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

class=setindex ?[edit]

Talk pages for ship indices are routinely tagged with {{WPMILHIST|class=DAB}}. This may give the impression that the articles are disambiguation pages. But they're not. WP:NOTDAB states, in bold, a set index article is not a disambiguation page. Do we need a parameter class=setindex? Stanning (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. "class=SIA"/"class=setindex" Ofcourse, it would be better if WPBANNERMETA had a "type=" parameter to set the type of page being flagged, since this is a pagetype and not a classtype classification. -- (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added support for set indices to {{WPMILHIST}}; the template will accept either "setindex" or "si" as the class name and react appropriately. Please test it out and let me know if anything isn't working as expected. Kirill [talk] 07:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I gave it a try at talk:HMS Ulysses and talk:USS Ulysses -- (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kirill: Many thanks for quick action - it works. Stanning (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Widespread sockpuppet disruption - Falklands War, Italian World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, and Malayan Campaign[edit]

The fol SPI case (now closed) highlights the existence of widespread sockpuppet disruption across a range of areas including the Falklands War, Italian related World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, Battle of Dunkirk, and the Malayan Campaign (especially the Battle of Singapore), and others - pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimSala/Archive. These accounts have been in use at various different times mostly in the last few years although some date back to 2010, indicating that much of this disruption is now unlikely to be able to be undone. Perhaps more disturbing is the likelihood of there being other accounts (and possibly new ones). The main accounts confirmed (and blocked) are listed below (there were also a number of stale users and IPs that couldn't be confirmed but were likely and have also be tagged but not listed below):

I hesitate to just undo all their edits (where that is even possible) as some appear to be helpful; however, given there is obviously several agendas being advanced here there are definite POV concerns as well. Is anyone interested in assisting to review the contributions of these (now blocked) editors and attempting to deal with any issues that become apparent? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at 100menonmars, I remember them, and they definitely crossed over into my area of expertise. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Me too, there seems to be some mischief on the Operation Compass page.Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Great work in uncovering this problem Anotherclown. The cleanup task is obviously now non-trivial... Are there any particular articles which you think should be priorities? Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Keith-264:, @Farawayman:, @Rich Farmbrough:, @GraemeLeggett: and @EnigmaMcmxc: - FYI I think some of these guys may have edited in areas which you have some knowledge in also. Any chance you might also be able to look over some of their edits too pls? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Also if editors working in these areas could also be on the look out for the reappearance of this editor (under a new name of cse) that would be appreciated. They have a fairly distinct style (as per the SPI) so should be fairly easy to spot unless they change their habits (obviously a distinct risk now due to the evidence presented at the SPI though I'd think). Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

List of articles affected[edit]

I think this is most of them. Some are far more affected than others (and some of the edits date back years so have probably been written over / changed over time) - Anyway I will attempt to prioritize them shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gee, you weren't joking about this person having an axe to grind. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this so far. I'm done for the evening now so will have to come back to this tomorrow. If others are interested in assisting, once you have checked / fixed an article pls mark it as done and I'll try and get to whats left. Unfortunately though some articles really look like the edits are so far ingrained that it may take an expert to review them. Not too many of them around either. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
While I have conversed with this editor, if memory serves, Operation Brevity is the only article that we crossed paths editing. His edits were verified and integrated into the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
With regard to articles dealing with the Italian war effort, such as the Italian-Greek War and North Africa, etc, there is a deeper malaise here. Perhaps certain editors are so frustrated by being blocked, they are resorting to these tactics. If you really want to get to the root of the problem, then perhaps a bit of soul-searching and asking the hard questions about what is wrong with many of the articles dealing with the Italian war effort. Until some hard questions are asked, the problem of sockpuppet disruption will not go away. AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I looked at one article, which is a mess anyway, and most of the sock edits had been reverted by ClueBot.
I realised when looking at Compass that I had copied a version into a sandbox, in the hope that the mass of trivia being added would stop and I could put it back. As for Annales' point, the Italians are often a bit anonymous in Anglophone writing, like the Canadians in Normandy but it's not easy to find decent sources in English that aren't extortionately expensive.... unless someone knows better?Keith-264 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The British, Kiwi, and Oz OH seem a sound starting point. I used them to ref the 70 Div article in regard to Tobruk and they seemed quite balanced and fair avoiding stereotypes and slander.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've got them but it's the IOH I want....Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, that would be a real boon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've taken a look at Invasion of Sicily and Battle of Kasserine Pass, and there has been substantial editing by 100menonmars, all of it glorifying the Italian contributions. What's the call on this stuff? GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this. At the very least the massive block quotes in the notes are excessive so I'd remove those in their entirety simply on that basis alone. (This seems to common for many of this editor and their sock's contributions, with lengthy quotes often detailing / highlighting quite minor episodes in an unencylopeadic manner.) Depending on the quality of the sourcing we might keep some of the other material (although I think Lulu is self published so maybe we might need to be careful keeping that too). Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm dealing with the Italian military formations. Just done the 17th. A strange thing about the blockquotes. They are screamingly out of synth with the information given in mainspace! I am increasingly leaving the blockquotes but rewriting the supporting mainspace narrative so they support what the sources actually report. Amazing. To me it just shows a sign of deep insecurity. Here, 3 hour stands are turned into stunning victories. Sorry, but that is just a halfway decent unit earning it's rations. Will crack on Irondome (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite Change[edit]

Hello everyone, I'm a communications guy at Lockheed Martin, and I just wanted to bring your attention to a small error about Lockheed Martin's SEWIP program (AN/SLQ-32C(V)6) for the Littoral Combat Ship on AN/SLQ-32_Electronic_Warfare_Suite#Future. The system used on USS Freedom (LCS-1) is a scaled version of Block 2, but it is not Block 3, which is not in production yet. The reference linked in the article can easily be misread to think it is the Block 3 system, but the contract for SEWIP Block 3 (which will be a future upgrade to Lockheed Martin's AN/SLQ-32C(V)6) was only just awarded. I would edit it myself, but I don't think you'd want a corporate guy mucking about in your WikiProject, which is hugely impressive in scope, btw. (GLesLM (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC))

Thankyou GLesLM for bringing this to our attention. We very much appreciate your input. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, thank you for your textbook-perfect adherence to Wikipedia's policy on this kind of thing (WP:COI). Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Danish battle[edit]

What are your thoughts on Draft:Battle of the Isefjorden? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Does WPMILHIST support "Class=draft" ? (thus categorizing and keeping track of MILHIST drafts) {{WPMILHIST|class=draft}} -- (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Not at the moment, but that's relatively easy to fix; I'll add it later today. Kirill [talk] 07:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've added support for drafts to {{WPMILHIST}}. Note that this will automatically assess any page in the draft namespace appropriately; there is no need to explicitly set the class parameter. Kirill [talk] 07:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a battle, though? Do we have another term for such entirely one-sided incidents? Manxruler (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
"Battle" seems reasonable, even in situations like this where one side was overwhelmingly defeated and the other side almost unscathed, such as Battle of Zanzibar. While a victory this one-sided was unusual between European powers, it arose fairly frequently during colonial and post-colonial campaigns where one side was much better armed than the other, and we still use the term "battle" on, for instance, Battle of the Shangani or Battle of SariwonMogism (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I see now that the Danes fired back, which I missed at first glance. Battle it is. Manxruler (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Having googled things, I can confirm that in Danish this incident is referred to as "Slaget i Isefjorden" or "Slaget på Isefjorden", meaning the Battle in/on Isefjorden. As Isefjorden is Danish for "the Isefjord", and our article on the fjord is called Isefjord, I think an article on this engagement should be called "Battle of the Isefjord".
On another note, before this article should be launched, it needs thorough copy-editing and many more inline citations. Right now there are far too few. Manxruler (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
My points: 1. The article should be called Battle of the Isefjord. 2. The draft needs copy-editing. 3. The draft needs many more in-line citations. There are loads of online references available, use them and preferably get hold of one of the Danish books on the subject. 4. The citations can't just be bare URLs like they are now. Manxruler (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Manxruler Re your point 1: One can't transfer Danish grammar to English. In English "the" is not used before proper names. "I am going to the city" is correct but "I am going to the Copenhagen" is wrong. We've had this same debate at the articles of various SAAB aircraft too (Gripen, Draken, etc) as Swedish has a similar construction. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dodger67: Okay. Although no-one in the Scandinavian language sphere would say that they were "I am going to the Copenhagen" (the -en ending of Copenhagen is not related to Danish grammar, as Copenhagen is not a Danish name, København, on the other hand, is), at least not to my knowledge (I'm Norwegian, and written Danish is very close to one of the versions of written Norwegian). Well, just "Battle of Isefjord" then? It would appear that the Danes call the fjord "Isefjord" too. Manxruler (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I just tagged a bunch of military draft articles with the banner, through a cursory trawl through DRAFTspace. See Category:Military history draft pages for the pages. (Q) are duplicate draft articles of articlespace pages eligible for deletion under db-same? I did not tag the dupes. There are probably many biographical articles in DRAFTspace that fall under MILHIST, but I didn't bother going through the bio articles. -- (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to get some sunlight over at melee. The article's notability is dubious. It seems to be more of a prose list of times people in history have used the word "melee", more than an article on a coherent military topic. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Clean-up Military Imposter BLPs[edit]

Hello everyone. I'm still working on a draft article about Military Imposters (what Americans call "Stolen Valor"), which I intend to go live with about June or so. In preparation for this, I was scouring around wikipedia to find related articles and information, and came across the following biographical ones. These all appear to be individuals accused or convicted of lying about military service, but there is nothing else notable about these people that I can see. And according to WP:PERP, they don't qualify because some have never been convicted of crimes and others have had no coverage in any reliable works since their convictions. Therefore I am trying to delete them. A previous attempt was made with PROD by other editors but the admins rejected those because they are supposed to be "uncontroversial" deletions, so looks like we have to do this the hard way. I only nominated two for AFD because I can't keep track of so many at the moment. Feel free to comment on deletion discussions or nominate the others if you can take care of monitoring them (please mark them here so there won't be overlap. Thanks, Legitimus (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

There's also this list page which seems questionable.

Thanks for taking this on. You might want to add the AfDs to the relevant deletion sorting list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. I agree that in most instances these articles will violate WP:ONEEVENT, even when there's detailed sourcing (some of the people who investigate imposters go to great lengths to detail this in written accounts). Given that military imposters often have significant health issues which explains their conduct, there should be a strong bias towards deleting articles on them on privacy grounds IMO. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect members of the project may be amused by this guide to "Walting With Confidence" (if they haven't seen it already). —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about George Dupre now. He is deceased, and not only was a book written about his bogus exploits, but he has been featured in subsequent books detailing his deception. This merely makes him more interesting than the others, but I would not oppose deletion anyway due him again being otherwise unremarkable. Alan Mcilwraith might be harder to get deleted because his deception involved Wikipedia itself and that action was even covered by the press. Previous attempts have been made to delete the article and were unsuccessful, but I'm hoping in the 8 years since then it will be a more rational conversation. Of note is that Mcilwraith seems to very clearly have mental health issues surrounding ego, recognition and attention. Keeping his article is in a way playing right into his hands.Legitimus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea[edit]

Is CUES notable enough to warrant an article given that PRC and USA are now using it?

Hcobb (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell from that link what CUES is. Found [ this] which says "CUES sets English as the standard language of communication, and establishes the radio frequencies that should be used between naval ships and aircraft, according to the draft seen by The Wall Street Journal". I'd say a test is, can you write an adequately sourced article which is more than a stub without just quoting the text of the protocol? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Budding off from U.S.–Soviet Incidents at Sea agreement for now. Hcobb (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 06:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

British Army "six-year rule"[edit]

Historian George Forty states that the 77th Division had "a special role of re-classifying men such as those who had returned from overseas under the six-year rule, returned POW, etc."

I have not been able to find any further information on this, anyone have any ideas what exactly this six-year rule is?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(Should note this is a complete guess). It sounds like this might be a rule stipulating (by later on in the war), that anyone who had been overseas for a total of six years should be automatically returned home. Just a thought to try and help. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I have come across references to a similar concept, but it was never defined as a 6 year rule. It comes out in references to priority demobilisation for servicemen who had been overseas since the outbreak of war, and in leave allocations. I think John Ellis The Sharp End and Col. Hickey's The Unforgettable army (an excellent one volume study of the 14th Army) mention it. Irondome (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Never heard of it and cannot find anything after a fairly determined Google session, sorry. The Ten Year Rule I know of, but I don't think this is relevant. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

PYTHON was the name given to the scheme started after VE Day that concerned repatriation and accumulated leave of regulars who had been serving overseas and also demobilization of overseas non-regulars, plus leave entitlement.. The favourite item of conversation in messes and canteens was one's PYTHON number. This number was based on a points system with points allowed for total length of service and the length of time one had been overseas. Points were also given for decorations awarded and for married men with children under 18. years of age.

LILOP was another scheme, it stood for Leave In Lieu Of Python. This was popular with regulars who were entitled to repatriation according to their Python number but who volunteered to be sent overseas again.

LIAP was a third scheme which was Leave In Addition to Python. I applied for LIAP when I was in the Arakan and had been 4 1/2 years overseas. I flew back to UK in a Dakota from Rangoon or perhaps Calcutta and landed at an RAF airfield in Somerset. I have no memories at all of this flight. I had 14 days leave and then I reported to the RE Depot Bn at Halifax. After about a week spent in drinking beer in pubs and chasing congenial nurses I boarded a troopship that arrived in Bombay three days after the Hiroshima bomb went off. Hurrah! - a free bottle of beer for all on board.Keith-264 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

For personnel in the Far East, Python was set at 3 years 8 months. On 8 June 1945, the Secretary of State for War reduced it to 3 years 4 months. Servicemen were repatriated without waiting for reinforcements to arrive to replace them, although due to the difficulties involved in transportation in the Far East, not everyone could be guaranteed a quick trip home. This had the effect of disrupting plans for Zipper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I remember reading references to these programs a few years ago, although i never found out more (until today). With these programs becoming active during '44, would it be reasonable to guess that is the role Forty was referring to for the 77th (which disbanded in September '44, and was replaced by a similar holding division)? This gives me something to search for, although my earlier brief searches found very little on the division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the role of the 77th and PYTHON and it's variants were two completely different schemes. User:Keith-264 who had actual experience of being involved (Respect Keith!} mentions above being merely reallocated to a normal functioning RE depot in Yorkshire. PYTHON is definitely mentioned explicitly in the sources I have mentioned above, especially with regard to the 14th Army in Burma and appears to have been a far more nuanced and large scheme than a mere holding Div could handle. I have no idea what Forty is referring to. I think researching the 77th would be a blind ally on this. Just a hunch. Irondome (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually the passage I added was pasted from another site, apologies for misleading. My military service was a youthful peccadillo of a somewhat inglorious 28 days in 1981. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
AHH! Sorry Keith, my fault, I should have followed the links instead of just plowing on! Duhh! Cheers mate. Simon aka Irondome (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that the way the schemes were soldiers with lengthy overseas service worked was that the soldiers were entitled to a lengthy period of home leave, but were then liable for further service. POWs could also be compelled to serve again. Units would have been needed to process these men after they returned to active duty and assess were they could best be used, especially given that both the British Army and British economy were very short of manpower and the soldiers' skills and health would have often have been quite different to when they were originally posted overseas, and this is a logical role to assign to the depot divisions. It might be worth seeing if the volumes of the British official history which discuss economics and the use of labour mention the topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Differences in naming convention[edit]

Hi, back in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles with the summary "Name comes before hull or pennant number or disambiguation. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming articles about military ships." It appears that such a convention applies chiefly to American and British ships, as those that serve in the Russian and Soviet Navies follow a different naming convention, with the name following the pennant number eg "K-141 Kursk". This convention appears to have been adopted by several other navies as well. Should the moves be kept as they are, or should they be reverted? Has there been a significant oversight on my part? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that for Soviet/Russian submarines, that " K-xxx" is a Pennant or Hull number - its more like an alternative name , with some subs only having a number. For Soviet/Russian SURFACE ships, the pennant number (as painted on the ship's side) would be unsuitable for use as a disambiguator anyway as they were noted as changing very frequently.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard[edit]

Hi all, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some very significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost‍ '​s 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I just voted - the procedure is certainly painless, and I learned a fair bit about the role of the Wikimedia Foundation and hot issues across different Wikimedia projects. Thanks for the note Ed. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem—thanks for voting! Perhaps after this election's (hopefully) high participation we'll all be listened to. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Tajura[edit]

Can someone take a look at this orphaned article? Is it worthy of its own article or can it be deleted/redirected somewhere? Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look? Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Korean question[edit]

Would Draft:US aerial bombardment of North Korea merit a separate article or be better suited for Korean_War#Aerial_warfare? Thanks for your help, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Couple of notes to consider:
  • I would tone down the language a little. It's too hyperbolic and conversational. "Leveled" the peninsula, "massive" hydro electric facility. The bombing did not in fact level the peninsula. There are still large mountainous areas. While it is technically literally a massive facility (as opposed to one constructed out of massless photons), massive is a euphemism for large. An encyclopedia should use the word, not the euphemism. Wording like this is sprinkled throughout.
  • It's absolutely ok to use hyperbolic language like "veritable mass productions of death", as long as they are quotes attributed to a WP:RS. The hyperbole should not be "said" by Wikipedia.
  • Take out statements of opinion that exceed the bare facts. "However, the American campaign quickly exceeded the strategic; US leaders intended on crushing North Koreans’ morale." Well, the thing is...that doesn't actually exceed strategic bombing. That is precisely what strategic bombing is. Demoralizing the enemy and inspiring public outcry to end hostilities is kindof the point.
  • This is also seen in "As such, they leveled non-strategic targets such as schools, hospitals, agricultural land, and later the dams that provided power and water to the country". All of these targets have strategic value if the strategy is to destroy infrastructure and morale, which again, is exactly the strategy.
  • Simply put (and this seems to be an overarching premise of the article, and should be excised), strategic bombing in Korea was not quintessentially or qualitatively different than strategic bombing in other wars. WWII was worse than WWI. Korea was worse than WWII. Vietnam was worse than Korea. What you are seeing here is the progression of technology. The basic nature of morale bombing (if it's you) or terror bombing (if it's the enemy), has been the same ever since the first blimp dropped hand grenades on London. We just got "better" at it.
  • Consider a name change to Strategic bombing during the Korean War. Aerial bombardment is a very 19th century term (see wording at the Hague Conference). The modern military term is Strategic Bombing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that you are not the author of this article. I will post my previous comment on the talk page for the draft. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

set indices and dpages[edit]

With the newly implemented class=setindex should some of the {{mil-unit-dis}} (ones that only lists military units) be converted to set indexes ? and pages such as Battle of Fallujah (ones that only list combat/military battles) -- then we could redlink battles missing articles, and units missing articles... I will note that that is how shiplists currently work, with redlinks to missing ship articles. -- (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there two "Wilhelm Brandt" tank warfare officers (Chaco War and WWII) or same person?[edit]

I wanted to work up a stub on Wilhelm Brandt, who was a tank commander for the Bolivian army during the Chaco War. But looking up that name, I'm finding a Wilhelm Brandt who wrote about armored warfare in the 1920s, and during/before WWII desiged Waffen SS camouflage. I'm unable to suss out whether in between those phases he was mucking around in Bolivia, or whether these are two different people of similar name who both happen to be involved with tanks. Any input? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: or @23 editor: this is a bit out of your normal topic area, but maybe you'll be able to help? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Not me, but maybe @MisterBee1966:. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry, I have no clue MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
They were one and the same person. The Germans had a military mission to Bolivia, which allowed them to play with tanks outside the Treaty of Versailles. Apparently he talks about his experiences in Bolivia in his books. [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Added some background data on Brandt to the article. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 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) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

removing disambiguators[edit]

FYI, a bunch of military units have been requested at WP:Requested moves to have their disambiguators removed speedily

  • 2nd Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 2nd Mounted Brigade
  • 4th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 3rd Mounted Brigade
  • 17th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 17th Mounted Brigade
  • 18th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 18th Mounted Brigade
  • 19th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 19th Mounted Brigade
  • 20th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 20th Mounted Brigade
  • 21st Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 21st Mounted Brigade

If this hasn't been already processed, they will show up in a listing at WP:RMTR from this [2] request -- (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This was done without reference to WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES. They were technically moved, but I believe that was done incorrectly. In some cases, there are Canadian formations with the same title, and in others, the formation actually had another name for the last two years of the war (often as a Cyclist Brigade). Not sure what the requester thought they were doing, but someone who is interested in British Home Army formations of WWI should probably check them all. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
For the units where a Canadian unit shares the same name, a new WP:RMTR can be requested to revert the speedy change on the basis of there being other units sharing the same name. (or someone could just press the move button) -- (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if you read the MILMOS, these should be at their last name, usually a Cyclist Brigade. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you didn't do mass technical moves when they might well be controversial. RM is the way to do it. That ensures the community has a good look at it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You'd need to ping the person who requested the technical moves for them to read that. -- (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what the requester thought they were doing
I requested the removal of the disambiguators in the honest belief that they were redundant. It has since been pointed out Talk:4th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) by @Peacemaker67: that this was a mistake and I accept this. I note the recommendations in the style guide WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces. I did not reasonably expect another 2nd, 4th, 17th, ... Mounted Brigade. A google search did not show up anything, though in fairness, I did not think to search for Canadian "4th Mounted Brigade".
As to renaming the articles to nth Cyclist Brigade - that has other issues that I am happy to discuss with Peacemaker67. Hamish59 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Input from project solicited for RM Construction battalion (disambiguation)[edit]

Member of this project are invited to participate in a requested move discussion that would benefit from this project's knowledge at: Talk:Construction battalion (disambiguation) --Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)