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

Opinions please on USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the Mark 37 torpedo[edit]

Repeated deletions of sourced content describing the torpedo, from the boat article. [1] [2] [3]. No real explanation, simply that "that's about the Mk37, not Triton".

I'm no expert on US torpedoes, but AIUI, the use of the Mk 37 on Triton is significant. This was a break with WWII practice and a move from air bubble-launched free-running turbine-driven gyro-controlled torpedoes in favour of ASW swim-out electric torpedoes using two-phase passive then acoustic homing, and for these to be used as the primary (in this case only) weapon. This is significant. It's so significant that it should be explained within one article, not by having to navigate across articles.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Your thoughts sound reasonable, but I don't see any attempt to discuss this on Talk:USS Triton (SSRN-586). Now that we are aware of the dispute, perhaps opening a new section there would be helpful in resolving this. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that it's a significant change, but why is it important to the Triton? She wasn't any sort of hunter-killer submarine, not at her gigantic size. So she's arguably one of the subs to which the change is least important. It should be discussed in some detail on the torpedo's article, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
That's the gist of my objection. The change is about the Mk 37, not about Triton. Yes, the swim-out tube is significant; IDK where that belongs, but my feeling is, it fits better with the Mk37 than Triton (absent its own page, or more detail at torpedo tube). Yes, the change to wakeless & homing is significant; that's not about Triton, either. So why insist on it being on Triton‍ '​s page? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. I've started a section for discussion...)
I raised this here to garner new eyeballs who weren't already watching the Triton page. I'm not the one advocating the change, so why can't Trekphiler put forward their case on Talk:?
Not a hunter-killer? Well after the radar role (or even during), just what else was she? (Which is something of a theme for Triton's career) This was a self-contained self-defence capability against other submarines, not an attack capability against surface ships. Hence the Mk 37. In the early '60s though, this was one of the US' most capable SSKs, despite the size. She carried a sonar fitment in excess of almost any other boat (a fleet largely of rebuilt WWII GUPPYs). The Soviets had noisy boats with poor sonar that would still have had trouble finding even Triton. If this "wasn't any sort of hunter-killer" (broadly true by original intent), then it's significant that she was armed with such a strongly ASW torpedo that was of no use against the terrifying Sverdlov threat (Was this a thing in the US? It paralysed the RN with fear for years). The Mk 37 description needs expansion to clarify its capabilities, not just trainspottering a dry description. For another thing, were they even the wire-guided model at this time?
To understand these issues and a real understanding of Triton requires description not only of Triton herself, but of the context in which she was built. That includes the role, the threat, the rest of the new nuclear fleet at this time, and the weaponry chosen. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to look, you'd notice I didn't delete ref to the FY56 building program, tho I should have. Your desire for "context" is outside the bounds of the ship's page & belongs, IDK, on the USN page, or somewhere.
As for what "real understanding requires", I maintain it doesn't require intimate details of the weapons she carried or the Navy building program; that's what the links are for, & why there are linked pages under them. Otherwise, we'd be adding definitions of torpedo & conning tower & who knows what; would you defend that?
By appearances, you've become attached to these adds. Maybe you need to let it go. And maybe you should have taken this to Triton‍‍ '​‍s talk page first, instead of whining about what I'm doing (or not doing). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
What "adds"? I'm not even trying to change anything here, you're the one knocking out blocks of stable, sourced content from a GA and your only reasoning is to start blaming other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My only reasoning? Clearly, you haven't bothered to read anything I've written, here, in the edit summaries, or on Triton‍ '​s talk page. Which somehow doesn't surprise me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As Trekphiler says, he was not responsible for that removal of content from that article. I was. I have long been convinced that that article, as with most articles here written by User:Marcd30319, is bulging with irrelevant details which should be at the linked articles. It's simply not how this encyclopedia works. Articles should focus on the point, not sketch in huge amounts of background. The links are here exactly so that people can with one click read about an associated subject. These articles have a very high degree of repetition. So concentrate your ire on me for that one, User:Andy Dingley, not Trekphiler. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Neither of these changes are good, because they remove context for why Triton was built, and why it took the form it did. WP articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not simply a Top Trumps list of which is biggest. Both of these aspects could bear improvement, but both should remain in principle.
The FY 56 construction was the first "mass production" of nuclear submarines as part of developing a fleet, rather than untried proofs of the propulsion concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Having been mentioned in, although not invited to, this discussion, I am the individual who is most responsible for upgrading this article above the cut-and-paste of public domain content lifted verbatim from the U.S. Navy's online Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Triton was a unique and historic ship, and this article required a great deal of research, effort, and detail to capture this uniqueness and historical importance within the context of its era. In fact, a WikiProject Ships Barnstar from TomStar81 was bestowed to me in 2010 for being the first person on the English Wikipedia to have successfully guided a nuclear power fast attack submarine article to A-class status. This was no small accomplishment. If find comments suggesting my contributions to Wikipedia as "bulging with irrelevant details" to be contrary to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, as well as being very unwelcoming and very unfortunate. As a senior technical writer with a degree in history and extensive private and public sector experience, proper content management is a worthwhile goal as well as constructive criticism. I do strongly caution against a "my way or the highway" approach taken by some as a mean of back-door ownership. This strikes me as being anti-encyclopedic. Marcd30319 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Great thanks Marc it's good you've said your piece. That was the reason I marked up your username when I brought this up. I thought this matter needs discussion. While you and I disgree (greatly) on style, no-one can fault the volume of work you've done on a subject that might otherwise have remained uncovered. I do remain annoyed with the way you present things, but in truth, I tend also to think that you deserve more barnstars than you have already. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a fundamental disconnect here where some people think articles should be self-contained and others disagree, thinking that readers should have to click through to other articles. Both approaches can find support in WP:PERFECT, so can we agree to leave this article alone and work on others that are lacking key information? You're fighting the wrong battle, folks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you also Ed. You're reminding me of the contempt I feel for people who spend all their time arguing on talkpages rather than writing stuff. Your words have a great deal of truth in them. I will pursue this matter no further. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well said, ED17! And many thanks to Buckshot06, too!Marcd30319 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Buckshot06 and Marcd30319. You both do great work, and I'm glad to see that we can all walk away intact. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ...and Trekphiler blanks it all again... 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"...and Trekphiler blanks it all again..." I rv'd a restoration I maintain is unwarranted. I don't appreciate accusations of edit warring over one lousy edit, just because you happen not to like it. And you're so certain of your righteousness, & my guilt for everything wrong with the page, you can't even be bothered to look at the history. So what else is new? You've proven to be irrational about any edit I've made before, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:32 & 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Trekphiler's last reversion because a consensus had been reached (see ed17 above) to leave this article alone and to work on other articles that lack key information. In fact, I expressly re-wrote the reverted text to enhance its contextual relevance to the article. I hope we can move on as this article has hitherto been remarkable stable article. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

California Air National Guard part of the U.S. military?[edit]

Chuck Poochigian served the California Air National Guard. Does that mean he can still apply for the American military personnel of Armenian descent category? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The CA ANG is part of the United States Air Force, so yes, he can. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 28/09/15[edit]

See Draft:Kruchkov, Kozma Firsovich. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to process a Draft submission but should someone consider doing so, I note 1) grammar is a mess, looks to be translated without sufficient knowledge of English idiom, a google search through up the name "Kuzma Kryuchkov" as a different transliteration which appears in a fair number of google book listings. He does seem have been received as a bit of a literal poster boy for the cause. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

SS William Grayson[edit]

I just stumbled over this convoy ship article, that could use some cleanup, categories, etc. from a knowledgeable author. I did some minor cleanups, but more work could probably be done. Also, are lengthy convoy lists usually included in such articles? Is the article title OK? (pretty obvious by now, that I have no idea about that topic ;) ) GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm very dubious every single one of the 2710 Liberty ships needs a page. :) That said, if this one is to survive, shouldn't it have an italic pagetitle? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blockade runner?[edit]

Judging by this edit, somebody who had a block slapped on has evaded it again... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for posting it here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Beats edit warring with him. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced changes[edit]

Would someone please consider whether the unsourced changes by Special:Contributions/ in several articles are reasonable. Their edit at Kirov-class battlecruiser was reverted as unsourced, and I'm wondering if all should be rolled back. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's vandalism, not just "unsourced". Triple the number of SA-N-4s & AK-630s? 12 times as many 130mm? (I'm embarrassed I didn't rv & warn immediately...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/ also a problem. Any more in a similar IP range, I wonder? Hamish59 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I've slapped vandal warnings on the latter for the Jaguar & Braunschweig edtis. I suppose there's no way to examine the edits in an IP range? And judging by the contribs, the latter should just be blocked for doing nothing but vandalizing. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Check out these throwaway accounts, making the same kinds of edits to the same pages: 1 and 2 - might be worth a trip to SPI to see if there are other sleepers out there. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I had to revert some edits on AFVs and rifles by our first contender, but that takes care of every edit that he's made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Midway[edit]

Battle of Midway is currently undergoing a FARC. A small group of volunteers has fixed up all the bits needing citations, clarifications and page numbers. I also wound up correcting some errors. It's one of the most written about naval battles of all time, so if some people could go over it and give it another look, that would be most appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Naval History and Heritage Command" in EL-section is dead since August 2015 (did they move their site?). An archive would be available here, if no other active URL is available. ("Midway Chronology 2" shows a timeout, but that may be temporary). GermanJoe (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: They changed literally their entire site, left no redirects, and as far as I can tell got rid of many pages. My entreaties to them went unanswered. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
However, that specific link is available without the web archive for me: [4] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed with the new link, thanks. Looks like only the link structure has slightly changed for this specific URL. GermanJoe (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, it's not exactly the same here—apologies. The DANFS entries, for instance, got entirely new URLs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor or owner?[edit]

This is about the article M19 Tank Transporter. I can not do "diffs", so it is long. I doubt it will matter.

At 13:52, 17 March 2014 I began editing an article, adding two sources. At 18:19 11 June 2014 I posted a first level source. At 06:45, 1 December 2014 I changed a first level source, posted by another person, which I was aware of and had been using.

As of 23:31, 10 September 2015 version I had posted three published sources, one first level source, and regularly used another first level source. At 17:37, 18 March 2014 I posted a section on the talk questioning some info already posted.

At 00:56, 11 September 2015 a different editor, who had not been to the article in FIVE YEARS, restored text that I had deleted, including inaccurate info that I had questioned 4 months earlier, with no source and the edit summary “restor deleted info”,

At 12:34, 11 September 2015 I specifically posted: ”This is not vandalism, I am working here and have at least 5 references.” At 22:16, 11 September 2015 I explained very carefully the title of the article, and the first level source of the vehicle’s name. At 12 September 2015 I posted: “I wanted to make it US clear that it was not a semi.”

At 20:34, 12 September 2015 a different editor posted: “changed "truck-tractor" to "tractor trailer" based on it being a semi-trailer tractor & trailer combo.” At 02:20, 13 September 2015 I posted “the M20 is not a semi-tractor, it carries no load, and pulls a full trailer with a pintle hitch"

At 12:24, 13 September 2015 a different editor posted: “Since it's the tractor & not the combo being described in the infobox, its weight (as opposed to its towing capacity) is the issue, isn't it?”. …On "semi" as opposed to anything else, I'll confess ignorance & let it lie.” At that time I had already added an infobox on the trailer and repeatedly explained the names of the article and the vehicle.

At 13:16, 11 September 2015 the article was changed by a different editor with the summary: “correct evident confusion btw vehicle weight & trailer capacity”. The confusion was not by me, but by the different editor.

This stuff just kept going on. Anybody who wades through the talk page can see that I continued to add accurate, sourced information, and was interfered with at every edit. I tried to be polite, but was clearly upset.

At 21:24, 13 September 2015, I posted on this page: “I would appreciate it if”. No response by anybody. At 02:57, 16 September 2015: “I AM HAVING INFORMATION CHANGED AND DELETED WHILE I AM EDITING”. A different editor answered: “It can happen”. So I flipped out and called a different editor a Liar.

As I understand it, simple seniority does not mean that an editor has any authority to change accurate and sourced edits on their own opinion, with no consensus. I hope a different editor, who is currently involved in a heated discussion about deleting info without a consensus at a different article, might step back, think about his recent actions, and possibly adjust his actions. Sammy D III (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at the relevant talk page. I am seeing nothing particularly heavy. The conversations seems constructive and the tone appears colleagial. I would just relax on this. Terms like "seniority" and "authority" have no meaning here. Colleagues will edit simultaneously while your work. It is a fact of WP life. I would suggest you read WP:OWN. I would also suggest you attempt to communicate clearly your editing intentions on the Talk page before you make them, in order to gain consensus. Technical manuals are Wikipedia: Primary sources so I would be careful how you deploy them. WP:SOURCES may help. I suspect you have gathered info from material on the Lone Sentry site. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
A US Army technical manual on a US Army vehicle is not a good source? That is where much of my information comes from. Which of the three published sources is not reliable? Other than my Hall-Scott thing, only one post has been made on that talk page since 2008. Which of my edits was inaccurate or not sourced? What source has a different editor used? I am sorry, but I believe my good faith, well-sourced edits should not be removed without any reason or discussion. Asking for a consensus where nobody goes, where previous comments have not been addressed, seems unrealistic. Sammy D III (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus is a keystone of the entire project Sammy. Just because an article appears to be unvisited does not mean it is not on colleague's watchlists. It is always good form to start a discussion on a talkpage, even though it appears to be just tumbleweed city. Other editors may very well be watching. Please read the links I have provided. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
First, thank you for talking to me. I understand consensus. Wikiuser and I have made countless edits to that article without a consensus, none have ever been commented on. My Hall-Scott question has been there, unanswered, for months. There has not been any discussion on that page for years. If you had to wait for a consensus to make any edit, much of Wikipedia would still be in 2008. Should I delete every edit I have ever done?
My title isn't clear, I wasn't talking about one article, but Wikipedia in general. Parts of Triton have been deleted without consensus. This seems like a double standard. Some can delete with only their opinion, while others cannot post sourced content without having a previous consensus where nobody is. Deleted with no discussion by someone who has no source, no reason, and acknowledges his ignorance of the subject? If a couple of informed editors reached a consensus, of course, but that was not the case. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at the diffs on the M19 page, & don't see anything major or egregious. It's mostly formatting (unpiping something like beam axles). As for the rest, I'm seeing an over-sensitivity from Sammy D III which I've gotten a sense of from the very start. Since I was apparently the editor who trampled him in the edit conflict (& IDK how to avoid those...), I'll take the blame for that one. As for the looks like Sammy D wants to say I'm some kind of rogue. That, I object to. I also object to the implication I'm too stupid to know what's right & wrong. I maintain on Triton & this page, if consensus is I should be rv'd, so be it. I stand by my edits on both pages. I invite anyone to examine them & call me wrong. If anybody has a problem with "ownership", it's not me. And if Sammy D has a problem with how the M19 page was, or is, being edited by me, I suggest he should have raised it there, or with me, first, rather than bring it here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This looks like a dispute between editors, there are other far more appropriate venues. No-one here has the power to do anything about this (unless they are admins themselves). 3O might be an option? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the page but as a point of information, we can check if a dormant page is being watched by clicking on "page information" in the toolbox down the left margin of the page. Click on and under "basic information" there is Number of page watchers. So although no-one has edited since 2006 say, unless there are no watchers, people will still get information of new edits in their watchlist, which may prompt them to revisit. It can be a bit of a surprise when you write on a dormant page and half-a-dozen editors appear out of nowhere. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections Conclude[edit]

Our coordinator elections have officially concluded, with the results as follows:

  • Sturmvogel 66 34
  • AustralianRupert 30
  • Peacemaker67 28
  • Hawkeye7 26
  • TomStar81 26
  • Dank 25
  • Anotherclown 23
  • Auntieruth55 23
  • Nikkimaria 22
  • MisterBee1966 21

Congratulations to everyone who made the cut, and thanks to everyone who turned out to !vote! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Damn! I missed the bloody vote. The results look good however. Congrats to all! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everyone, cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to all of you, and best of luck with your duties in the coming year. It looks like we've got another great team. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross[edit]

Does it confer inherent notability? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Preiß. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Highest German award of WWII, I'd say so. I would consider the Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds to effectively be multiple awards. MisterBee1966? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
We have a preexisting ruling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Brommann. The award is mentioned at WP:SOLDIER and {{Highest gallantry awards}}. Nevertheless a footnote states "Some awards, such as the Légion d'Honneur, are/were bestowed in different grades and/or have civil and military versions. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. (Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades)" points to a discussion dating back to 2011. Regarding the Knight's Cross, the award was presented to "recognise extreme battlefield bravery or outstanding military leadership". Until his death, Hitler personally looked into and decided on every nomination. This was true for every grade of the award. Further, the award is obsolete today and the group of recipients is therefore finite. Comparing the award to other nation's awards is comparing apples and oranges. If a comparison is made, it should be based on published sources made by historians and not us Wikipedia editors. Otherwise we run the risk of falling into the WP:OWN trap. Lastly, I prefer Wikipedia to be as inclusive as possible. Having said that, yes I do consider that the Knight's Cross established notability. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not unsympathetic to that view, which is why I didn't actually vote for deletion. But I think it does need discussion as to why according to WP:SOLDIER over 7,000 Germans are inherently notable for being decorated in that war as against far fewer Britons (just to take one national example with which I'm especially familiar). Of course, it's more than just the 181 Victoria Cross winners. It's also the George Cross and Empire Gallantry Medal winners, the winners of bars to the DSO, DCM, CGM and GM, and the senior officers awarded the CBE or higher grades of orders of chivalry, all of whom would be considered inherently notable under WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO and all of which would probably equate to the Knight's Cross in German terms (along with lower awards). But I can guarantee that will still add up to far fewer than 7,321, even if all the Commonwealth awards are taken into consideration as well. So in AfD we are arguing, based on WP:SOLDIER, "no, he's not notable because he only received the DCM [a second-level award]" but "yes, he is notable because he received the Knight's Cross", despite the fact they were in actual fact quite probably awarded for very similar actions. This is illogical and creates a systemic bias in favour of one nation compared to others simply because of the difference in the way their award systems were structured. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Are military awards (or civil awards for that matter) notable at all? It's a matter of opinion and I think not, just as I don't refer to public distinctions of rank like "Sir" or "Lord". If other people put them in so General Bufton Tufton is amended to Sir Bufton Tufton, OK but I want no part of it. Other people sometimes add lists of VC winners to an essay about a battle as well and I will leave it there and also cite it from the OH if needed to conform with Wiki citation practice but that's as far as my interest goes. Like the notable people criterion people sometimes add, I think it's either not encyclopaedic or an invidious distinction among the people who were there. Bearing in mind that much writing about foreign armies is in foreign languages, we're usually in an awkward position in even referring to medals, because we often can't include cited material about other countries'. That's my two penn'orth; regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as 'inherent notability' (at least in theory, I acknowledge that in practice, it is a shortcut: why say "Look at [all these sources on the subject]" when you can say "'inherently notable' due to X"). Remember that SOLDIER is an essay (not a policy or a guideline) is only intended as a yardstick of when a subject may be notable, by listing cases or criteria where a subject is likely to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject". Getting the highest military award is a pretty good approximation for "a lot of people have written about the subject", but does not provide 'inherent notability' if there are few to no sources on the subject (Having not looked at the article or the deletion discussion, I would be looking for something additional to "appears in lists/books on Iron Cross recipients). Conversely, receiving a lower-tier award does not 'ban' a subject from having an article if they have a multitude of sources backing up their exploits. -- saberwyn 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Saberwyn is correct. The question we should be asking is is there likely to be enough published material on ever Knight's Cross recipient to sustain an article?. I know there is for Victoria Cross recipients; there have been multiple books published with the stories of the soldiers (some of them are sat on my shelf) and several of them have published books of their own. From what I've seen of Medal of Honor recipients, there is a similar wealth of potential source material, such that a reasonable biography of each soldier can be compiled. If that's true for Knight's Cross recipients (obviously much of the source material is likely to be in German, but that doesn't affect its reliability), then we probably should have an article about each recipient; if it's not, then we should evaluate each recipient on a case-by-case basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Saberwyn is correct, I agree. I would, however, point out that a Knight's Cross recipient, even of low rank, often meets WP:GNG, which is the standard for notability. SOLDIER provides an indication, GNG confirms one way or the other. A good example is Heinz Heuer, an Oberfeldwebel (a staff sergeant or similar) of Feldgendarmerie (military police). On face value, you would have thought he was way short of notable by rank, but his receipt of the Knight's Cross and status as the only military police recipient was more than enough to meet GNG. There are plenty of books in English and German with more than basic details about a large proportion of Knight's Cross recipients. My view would be that SOLDIER indicates they probably have enough and detailed enough sources, but the person creating (or saving) the article needs to make that case by producing sources. BTW, due to the "number of missions/kills" approach taken for awards of both the Knight's Cross and DFC, my view is that the Commonwealth award of DFC is equivalent to the Knight's Cross, that puts the numbers in much more similar territory. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 01/10/15[edit]

See Draft:Jemima Warner. Thank you as always, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Focus, I've read Draft:Jemima Warner. I suggest a couple of things:
  1. Put your citations in the draft itself, not simply at the end of it. You've done this for a few, but not all of your paragraphs. Where you obtained your information for a particular statement is/might be important, especially if someone wants to find it.
  2. There should be a Military Person box on this. you can find these on Infoboxes
  3. The lead paragraph could be a bit longer, a bit more detailed.
  4. the Legacy section uses some "unencyclopedic" words
  5. One of your sources actually says the Rebecca Grief, not Jemima Warner, was the first of the casualties. This is the same one that says Jemima married again. I'd be interested in why this is discounted, and your other sources are considered "right".

It was actually not unusual for women to accompany their husbands in the military. Holly Mayer's book, Belonging to the Army documents the vast train of men and woman that accompanied the early modern army. auntieruth (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ANZAC War Memorial move discussion[edit]

Recently ANZAC War Memorial was cut & pasted here to the Anzac Memorial by a new editor A Martin (talk · contribs), who appears to have some connection with the memorial. This was reverted, and a discussion on the issue has been started here.

Prior to the move, A Martin (among other modifications) changed all mentions of "ANZAC" to "Anzac" here. With the summary:

"ANZAC corrected to Anzac", the previous summary was:
"Correction of errors based on consultation with Brad Manera, Anzac Memorial Head Curator. Addition of information about upcoming Anzac Memorial Centenary Project."

Back in February another new editor Aliakhim (talk · contribs) changed all mentions of "ANZAC War Memorial" to "ANZAC Memorial" i.e. removed all appearances of "War" from the name text, here. With the summary:

"The official name of this building is the ANZAC Memorial, not ANZAC War Memorial. It is a memorial to the men, or 'Anzacs' of the first AIF, not the war more generally."

Thus the text has changed from "ANZAC War Memorial" to "Anzac Memorial", just this year, while the page name has been "ANZAC War Memorial" since 07:30, 31 August 2004‎ when the page was created, over 11 years.
♦ Just mentioning this here for input from interested parties. For my part, I think It has always been commonly referred to as the "ANZAC War Memorial", ANZAC being an acronym. The Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) seems to agree with me, at least on one page.[5]. 220 of Borg 14:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

wikibabble: Person data is deprecated (translation: the person data template is no longer to be used)[edit]

Ok, so an editor and I have been going back and forth on the person data for Alexander Henning von Kleist (the nephew, not the field marshal). He keeps deleting it, saying it's deprecated, which means nothing to me. Apparently there was a massive discussion about this, and the template of person data is no longer needed or wanted. Would have been nice to know. Mr. B, did you know this? You write a lot of biographies too. Anyway, I waded through the the argument from last May in the Village Pump, and as far as I can tell, Wikipedia is part way through implementing it, but obviously not all the notifications telling us NOT to use it have gone out. Anyway, apparently we are to stop. So those of us writing/editing bios should take not. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Specific input for article that was at A-class review[edit]

AustralianRupert previously gave a lot of helpful comments from A-class review at Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States.

I think the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States still has some major issues = it reads more like a manual or guide and not encyclopedic, doesn't read like a descriptive encyclopedic article.

And I think the issues AustralianRupert already mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States of:


I think these above issues are still the most obvious glaring areas where there could be significant improvements made.

Maybe someone from WP:MILHIST could leave some more specific comments about that, at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1 ?

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Would be helpful if some WP:MILHIST experienced editors could look into above, please? — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

HMS Nonsuch (D107)[edit]

Just discovered the article HMS Nonsuch (D107). It is very clearly just a copy-paste job (without attribution) from the article Type 1936A-class destroyer. What should be done? I don't think this should be kept, and when an article is written on that ship, it should probably be at German destroyer Z38. Manxruler (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was a new-to-Wikipedia test edit at a first article. The user has no other edits. CSD A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". — Maile (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Who should do that admin work, then? Manxruler (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Nonsuch (D107) is the discussion page. Add your comments there, and just let it go through the process. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

infobox service record[edit]

Service record

V Corps Observation Group
Western Front, France: 12 June-11 November 1918[1]

  • Sorties: 417
  • Combat missions: 279
  • Killed: 3
  • Wounded: 5
  • Missing: 1
  • Aircraft lost: 5 [2]
  • Enemy Aircraft shot down: 3[3]
  • Enemy Balloons shot down: 0[3]
  • Total Enemy Aircraft Destroyed: 3[3]
Service record
  • V Corps Observation Group
    Western Front, France: 12 June-11 November 1918[4]
    • Sorties: 417
    • Combat missions: 279
    • Killed: 3
    • Wounded: 5
    • Missing: 1
    • Aircraft lost: 5 [2]
  • Enemy Aircraft shot down: 3[3]
  • Enemy Balloons shot down: 0[3]
  • Total Enemy Aircraft Destroyed: 3[3]


  1. ^ Series "H", Section "O", Volume 29, Weekly Statistical Reports of Air Service Activities, October 1918-May 1919. Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, 1917–1919, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Gorrell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d e f Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, Series M, Volume 38, Compilation of Confirmed Victories and Losses of the AEF Air Service as of May 26, 1919
  4. ^ Series "H", Section "O", Volume 29, Weekly Statistical Reports of Air Service Activities, October 1918-May 1919. Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, 1917–1919, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

{{Infobox service record}} has a ship mode and a non-ship mode. The parameter |is_ship=yes forces the template to use <td>...</td> instead of <th>...</th> for the line-item headings. I have just implemented a change to ship infoboxen that allows generic unordered lists to render without the bullet points. The reasons for this are described at WT:SHIPS.

I have tweaked {{infobox service record/sandbox}} so that it has two sections: a ships section and a non-ships section. I don't think that I've broken anything as can be seen in the sandbox rendering at top of this discussion. The second version of that (with tweaks) is rendered in a ship infobox with |is_ship=yes (from 99th Aero Squadron).

It is my intention to update the live version of {{infobox service record}} from the sandbox. Before I do so, are there questions? Comments?

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Where's the archive for[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests please? Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no archive for the page other than the page history itself, since requests are removed once they've been addressed. Kirill [talk] 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)