Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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

Need help to restore content of military personnel infoboxes that has been deleted in Nazi-hunt[edit]

Hey folks,

as always our dear User:K.e.coffman is on his Nazi-hunt by simply deleting stuff. Now he is doing so by deleting infobox content - places of birth and death, service in World War I, list of battles, service in pre-Wehrmacht armed forces and the foregoing German countries etc. This content is perfetly following the infobox parameters and has not been contested for correctness - saying it to be non-notable is wrong, otherwise there wouldn´t be the respecive entry in the template and it would be non-notable for non-Wehrmacht soldiers, too (which it isn´t becaues it is important). Recently User:ÄDA - DÄP has joined him in some of this (though I generally have no problem with his overall work, he´s just trying to clean up). I´m trying to restore this stuff as it belongs there and has been deleted for a personal agenda and nothing else; but I´m just one slow-working person that also has other stuff to do. If some of you with a little spare time or AWB etc. could help me I´d appreciate it. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to be careful that any information re-added to the infobox is cited somewhere, either in the infobox itself or elsewhere in the article - your changes to Dietrich Kraiss and Curt von Jesser re-added unsourced information, which really needs a source to be readded. The infobox clearout appears less a case of a "Nazi-hunt" and more applying proper standards about sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Most infobox stuff in stub articles isn´t sourced on its own as long as there is no dispute about the content. Everywhere. As I said I´m only one person, but if you want to source every line you are welcome to do so. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for unsourced content. The act of removing unsourced information challenges it, so it should NOT be reinstated without a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The first line of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid ... I see it as valid. I never said that the articles couldn´t or shouldn´t be improved. I said they shouldn´t fall to a deletionist personal agenda which, if you follow the tracks for just a second, they clearly do. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Unless I am much mistaken, I have removed only data from the infoboxes regarding prior service in other military formations which are not relevant to the notability of the person in question. Should I have accidentally removed relevant information, please let me know, and I will cease and persist to do so. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said before I´v generally no objection to your work; but in this case think that every of those services deserves to be there. Not just the (mostly) final one in the Wehrmacht. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The primary issue with this is an ongoing and basic misunderstanding of how notability applies on en WP. Not everything in an article has to be notable in and of itself, or go to the notability of the subject. Once the notability of the subject of the article has been established (ie why they are notable, why we have an article on them), then all relevant detail on the person should be included, so long as it can be reliably sourced. That includes date/place of birth and death, what wars they fought in etc, not just the war for which they are notable. If (as is often the case), a WWII general served in WWI (usually at a much lower rank), that is information that should be in the infobox and in the article, as it is relevant biographical information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course all information should be recorded. In the article, not the infobox. The infobox is for a summary. In the case at hand - Hans Cramer - it is redundant to list the Deutsches Heer or Reichswehr because it is clear from the years of service that Cramer served in the army throughout his career. For the same reason it is only necessary to list the Knight's Cross, because that implies he was awarded both classes of the Iron Cross, too. Cramer did not change country, allegiance, or branch/service, there was only a change in names - and size. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Then mention of what wars he was involved in is part of the summary. It is common practice to include both world wars and the fronts they served on in each war in the infobox. The Knight's Cross did not exist in WWI, so whether an individual received the Iron Cross in WWI is relevant to the summary in the infobox, as are other awards from WWI, especially Austrian awards where applicable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
All service is listed in the infobox, not just that which goes to notability. The infobox is a summary of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Response[edit]

No issues with material being in the infobox, if it's covered and cited in the article. In all instances that the OP requested help with, the material was not cited in the article. This sometimes results in almost comical situations where the infobox is twice as long as the article, including the references. See, for example, before GELongstreet's edit and after, which also includes a non-existing battle.

Since I was called out by the OP by name, I'd like also to express my concern about this latest installment of "anti-Nazi" shaming. Most people (and I hope, almost all) are anti-Nazi, as Nazism came to represent genocide, war of conquest and annihilation, mass enslavement of populations of the occupied territories, war crimes authorised at the highest levels, etc. etc. I find such pejorative references ("Nazi-hunt") to be troubling. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I consider myself anti-Nazi, too, and share your hope that most others are the same. I in no way focus on that but this is my personal decision that I´m as free to chose as you are in yours. However my trouble is with deleting history - I think that burning the books is not the way to go. And that you´re going that way far too much. ... GELongstreet (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
How does the present situation relate to book burning? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's see. You take birth and death places and service in different armed forces and wars and delete those, saying that it´s either not sourced, not written in the article itself or simply not notable - which there are very different opinions about and the non-notability is not agreed on as some others have written above. Kinda like you did with the respective medals&awards sections before - whose existence countered your "comical situation" of infoboxes longer than articles. One could have improved many of those articles with a fraction of that effort that you put into deleting but it doesn´t happen. Guess it´s pretty clear that I´m no wiki-deletionist. You´re doing that on a pretty large scale and interestingly it seems that this happens almost only to German WW2 soldiers. That´s why I say Nazi-hunt. I know that the creation of many of those stubs were a rather ambiguous thing and know that they´re far from good. But in my opinion you´re not making them better, you´re making them worse by deleting important information and making what stands there practically wrong. I think the lack of acknowlegement to previous armed forces and services is unwarranted and ill-placed for articles about military history in general and in this infobox in particular. I think you´re, basically, limiting it to "He was a Nazi-soldier, that´s all that needs to be in the article." As you´re doing so and delete anything beside the Wehrmacht service, I call it the equivalent of burning books. Savy? ... GELongstreet (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I find it curious that the editor wants another contributor to source the material (One could have improved many of those articles with a fraction of that effort that you put into deleting...), while making no effort to do it himself. Yes, the problem seems to be localised to German WWII personnel, because one editor started 2000 stubs on Wehrmacht personnel based on unknown sources, while another created 500 articles on the Waffen-SS using various fan pages. The fact that these pages exist does not make it anyone's obligation to cite the content that the original contributors did not. We are all volunteers here.
These subjects are indeed notable as "Nazi soldiers", per GELongstreet, because it was during WWII that they were generals, commanded divisions, or met any other criteria of WP:SOLDIER. The rest is "uncited intricate detail unrelated to subject's notability", as I put it. Please see WP:BURDEN: the onus of providing citations is on those who wish to retain material that has been challenged. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe all of us should work to improve articles: including npov wording, grammar, structure and also add RS citations when we can. I also believe that service history should be mentioned in the info box. I agree that RS citing is important and when not present, sentences can be removed or changed, depending on the circumstances. With that said, when removing or deleting, discernment should be used and there should be no rush to do it. Kierzek (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

General comment[edit]

The matter of uncited materials comes up periodically. The result is usually the same; please see diffs of responses to several WP:3O requests:

Much of this material is a throwback to the times when Wikipedia content was routinely based on non RS web sites, such as AxisHistory, AchtungPanzer!, Aces of the Luftwaffe, and various Waffen-SS fan pages, often uncited at all. Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards have been significantly tightened since then. A consensus has also developed that many subjects lack sufficient RS to build NPOV articles, and these articles are being redirected to lists (see: Notability in Knight's Cross winner articles).

Overall, this is nothing more than routine quality improvements for such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Standardized general information about the Knight's Cross in lead sections of articles on recipients.[edit]

While editing the article about Desiderius Hampel I was notified by Peacemaker67 that it would be controversial to remove general information about the Knight's Cross from the lead section, even though the information has no relation to the subject of the article. The sentence in question is The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low-ranking soldier for a single act of extreme battlefield bravery. That sentence is used in numerous lists, e.g. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (O). Variants of it read The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded to recognise extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership or which was awarded to recognize extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership by Nazi Germany during World War II. It has been somewhat routinely placed in the lead section of many biographical articles. Quite often the lead section consists of only one other sentence, even if there is more defining information on the subject presented in the article. I consider that practice to be faulty for three reasons.

  • First, it has been established by historiographical research (Roman Töppel, Jens Westemeier) that the award of a KC depended on several variables, including favoritism. As Westemeier sums up, in spite of the official provisions subjective criteria prevailed. (Himmlers Krieger, 2014, p. 356).
  • Second, it is thus against WP:NPOV to assume as fact that the KC was awarded for "successful military leadership" and so forth. Not only is this language peppered with Peacock words to be avoided according to WP:INTRO. It - normally - goes without saying that the sources, upon which these "extreme" assessments are based, are biased.
  • Third, according to WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article's "most important contents". The official provisions of the KC might be featured in articles about the KC, but a broad standard sentence without specific details as to why the KC was awarded to the subject of the article makes no sense. Instead it is used to purvey a certain positive image.

So I am looking for input of the MilHistProject if that is the idea.--Assayer (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As you have presented it, it does sound like a lot of text to be put in a lead. I presume this text is used when the reason for the award is not specified. Would it be better as a Note with the actual text in the Notes section of the article ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I argue that this text is not in line with WP:IMPARTIAL and superflous, because there is also always a wikilink to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, where any interested reader will find the same information (and wording) in the lead section. Since it is often argued that soldiers of Nazi Germany should be treated neutral, i.e. not differently from other nation's soldiers, I checked upon several Medal of Honor-, Hero of the Soviet Union- and Pour le Mérite-recipients and didn't find "general information" such as with the KC-recipients. I do not think that there is something important missing from those articles, but neither do I see a reason why the "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership" of German WW II-soldiers should be emphasized. Thus those sentences should be removed entirely.--Assayer (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You've left out the fact that we have many Featured Articles on Victoria Cross recipients, and most if not all of their leads include words to the effect that the VC is the highest decoration for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" that can be awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth armed forces. Given that these FAs have generally gone through ACR as well, I think we can say that a great many in the MilHist and general WP community don't see such a description as NPOV or peacock, but as reasonable and helpful to the reader. So I don't think we can say that German soldiers are being portrayed in an unusually favourable way by including such a description. There may be room to tweak the precise wording of the Knight's Cross description that's generally employed, but I don't think there's a good case to remove it entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Ian Rose. I was going to raise examples of bios of VC and MoH recipients as well as recipients of other awards like the Legion of Merit (US) and knighthoods etc. The basic information about what the award was for is intrinsic to mentioning it. You don't just say he was awarded the VC, you say what the award was, for those that don't know. It is basic encyclopaedic information. Also, whether you are aware of it or not, all military and other awards are subject to various "political" restrictions, personal influences/preferences of nominating officers and others in the chain of command, approving officers etc, not just the KC. In Australia, the final "end of war list" of decorations for a battle that occurred in 1966 were only sorted out last year, and the final report made it clear that the recipients that were upgraded were originally "hard done by" via the chain of command, for a range of reasons. I'm happy to discuss the exact wording of the sentence that says what the purpose of the award was, but removal of it completely is contrary to the encyclopaedic purpose of WP. I also question why you think "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership" of German WWII soldiers shouldn't be emphasised, where we do emphasise it with soldiers of other armies. That would create significant systemic bias on en WP. Is German bravery or leadership "unworthy" of being mentioned on WP for some reason? Or do you think it is all made up? If so, on what basis? There is a lot of narrow, "black and white" thinking behind this campaign against the KC on en WP. There were plenty of alleged and actual war criminals in the German Army and Waffen-SS, but I am sure that some of those who were convicted war criminals also fought bravely or led skilfully. The two aren't mutually exclusive. We compare and contrast the good and bad in biographical articles, we don't just eliminate the good because of the bad. Of course there are also those that didn't commit war crimes, what of them? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
We all know that Wikipedia is not to 100 percent consistent and that two wrongs don't make a right. I am not targeting KC recipients in particular, if that's what you think, but happen to work on German military history. I think it is fair to say that such a general phrase being used in biographical articles is not the common standard. Since we are talking about a sort of standard phrase, I would rather suspect that its use stems from personal preferences of individual authors. The article of Desiderius Hampel, for example, existed for years without that sentence, until Peacemaker67 added it about two months ago.[1] The articles on the VC recipients actually reinforce my point, because many of those have been "migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference with permission." That website's POV has been described in 2001 as "a sobering tribute to the men who have won the highest decoration for gallantry that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces. [...] The story of each act of bravery is detailed online and the matter-of-fact prose serves only to emphasize the courage of the men who fought." (The Telegraph, 2001)
There is a basic misunderstanding in Peacemaker67's argument: We are not talking about "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership" of German WWII soldiers, but we are talking about how we are presenting the fact that someone has received a KC in his biographical article. As Peacemaker himself rightly explains all military and other awards are subject to various "political" restrictions, personal influences/preferences of nominating officers and others in the chain of command, approving officers etc, In other words, we may all agree, that bravery exists and is exhibited with or without being honored by a military award. We cannot assume, however, that each and every award is awarded for bravery or exceptional leadership skills. But by the use of weasel words and peacock terms that is excactly what is suggested to the reader: First sentence: Hampel has received a KC. Second sentence: A KC was awarded for skilled leadership of his troops in battle. Reader's conclusion: Hampel has exhibited skilled leadership in battle. Why else would he have received a KC? There are no RS for such a conclusion, though. As a matter of fact, we don't know if he received a KC after all, let alone for what reasons, but that's another issue. So neither Is German bravery or leadership "unworthy" of being mentioned on WP for some reason, nor do I think it is all made up , but I demand RS for such claims, not a carte blanche based upon the KC. That would be "white thinking", so to speak, and the award of a KC is not a RS by itself. (I can offer a number of examples, if needed.)
Wikipedia is based on hypertext and uses internal links to guide the reader to the information he desires or needs for a deeper understanding of the topic. Those who don't know what a certain award was can find these information by following the link to the article on the award. They do not need an explanation in each and every article of each and every recipient. That's the whole idea behind internal links. As soon as you read more than one of those articles that also becomes repetitive and tedious, btw. Thus individual articles need not to be stuffed with broad and vague information, but they need specific information based upon RS.--Assayer (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since this discussion has stalled, I would like to determine, if there are still objections to remove those standard phrases from individual biographical articles. So far only Ian Rose and Peacemaker67 have chosen to participate. If opinion persists, that it is essential to say what the award was and since both contributors have agreed that There may be room to tweak the precise wording of the Knight's Cross description, I would then suggest to use the first, defining sentence of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross article instead: the Knight's Cross (Ritterkreuz), and its variants were the highest awards in the military and paramilitary forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. That would not only be more neutral and factually more accurate, it would also be more precise, because there were numerous other orders and awards for bravery and skilled leadership in Nazi Germany, like the Iron Cross or the German Cross or even a mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht, but only one "highest award".--Assayer (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

l wouldn't say it has stalled, there may be any number of reasons why others haven't commented. But I'd be happy with the suggested wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in the specific discussion on this page; I figured there were enough experienced editors who focus more on this subject who would comment. With that said, I think the suggested wording is acceptable. Kierzek (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The new wording sounds uncontroversial, but I'd suggest leaving this open a little longer to see if MisterBee1966, as the prime editor of the KC series, has any comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree, good suggestion. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if this photo of B-52, B-1 and B-2 deserves inclusion somewhere[edit]

link--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If it does, a 3000px wide version is here. (Hohum @) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Similar in concept to File:B-1B B-2 and B-52.jpg. As for places it could go, Heavy bomber, Strategic bomber, and United States Air Force all seem like likely candidates. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If that image gets uploaded on Wikipedia or Commons, use an AF.mil, Dimoc.mil site so the licensing is clear and direct. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
With such a dark background it is not the best image, the subjects are not clear so as such it would be unlikely to add to any article here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
In case it wasn't obvious, I wasn't suggesting its inclusion for its technical photographic attributes, but if the caption is correct, it is the first time these three iconic planes are being deployed to an operation at the same time, which might be worthy of note in its own, and the fact that there is a photograph just adds nice icing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it does a better job of showing their relative size and shape than File:B-1B B-2 and B-52.jpg, which has a distracting background as well. Felsic2 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree - personally, I find File:B-1B B-2 and B-52.jpg to lack contrast between the aircraft and the background, especially with the B-2, whereas the gray aircraft are quite distinct from the green background in the other image. And while the photo isn't exactly the highest resolution, File:B-1B B-2 and B-52.jpg isn't any better. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The caption does not say this is the first time the three deployed to an operation at the same time, Just the first time in United States Pacific Command's area of responsibility. I believe they operated together in 1991 and again in 2003. (Full disclosure, My first flight as a Buff Driver was over 50 years ago). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Citations in infoboxes and in leads[edit]

In the course of some GA reviews, I've encountered resistance to citations in info boxes (as in they shouldn't be there). In the past we've included the citations—even if the numbers are cited in the text—especially if there is some contention over the numbers. Could I have some guidance on this? I don't want to take them out if, at A class, or Featured, they will have to be added back in. I don't want to leave them in if they are no longer needed. It seems like unnecessary clutter. The same also applies for leads. Seems to me the lead should be straightforward text, unless there is something extraordinarily contentious or controversial. The rest should be backed up in the article itself. What is the consensus on this? auntieruth (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally not needed and not done as it should all be covered and properly RS cited in the body text. The only few times I have seen it (and thereby agreed with it) or done it myself in the GA articles I have been involved is when it is something controversial or something which has caused great discussion or debate and something extra, so to speak, is warranted. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Information in infoboxes (or leads) shouldn't contain anything not in the text and cited; it seems to me to be pointless routinely to duplicate the citations. I can't imagine why information in either place would be controversial but can see the point of someone adding them to forestall something worse. Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Depending on the article there are definitely times when I've put information into the infobox but left it out of the article as inclusion didn't help the prose. WP:LEADCITE already allows for citations in the lede but warns against them; I've never seen a similar essay or guideline about citations in the infobox. Additionally there are several articles about battles where the casualty numbers result in edit warring. I think it's more useful to keep a citation there so anyone that would revert can confirm what the correct number is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
edit conflict - I agree it should not have anything extra which is not covered in detail in the body (which is RS cited); with that said, some articles which are on controversial subjects or contain what at least appears to some as controversial is when cites have been used. But generally it should not be needed, as you say, Keith. Kierzek (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes someone puts information in the infobox but not in the text. Citations are helpful in this case and when moving the data to the text to dispense with the ones in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've previously always left out citations from lead and infobox, until I ran into a lot of resistance from other editors who wanted them there. Is it MH policy not to put them there, then? How about it sources differ? auntieruth (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken them out btw. What is the current thinking on flags? auntieruth (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXFLAG gives the guidance -- they seem acceptable in battle articles, but unnecessary in bios and unit histories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Where sources differ over numbers, I put the range in because we're describing what sources write, not arbitrating between them. The occasions when citations are necessary seem rare to me but then don't I think that decisive is a synonym for big so what do I know?...Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The guidance is generally to leave citations out of the lead and infobox because both should summarise the main body of the article, which should be fully cited. One exception seems to be quotes in the lead, which, last time I checked, should always be cited even if the quote and the citation are repeated in the main body. Another exception that I've found to be acceptable because I've done it myself in ACR/FAC nominations, is when a useful bit of info just doesn't seem to fit chronologically in the main narrative, such as a nickname that a soldier received but no source states when; those I mention and cite only in the lead or infobox, and it's never been an issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done the same thing with pennant numbers, albeit with a link so readers can learn what one is if they don't already know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally I avoid them, especially with articles at ACR and FAC, as everything in the lead and infobox should be cited in the body, but there are numerous lower class articles that are subject to regular edit/POV warring where a couple of citations in the infobox can be useful to limit all but the most egregious warring. An example is the number of victims in the infobox in Jasenovac concentration camp, which is subject to almost weekly changes, I'm sure it would be much worse if there weren't citations there. Before an article gets to GA, having citations in the lead can resolve disputes until the article body is better developed and cited. An example of this would be Josip Broz Tito. Mind you, at GA I wouldn't expect a lot of citations in the lead or infobox, as everything should be cited in the body. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It is true that when listing numbers, such as troops involved (strength) in an operation or casualties and loss numbers, (Battle of Berlin, for example), that citing said range in the info box is helpful. As far as flags go, I believe they can be helpful for general readers in battle articles and military bios. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with avoiding footnotes in infoboxes, but in the area I work mostly in (USAF unit pages) I have added them in two areas: Start articles whose text does not include such things as unit commanders, mottos, decorations, specific mention of campaigns/battles in the text (although they are in the infobox or have been added), and I am doing a "drive-by" edit, without taking time to expand the article completely, just doing an "anticipatory" rescue by adding sources to articles tagged for a lack of footnotes (and these notes in the infobox should be deleted when the article is expanded to include the information); and information concerning insignia, which is rarely discussed in the article (nor do I think it should be as a rule). It seems to me that if an image is presented as a present or past insigne of the unit, it should be sourced. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree on use of citations for numbers in battles. Many medieval battles have uncertain numbers and they can vary widely in secondary sources. It is rarely practical (and perhaps not desireable) to subject numbers to detailed analysis in the text ( Battle of Agincourt being an exception here, because it is a subject of active academic debate) so something that stops random changes by passing editors based on the last book they read is useful. Info box numbers should match those in the text, though (the idea that the info box summarises the article rather than stands totally independent of it is a principle that baffles some editors)Monstrelet (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

US Army branches[edit]

Not exactly my area here, but the article names of US Army branches are quite inconsistent. Some names start with "United States Army", while others end with "(United States Army)" and others do not use the phrase. I think it would be more accurate to start these with "United States Army".

--21lima (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree - I'm a big fan of standardization.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Add United States Army Coast Artillery Corps--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I tacked it on the end, so it is out of order. --21lima (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I know nothing about the designations within the US army, but (for example) is "Infantry Branch" a proper noun within the US army? (if not it should be "Infantry branch, wherever the "United States Army" is placed). In all (my) ignorance, would it make a difference within Wiki title policy if there no formal entity called the "United States Army Infantry B/branch"?
I'll also add that one or two - such as the Finance Corps - open with the words "The United States Army Finance Corps is..." (bolding as per the article), which suggests a de facto acceptance of the suggestion. - The Bounder (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I was musing over that as well. Some of these are obviously referred to as corps (Ordnance, Finance...) but others are not so defined. List of United States Army careers tacks "branch" to the end of everything. My opinion would be to use corps where it is obviously used (United States Army Ordnance Corps) and nothing for the others (United States Army Infantry). --21lima (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Because Armor, Air Defense Artillery, Aviation, Engineers, Field Artillery, Infantry and Special Forces are Combat Arms Branches. Only the Corps of Engineers styles itself as a corps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment, leaning toward Disagree I'd say standardization is generally good, but the articles' references to the branches should be accurate and based on RSs. The names are not consistent in official documents defining the "corps" (not to mention those that don't have "corps" in their names). They may be Foo Corps, Corps of Foo, Army Corps of Foo or United States Army Corps of Foo, ad infinitum. I guess the discussion should be whether standardization overrides RS. Perhaps the best way to recognize this is by using a category to include these variations under one umbrella. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
These are all branches of the US Army, so I don't see the need for separate categories. There is only one United States Army Corps of Foo, which is the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

The best list I can find is from The Institue of Heraldty. The one oddity is Medical Department which has several corps under it.

I updated the list with specific proposals. --21lima (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
United States Army Electronic Warfare is missing. Perhaps because it has no article. It's the newest corps, formed in January 2009. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This and others like it might be helpful. I picked MI because it was my branch and because its the one branch I know officially went through a name change during my service. The Army Intelligence and Security (AIS) Branch was created in 1962. Sometime in the 70s, AIS was re-designated as the Military Intelligence (MI) Branch.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The whole proposal seems to ignore that the official names of the branches doesn't start with United States Army. They are simply 'Air Defense Artillery Branch' (part of the United States Army) and should probably go with a modification of our standard disambiguator. Especially note that USACAPOC is not a branch -- it's a military formation. US Army Civil Affairs is at Civil_affairs#US_military_civil_affairs. I've fixed the mistake in the table above. Also yes Jim in Georgia is exactly right; the CMH lineage publications, with The Institute of Heraldry (TIOH) are the gold standard sources for actual formal names, not, repeat not, unit websites, which can get things quite wrong (witness "9th Infantry Regiment" at Fort Lewis for some years, when the unit/formation was actually 1st Brigade, 9th Infantry Division, or 11th Aviation Regiment in Germany, when the unit in question was 11th Aviation Group). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Romanian Sock[edit]

The person socking on Romanian Navy during World War I returned after the page protection expired.--Catlemur (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

rhetorical, why do people find this amusing? auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, please also see User_talk:Alcherin#Soviet-Romanian_naval_battles. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem with A-class review[edit]

I'm not getting the currently undergoing to show up....? auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ruth, is this re. Battle of Hochkirch? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian, yes, that's the one. the red tag currently undergoing doesn't pop out on the talk page....not sure what to do next. I even switched browsers. No go. auntieruth (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Delete, save then re-add? (The manual version of turning the computer off then back on again). – The Bounder (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
not working auntieruth (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ruth, I just went to the talk page, clicked [show] next to the MilHist project banner, then clicked [show] next to "Additional information..." and found the "currently undergoing" redlink, as expected -- are those the steps you went though? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes Ian, that's what I did, or tried to....The additional information never came down though. auntieruth (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: G'day Ruth, the link shows for me when I view the page. Potentially it is just a cache issue? If you follow this link, you should be able to create the subpage: [2]. If not, please let me know and I will try to create it for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Not a cache issue either. I've tried a couple of computers AND tried clearing the cache. I used your link. It should be okay now. auntieruth (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht & two more[edit]

Category:Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht has been nominated for discussion. The entry can be found here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lucky Bastard Club[edit]

Do you know anything about the World War Two lucky bastard club? By Wikipedia's standards, is it notable? Dante2326 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Dante

@Dante2326: Undoubtedly. Just online, there's these books and these news items. Get with the program, corporal! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dante2326, two things: a. they said yes, and b. they responded exactly in the way I said someone would respond. Now get to work with those book hits, and generate content--and look at other, similar articles, to study tone, structure, etc. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, thank you so much for your help. Dr Aaij (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Dante2326 (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Dante

Nacht und Nebel[edit]

An editor has changed the title of this article to "Nacht und Nebel Erlass" with no apparent discussion. Is this a valid move? Britmax (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to think so as the most common name is simply Nacht und Nebel.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sturmvogel is correct as to the most common used name; and there are other changes from what Obenritter wrote/added that should be looked into. Kierzek (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is now back at Nacht und Nebel, but all comments on the future name of the article are welcome at the relevant talk page thread. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Operation Léa[edit]

Can you please provide input on Talk:Operation Léa as to whether or not this operation was a Viet Minh strategic victory. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles on crusader armies[edit]

See the new articles at Category:Armies of the First Crusade. They could all use a little attention from experienced editors, if any are interested. I think, as a whole, they are notable topics with sufficient academic coverage. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Flanders weather data for November-December 1917[edit]

Does anyone know of a source which has daily weather reports for Ypres from 10 November to 4 December (or thereabouts) please?Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


Raqqa's strategy ?[edit]

Northern Raqqa Offensive (November 2016).svg

Hey, the current Raqqa campaign seems to use a recurring pattern to move straight, then create a large isolated ISIS pocket which it then nearly peacefully subdues. It reminds me of a WW2 strategy, in Western Europe, where Americans main forces where purposefully avoiding towns and major cities, which included fortress and nazi troups with correct firepower, leaving them lightly behind the frontline on US side, and where ultimatums and negociations allowed minimal fights and nazi surrenders.

Does anyone knows the name of this (these?) strategies/tactics ?

Please message me if you know. Yug (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Island-hopping is what I think that you're referring to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66: Leapfrogging (strategy) (aka Island-hopping) seems to be quite naval... I think there is a more 'army' term. --Yug (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of World War II‎[edit]

I'm not sure what the List of surviving veterans of World War II‎ page is accomplishing. It's a page which will eventually reach a content count of zero. It's not necessarily inclusive and probably never will be. There was a discussion about deleting the article but it was conducted at the the article's talk page rather than at AfD. I don't think it has previously been discussed here or at AfD. Is it worth taking this to AfD?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not so sure. This seems to be a list of "notable" surviving veterans. It seems inevitable that the last survivor will have been an underage rating, private or airman, someone highly unlikely to have been notable except for surviving longest after the war. That was the case with WWI, and I see no reason to think it will be any different with WWII. In my hometown, a state capital, 150 WWII veterans marched on ANZAC Day last year. Of them, maybe two would meet WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with utility of a list of the last surviving veteran (apparently from the talk page of the list in question there's some question about the propriety of the term "veteran") of each country. There are about nine hundred people on the current list. I think it would be easier to clone the current WW I list to get a format for a WW II list.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment AfD submitted.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing awards and rank lists from SS articles[edit]

There has recently been a push by certain users on Wikipedia to remove lists of Nazi awards and dates of ranks from certain articles, in particular articles of SS generals. This matter has come up before, and nearly always was the result of strong personal feelings about whether Wikipedia should include lists of ranks and awards for Nazi personnel. There was recently a very heated and lengthy discussion at Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal and now the issue has come up again at Talk:Theodor_Eicke#Removal_of_dates_of_rank_and_awards. An older discussion can be found here and there was a also one several years back on Talk:Reinhard_Heydrich/Archive_3#Notable_decorations. Third party comments are needed from some experienced editors as this issue continues and is leading to a lot of removal of cited material about Nazi awards and ranks from military articles. -O.R.Comms 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I know I am repeating myself but, "...especially for high ranking members, awards and decorations should be included; and given [they are bio articles]... it is reasonable to include for that reason, as well. Like everything being considered for inclusion or to be removed, discernment should be used. It is fair that they be cited". With that said, just removing in mass is not the answer, either. At least, if in question, a cn should be placed next to the subject rank, award or medal in an article and it should remain for a reasonable timeframe. Being a volunteer project and having to work long hours, I for one, cannot go around and add cites to all these articles; as I am sure we all don't have the time. There needs to be a consensus and the same policy used for all; German, American, British, Soviet (Russian, included), Japanese, etc. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
We're not here to make value judgments. We don't to like or respect the people or governments involved in awards or promotions.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This looks like selective notification to me: diff. I would suggest that the OP also notifies other participants of the Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal discussion.
I would note that the content was ultimately removed from the Wolff article, with the closer noting: "There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here" (link). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Highly misleading statement. The material was actually transmigrated to "Service record of Karl Wolff" and the discussion closed as moot since the material was no longer on the article in question. -O.R.Comms 03:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how this thread will draw "third party comments", but maybe the emphasis is on "some experienced editors". I will keep my remarks short anyway: First, I would point to WP:ONUS (not all verifiable information must be included in an article) and argue that these awards are presented with an undue depth of detail. Second, a career in the SS should not be conflated with a career in the military. The SS, including the Waffen-SS, was basically a Nazi party organization and not part of the Wehrmacht. Third, speaking of verifiability those career sections seem quite often to be based upon primary sources like personal files hosted at archives. In the case of Eicke there are discrepancies in the dates given by a recent scholarly biography (Niels Weise, Eicke, Paderborn, 2013) and the English Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
As there is the apparent start of edit warring now [3] [4] I am hoping that others can get involved in this debate. Most who have contributed to this discussion already can see this for the duck that it is, mainly blanking of Nazi and SS material due to distaste for the material. There are literally hundreds of articles listing medals and dates of ranks, yet this particular group of Wikipedia editors is focused solely on blanking this material from only SS articles. I'm backing off of this one for now, pages are off the watch list, and will let others sort it out. -O.R.Comms 03:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've added a link to the discussion in the milhist template to solicit greater feedback; if the edit warring in the article(s) given here reaches a point of mass disruption then I'll start protecting articles. Given that the disagreement currently concerns established editors though I'm loath to resort to this option from the get go since it would mean requiring admin access to edit the articles in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll make the observation that the SS was a paramilitary organisation, SS advancement had meaning within the Nazi Party and SS itself, showing greater levels of responsibility, and was often in parallel with Army or police ranks; so promotion through SS ranks is relevant to a biographical article. To suggest that the Waffen-SS was a just a political organisation and not a military one is contrary to the facts. But even if it was right, we would mark the progress of a union leader through various levels of their hierarchy, so we do that with these people too. I fail to see why anyone would wish to remove such basic biographical information from any article, assuming it can be reliably sourced. Eicke was a member of the Reichstag, so there is definitely information available on his various promotions both within the SS then in the Waffen-SS, as well as other basic biographical info. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Peacemaker67, to say the Waffen-SS was only a Nazi Party organization is just not correct. True, they were not legally part of the Wehrmacht, but it was a "de facto" branch in a practical sense. However, even if it was just a Nazi Party organization, akin to the Allgemeine SS or NSKK, the ranks and promotions obtained by the person should be listed. Especially for high ranking members. The major awards should be listed, as well. Again, as I have said before, in the end, it is reasonable for the info to be RS sourced somewhere in the article. It is too bad that for some of these articles, when editors were adding such information originally, the sources they were using for said information was not added then. It seems that some of the information was written at a time when RS citing was not such a requirement on Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
With all this persistent talk about a particular group of Wikipedia editors [...] focused solely on blanking this material from only SS articles I might as well turn the tables and speak of a particular group of Wikipedia editors who are focused upon adding that material to SS articles. But I will try to make my concerns clear. The SS was not merely a paramilitary organization. It was also a party organization and an intelligence agency. It staffed the concentration camps and built a major industrial complex. Himmler allotted it police powers and tried to merge it with the regular police. He saw the Waffen-SS as a nucleus of a future pan-European Germanic army. My point is not, to suggest that the Waffen-SS was just a political organization. (But keep in mind the title of Bernd Wegner's seminal work Hitler's political soldiers.) Rather I am strongly opposed to suggest that the Waffen-SS was a military organization like any other, because that is a major apologetic rationale. It is misleading to focus upon a "practical sense", because the very definition of "being a branch" goes beyond that. The difference between Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS was both programmatic and practical. In the words of Eicke: "We do not carry weapons to appear like the army, but to use them, when Führer and movement are in danger." (Wir tragen keine Waffen, um dem Heere ähnlich zusehen, sondern um sie zu gebrauchen, wenn Führer und Bewegung in Gefahr sind.) Himmler was very careful to preserve the organizational distance between Waffen-SS and army. He planned, as he expressed in his Posen speech of 3 August 1944, to organize a Nazi people's army through the SS some time in the future. Thus it doesn't matter whether the Waffen-SS fought side by side with the Wehrmacht. The formal, organizational, ideological and programmatical differences prevail, not to mention the competition for resources and the often mutual distaste. The Waffen-SS was a branch of the SS, not of the Wehrmacht.
I have no problem to feature information on careers in biographical articles. I routinely add them myself. I am questioning the way these information are presented. Eicke is a good case in point, because his SS career was a twisted one and has to be put into context. But even that he was a member of the Reichtag, for example, isn't mentioned in the article. Besides, it is problematic to create such rank lists only from the SSO files. That is a primary source which needs to be interpreted. The same is true with the Dienstalterslisten der SS and the SS-Stammrollen. By that I do not wish to imply that those are unreliable sources by the odd Wikipedian definition. But to use them is WP:OR and I am sceptical that anonymous Wikipedia editors are fully qualified to use these files properly. In fact, some dates given in the English Wikipedia differ from the dates given in secondary literature such as Joachim Lilla, Statisten in Uniform (2004). Editors who add such information based on archival documents are certainly advised to add the source of that information. But they are also liable to be challenged for WP:OR. In short, I am arguing for a contextualized presentation of the information based upon secondary literature, instead of a mere decorative listing based upon primary sources.--Assayer (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see where anyone above has stated the Waffen-SS was a "military organization like any other"; ofcourse, they were "political soldiers"; the point is that even if they were just members of the SA, Allgemeine SS, NSKK or "a union leader", one example Peacemaker used, there is no reason not the present rank progression and awards, with citations. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
About the SS records on the SSO files of RG 242, we are talking about the SS service records themselves which have a cover page listing the dates of ranks and the awards the person earned. (See Service record of Reinhard Heydrich as an example). That isn't Original Research, it is recording information from a service record as maintained in the personnel department of the organization. Also, the National Archives has a series of "Finding Aides" which actually have the biographical data already listed from the microfilm itself (they are typically not cited separately since the finding aid of a record group is considered part of the record group itself). In any event, to suggest that listing dates of rank taken off the front of a service record, maintained by the agency itself, requires any kind of interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, if you look back in the archives of this military history page, as well as few others, you will find broad consensus that information taken from military personnel records, especially documents like a DD Form 214, is considered extremely reliable. National Archives Record Group 242 (Foreign records seized) has also been cited in numerous books, journal articles, research papers, and was a key source of material for evidence in war crimes trials. One can't get much more reliable than that. -O.R.Comms 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We can use primary sources, we just have to be careful in doing so, so avoid biases in the material. But simple factual stuff like dates of awards, promotions or assignments from a soldier's service records would be fine, and certainly not OR. Claiming otherwise is simply ludicrous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
To be clear: WP:OR states The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published sources exist. And it is not "reliable or published", but "reliable and published" which you can tell by the combined wikilink. And it is also stated in an explanatory footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist. As long as you refer to unpublished sources, and many personell files have not been published, it is by definition OR. (That alone does not turn an unpublished source into a primary source, as secondary sources can also be unpublished and vice versa.) I happened to notice that WP:VERIFIABILITY has been somehow softened in 2013 [5] based upon only brief discussion (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#Published means made available to the public), but I beg your pardon that I rather stick to the definition followed by various manuals of style and I also use the definition of primary source as it is common in historiography and may seek consensus for that view in the future.
But let's take an example to see what we are actually talking about: According to his official personnel file Karl Wolff was promoted to SS-Sturmführer on 18/19 February 1932. That date is also given by Lilla. On 19 January 1932 he had been ordered to be Führer (mit der Führung beauftragt) of the SS-Sturm 2/II/I in Munich. As Jochen von Lang tells us, Wolff only became Führer of that SS-Sturm, because no leader of a higher rank was available. His promotion was delayed, however, because admission to the leader corps required certain proceedings. Heinrich Hoeflich wrote a recommendation on 20 January 1932 which was presented to the corps leadership on 22 March 1932. After endorsement the matter stuck on Hoeflich's desk until the end of June. For the personnel files the promotion was dated back to 18 February. (Top Nazi, 2013, pp. 7-9) So which one is the correct date? I would also have asked for an explanation of the different dates for certain promotions of Eicke given by Weise and Lilla on the one hand and English Wikipedia on the other, but as OberRanks has explained he will not have access to his files for some weeks. I think, however, that illustrates the problems of verifiability, and published vs available to the public quite nicely.--Assayer (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Things like backdating promotions, etc. should be covered in the records; and since the records like the SS files in NARA are publicly available, I don't them see them as unpublished. But obviously you're a strict constructionalist on this issue and I am not. You are quite right to ask for clarification about the differing dates in your examples above, but you cannot always expect an answer, nor should you delete that material if no answer is received. Any discrepancies should be covered in a note, pending further research, which may or may not ever be performed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────entirely agree with Sturm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Operation Jupiter[edit]

Our article on the Quebec Conference, 1943, says: "It was agreed that Overlord would commence on May 1, 1944, but this was subsequently disregarded and a later date was finalised. However, Overlord was not the only option; for example, Operation Jupiter remained a strong possibility had the Germans proved too powerful on the French coast". Now "Operation Jupiter" is linked to Operation Jupiter (1944), an article about British breakout from the Caen area a month after D-Day and so couldn't possibly be an alternative to Overlord as it could not have happened without Overlord. We have a disambiguation page called Operation Jupiter which also lists "in 1942, a failed Soviet offensive against the Rzhev salient" which is wikilinked to our Operation Mars page.

A bit of Googling finds that another Operation Jupiter was a scheme devised by Churchill in 1942 to capture the north of Norway, which consumed a large amount of staff time and was rubbished by just about everybody, but later became a useful deception plan. I thought that a stub article would be possible, but what to call it? Operation Jupiter (1942) would cause confusion with the Soviet one. Any suggestions? Alansplodge (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Noway and Operation Jupiter (1942–1944)?Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Or something like "Operation Jupiter (Norway)". -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That sounds good. I believe that the Soviet Jupiter was a follow on offensive to Mars, if it had been successful, BTW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Is this the same as Project Plough? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting, but apparently Plough was intended to be an airborne operation whereas Jupiter was an amphibious one, the shipping was to be disguised as an Arctic convoy. The relationship between the two plans might need some research. Keeping it as simple as possible, I may go for Operation Jupiter (Norway) if I have time tomorrow. Thanks for your input everyone. Alansplodge (talk)
This will be a great topic for an article Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Medal for Humane Action[edit]

Is there a phaleristics expert in the house? The colours on the medal ribbon for the Medal for Humane Action don't seem to match those on the medal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Institute of Heraldry - Medal for Humane Action page also shows two different blue colours. The text clearly states "teal blue", which is a "a medium-saturated, blue-green color, similar to medium green and dark cyan" according to our article. However, all the photographs I can find on Google (see [6] [7] [8] [9]) show a sort of blue-grey colour. Who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been bold and corrected the images to be consistent, and more in line with the evidence. Used this image as a .mil reference source. The heraldry site seems to have used the simple gif-for-web definition of teal, probably in error. (Hohum @) 21:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
THnks Hohum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Assigning Task Forces[edit]

I hope I haven't made a mess of things. I've gong through the backlog of articles that needed a task force assigned and assigned what seemed like the appropriate task force. I should have asked long ago what was the appropriate task force for redirects and disambiguation pages. What should I have used? I'm happy to go back through the list I worked on and reassign if I assigned the wrong task force(s). Thank you.--Trilotat (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Old merger List of British military equipment of World War II[edit]

Hello all! If someone with some knowledge or interest in the topic could take a look at finally completing the merger of List of British military equipment of World War II and List of World War II weapons of the United Kingdom that would be very much appreciated! Happy editing!! Ajpolino (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if the rationale was different between the lists but both the List of World War II weapons of the United Kingdom and List of British military equipment of World War II include non-British equipment where as you would have thought the "British military equipment" would not include foreign stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
since there has been no serious discussion that I can see since tag applied, it looks like the merger suggestion has withered on the vine. Removing the tags would be a completion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there some intended difference between the articles? Pardon my ignorance, but it seems like those titles cover the same topic. Even if there has been no discussion in a long while, perhaps a merge is still in order? Ajpolino (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
OK I read "weapons of the United Kingdom" as any weapon used by the UK and "British military equipment" as British-produced equipment which is not the same which why the inclusion of American weapons in the British military equipment confused me but I would expect them in the "weapons of the United Kingdom". Whatever my confusion they need to have a clear inclusion criteria unless I am the only one with a dizzy brain. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)