done, or was it intentional; viz Churchill's stipulation they be described as “destroyed” not “sunk”). Denys Rayner commented (here) that in the early days of the war a couple of actions he fought were classed as successes, tho' he had his doubts; later the RN's strict rules led to CO's staging "tin-opener" attacks just to get evidence of a success. Morison states the Japanese ASW forces were generally far too ready to accept scanty evidence, thus allowing US submarines to escape. The ultimate overclaimer (to my mind) would be Otto Pollmann, credited with 14 Allied submarines; actual successes, one! Xyl 54 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Another notability question[edit]

Regarding commodores this time. Do they equal "1-star" generals and thus are usually considered notable? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_131#Notability_question and Draft:Edward Gabriel Andrè Barrett. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think yes; the pay grade is O7 (US). The area in which to tiptoe is for captains who were addressed as commodore while traveling on a vessel commanded by a lower-ranking officer. In that case the grade is an honorific because there's only one captain per ship. We're showing Grace Hopper as a rear admiral (lower half), but when I heard her speak, she called herself a commodore and made jokes about admirals.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Commodores count under WP:SOLDIER. They are equivalent in rank to one-star flag officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

British war crimes[edit]

Oh how I loathe this article, although not due to the subject. I request a third opinion, before I get myself banned for breaching the 3 revert rule. An editor's claims to be cleaning the article up is in fact code for removing everything they do not agree with despite the fact that - even in this poorly sourced article - sourced information contradicts them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it the longest article in Wikipedia?Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I got no farther than the Boxer Rebellion and the statement that British forces "comitted war crimes". There was no such thing as a war crime in 1899, so the article is obviously infected with WP:POV issues. As a war criminal myself (at least by the standards of this article), I think the label inappropriate for what's on the page (without expressing an opinion on whether some of the items are valid). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I find Bombing of Dresden in World War II to be deeply problematic in it's inclusion. WP:UNDUE in terms of the limited sources deployed to support this allegation bugs me somewhat. Obviously it warms the hearts of revisionist Neo-Nazis everywhere though. Irondome (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The originator didn't help things by choosing the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 because this changed the labels but not the behaviour. It might have been better to use a term like atrocities, although this would be tendentious too for implying that war isn't atrocious per se. As it stands it might be better to limit inclusion to crimes for which have been ruled crimes and/or for which convictions have been obtained and tie that into other articles which list atrocities defined by other criteria.Keith-264 (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think convictions are required. If reliable sources state that they were war crimes (customary international law applies here as well as treaty law), then they should be given due weight. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Convictions are reliable, indictments are potentially reliable and allegations aren't (if you use the originator's criteria).Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What's your view on the Dresden example PM? Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
As I stated on the talkpage, I completely agree that the article is a mess and a lot of sourcing is needed and the weeding out of unjustified entries.
Just to chime in on the Dresden comment above. I think this example sums up the entire lousy article: controversial; on the whole, weakly sourced; needs to be re-worded and balanced. In my own experience, this controversial subject has had the term 'war crime' thrown around a lot. A quick look finds several authors on Google Books that describe it as such or acknowledge that some see as such. JSTOR has several articles on the controversy. Then there is the net itself: covered in such talk. Personally, I don't agree. There are countless books stating the exact opposite. Considering this article has been created, and to stay within our own guidelines, I would argue that such controversy would have to be engaged - in a NPOV, with some sort of effort to point towards the consensus on the subject - not just deleted. At any rate, that is my two cents.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is exactly the point. If a few reliable sources mention it as a possible war crime (the indiscriminate use of incendiaries against a civilian target for the purpose of destroying morale would be, in this day and age), then this should be mentioned, but if a lot of reliable sources say it was not, then you might want to cite twice as many reliable sources in contrast. Or a similar approach. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Singling out Dresden potentially legitimises all the other massacres, which is why it's a liberal critique. When it comes to massacres, one state is as bad as another.Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Holocaust deniers have a fixation on Dresden for that reason. This article's coverage of the raid is obviously unbalanced in that it only quotes authors who believe that it was a war crime, and not those who take a different view. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but the inclusion of the Bombing of Dresden isn't deeply problematic, the way it is portrayed in this article may well be, where the views of non-partisan sources on both sides should be given due weight. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Battles of Timbuktu[edit]

There is an article entitled Battle of Timbuktu and another one Second Battle of Timbuktu. The second article's initial section appears to be a repetition of the first article, followed by a second section on a second phase or battle a few days later. It would appear that they should be merged as one article under the former title or the second article should make clear that it refers to the second battle/phase. I don't know how these events are regarded in that repect, or indeed if either or both are termed the "Battle of Timbuktu". Views?

They could both do with a bit of copy editing too. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It does look like they should be forming a single article. I can't vouch for whether the term "Battle of Timbuktu" is appropriate though. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither of the French references (translated by Google) uses the word "Battle." "Terrorist attack" seems to be a better fit.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The French wiki articles refer to them as "Combat de Tombouctou (date)", with "combat" potentially referring to any size of engagement. The sources in French for the two French and the two English wiki articles use variously "attentat" (attack), "raid", "affrontement" (confrontation) but I haven't so far come across one saying "battaile"; I think they are too small-scale. The BBC source refers to it as an "attack" so I would be happy with that but not prefixed with "terrorist", despite a minority of sources using the term. These though would appear to be only two of the fairly small skirmishes mis-categorised as "battles", per a variety of articles at Category:2013 in Mali, Category:2014 in Mali and Category:2015 in Mali. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree there should be a Merge. The second article, created by a different editor 6 days later, simply copied and pasted the first article, and then added more details for the second article.— Maile (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, a merge is probably the best course of action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Prisoner-of-war camp[edit]

The article doesn't cover the death of millions of POWs during WWII. A disaster.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really disaster as wikipedia is a work in progress and is not complete, just find some reliable sources and consider due weight and add something to the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Now I understand that the main article is Prisoner of war. How to divide information between the two article?Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Pretty straightforward. If it relates to a specific camp, or just to POWs in general. BTW, welcome back to Milhist. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Not at all straightforward, the two articles are too similar.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Prisoner-of-war camp is about several wars. Why these ones?
POW camps, e.g. in Germany, existed during several wars, see Łambinowice 1870-1945. The camps are the subject, not the wars. Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Arras attack[edit]

I've not tagged the 2015 Arras attack article for this WP, as the link is rather tenuous. Will leave it to this project to decide whether or not it comes under your remit. Reports are that US Marines disarmed the attacker. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it qualifies. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Does the awarding of the Legion d'Honneur to the four that took down the assailant now mean the article falls under this WP? Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
In this context, I believe the Legion of Honor might not be considered a military decoration. That being said, I would be quite surprised if the military members do not receive the Airman's Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for their actions. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there an American in the House?[edit]

The Trinity (nuclear test) article was changed by an IP who insists that since the article is in American English, the term "fortnight" cannot be used. Is this correct? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Fortnight" is rare in American English, so it's probably better to use two weeks and avoid any issues that way. - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Concur. Fortnight may be used, but two weeks is more common and equally correct. Calidum 04:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. In Australia people would look at you oddly, like if you said "seven days" instead of "a week". Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Fortnight has some info on the word. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Frank Wead[edit]

I stumbled onto this by accident today while researching John Madison Hoskins, a flag officer who for some reason doesn't seem to have an article about him, but does have a movie: The Eternal Sea. So I checked the Wead article and there's a very enthusiastic and well-intentioned editor User:SteveMiamiBeach who's making a proper mess out of it. I'm so boggled by the insanely unencyclopedic approach to the subject, it's probably best that somebody else break the bad news to this guy and get the pagespace back under some semblance of control. Would somebody biographically inclined give this a look? I'm not kidding, it's a wasteland over there. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy has been working on this for six years and this is what we have? I just made a start at cleaning up the lead. There's a whole lot of useless stuff.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Some improvement, imho. I don't know the name of the "this needs help" template. Could someone add it?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Also stumbled upon another "pageless" flag officer: Ralph Eugene Davison.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but Frank Wead is beginning to resemble an empty suit. The article as edited by Special:Contributions/SteveMiamiBeach seems to be "very dependent" on the words that appear on other web pages. Because of the number of web sites that robocopy Wikipedia, I can't tell which site had the information first. I'm going to keep paring back to what I can prove for a few more days, but I'm beginning to think "Spig" is a non-notable from a military perspective.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
He is, however, notable as a screenwriter and because The Wings of Eagles is about him. We've been stuck with much less interesting and well covered sources in our day. I appreciate you guys clearing out the dead wood. Hoskins has turned out to be a very notable story indeed. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

USS Jarrett FFG 33[edit]

Had noticed that quite a few links to this Navy ship do not work anymore. Is it possible to edit them with new links for information relating to the info of the ship? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@JasonHockeyGuy: The page seems to be there – USS Jarrett (FFG-33). Can you mention an example of a link that doesn't work anymore? Stanning (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand. I've changed two links to point to archived pages. Stanning (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 22 on the deletion of an article on a general officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I shudder to think of the repercussion’s this could have on the task force. This one deletion debate is going to overturn existing precedent wrt general and flag officer notability and single handedly make a huge number of articles about BGenerals deletable. Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It will certainly impact articles on living one-stars. That's unfortunate and I think BLP should be reviewed to distinguish between Internet rumor and events on the public record. Having said that, when I read the article I came away with the sense that I did not know what he had accomplished before or after being promoted to BG.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The few deletionists here must be rubbing their hands in glee and preparing to use it as a precedent to destroy others' work as they love to do. Oh what joy to destroy instead of create! We're making Wikipedia better by deleting articles on senior officials, they cry! This attitude frankly makes me despair for Wikipedia sometimes. However, I dispute that a single AfD should destroy years of clear precedent and consensus at AfD. Anyone who attempts to use it as such is very much working against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying a "one-star" isn't notable per se, they just need to have significant coverage. Hell the bloke that cleans out the public toilet in Aberdeen would be notable as long as he has been covered in multiple reliable sources which provide enough detail for a complete biography... Anotherclown (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I think some of the above is an overreaction. The issue in this case was a "one event BLP"-type issue, not really that he was a one-star. And Anotherclown Wee Jock Poo-Pong McPlop would have the usual GNG issue with "multiple" sources, and perhaps the reliability of the source in question... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
At least there is someone around here of the req'd vintage to get the reference (feel free to be offended by that)... Yes I agree re your assessment of that particular AFD (i.e. BLP1E was one of the main issues not his rank). So I doubt there will be wholesale AFDing of brigadier-generals anytime soon regardless of the result of the DRV. Anotherclown (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for a somewhat off topic comment as I know this is beyond our control, but this is page is still appearing on Google over 6 days after it was deleted. Even further off, another Jeffrey Sinclair was the first station Commander on Babylon 5. :-/ 220 of Borg 13:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Shadow boxes[edit]

We don't consider blogs to be reliable sources. No mystery there. Several pages about the members of E Co, 2d Bn, 506th PIR link to shadow boxes displaying awards and other emblems associated with the subject of the page. One example is Speirs' shadowbox pertaining to Ronald Speirs. Is an unedited shadowbox any better than a blog?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Need some help with history of USN jet aviation[edit]

I did a foolish thing and watched an old movie (The Eternal Sea starring Sterling Hayden), and predictably, I got curious about the protagonist. The film reminds me much of John Wayne's The Wings of Eagles (but much more accurate, based on found sources). The fellow Hayden low keys didn't have an article about him and so I created one: John Hoskins (officer). There are not as many sources as I‍ '​d like, though there are some good ones already attached (including a Life Magazine cover story). What I'm looking for is an article or book relating Hoskins' enthusiasm for jet aircraft in carrier flight operations. The movie, produced and released while Hoskins was still a serving RADM, seems to indicate that Hoskins advocated reinforced decks and stronger catapults on carriers being built while WWII was ongoing, sensing the need for jet takeoffs and landings; in addition, the film indicates that Hoskins himself (peg-leg and all) flew takeoffs and landings along with an air group to validate the premise that carriers would be able to handle jet aircraft cycling through operations. Anybody know where I should be looking? What I've got right now dovetails with the premises of the film, and while I'm not using the movie as an RS, I suspect there's some truth to be found. Ideas? BusterD (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well you can start with the Revolt of the Admirals, that covers some of the material referenced here. You can also look into the Essex-class aircraft carriers, Midway-class aircraft carriers, Forrestal-class aircraft carriers, and the issues and concerns with their construction vis-a-vis the aircraft of the day. I'll look into this when I get a moment and see if I can suggest anything else that would potentially help. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tom. Appreciate your direction. I might actually have to read a book here... BusterD (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jadwiga of Poland[edit]

All comments would be appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

MILHIST membership category[edit]

FYI, there is a proposal at WP:AFC/C about creating a new category for members of WPMILHIST called Category:WikiProject Military history Members -- (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Look for the request filed by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) aka "KC Velaga ∞∞∞" -- (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

See Draft:Antoni Koper. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Battle of Buna–Gona[edit]

G'day, all, there is currently a discussion on the talk page about the length of the Battle of Buna–Gona article, and a request for opinions about splitting the article. I've offered my opinion, but I think it would be best if a few others could chime in as this is not an easy decision and there may be better ways of doing it that what I'm suggesting, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Britain Bunker[edit]

Just came from copy editing [1] and especially removing some 'promotional' text [2] from Battle of Britain Bunker. The page could use some attention from editors with some knowledge in this area. The page also has only one real footnote, though it has several potential sources in "Further reading". My first, edit re. "15 September 1940", is of concern as I am unsure what the original writer meant, regards, 220 of Borg 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of established Commons links by obscure {{Subject bar}} template?[edit]

We have long had a fairly stable style of linking to Commons (see WP:COMMONS) through the {{Commons category}} template.

There is also a template {{Subject bar}}. News to me too - I'd never heard of it until today. Seems it not too popular, it hit TfD for the second time recently Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_1#Template:Subject_bar, "A mere 1,477 transclusions in 4.8 million articles, in over four years, show that this template has failed to gain traction with the community;". Note also that this {{Subject bar}} template uses the Commons search mechanism (and its random return of synonyms) rather than linking simply and directly to a useful category.

There is now a push, at least on MILHIST topics, [3] [4] [5] to remove the existing Commons link template and replace it through the {{Subject bar}} style. I've no great aversion to {{Subject bar}} as a portal or navbox, it's yet more of that useless crud that accumulates at the bottom of pages rather than useful editing, but there is as yet no consensus to start removing the established, recognised and functional template.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)