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

Aircraft GAN needing attention[edit]

G'day all, Rogožarski IK-3 is a Yugoslav aircraft article that has been in the GA queue since December last year. Any aircraft aficionados who would like to have a look would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft isn't exactly my specialty, but I'll try to clear the article from the backlog. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 15:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ask on the Aircraft project page (WT:Air) also. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The Review has been underway for a few days now, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER and WW2 Knight's Cross holders[edit]

I often view the Fringe Theories noticeboard and I saw something about Knight's Cross holders, which is being discussed here: [1]. The discussion focuses on WP:SOLDIER and the deletion of a number of articles about Knight's Cross holders (Ritterkreuztraeger, RKT) has been justified by the argument that the Knight's Cross was not necessarily the "highest award for valor" mentioned in WP:SOLDIER. There is a legitimate case (Peter Arent) of a person who was never awarded the RK. The other cases appear to be ones where removal of one or two specific sources as "unreliable" results in an apparent absence of sources supporting the RK award. I noted that new RKTs were listed in German daily newspapers, often on the front pages. Newspapers even mentioned when an RKT was going to be present at a public event.

I do not like the way old essays and "what Wikipedia is not" guidelines are used; they were written for a time when, I guess, Wikipedia was at real risk of becoming a repository for random facts about Star Trek and Pokemon. The spirit of WP:SOLDIER appears to be "you can't create an article about your soldier relative," and the only statement about a non-notable soldier is precisely that: one who can only be traced with genealogical documents. Now we are at a point where most of the extremely important articles exist and are in need of improvement, and new articles must be drawn from a pool of less notable subjects that are nevertheless notable.

It's interesting that searching for the subjects of the deleted articles (like Alois Kalss) locates a) evidence that the individual existed and was a RKT, b) mirrors of deleted articles from Wikipedia, and c) articles on right-wing wikis. Not allowing the article to exist on English Wikipedia contributes to the illusion of bias in this encyclopedia. And it unfairly creates a higher standard for German soldiers than for American and British (but not Russian) ones, in that multiple secondary sources (read: Google-searchable books in English) can be called for in order to satisfy WP:SOLDIER and the equally unrealistic WP:GNG. (I've also patrolled new articles fairly often, and lots of utterly un-notable ones get created, while nomination for deletion seems to require an article running afoul of an editor willing to nominate.)

So, was this what the authors of WP:SOLDIER had in mind? I don't think it was... Roches (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that accepting Knight's Cross holders as inherently notable actually creates a lower standard of notability for German soldiers than for British or American soldiers, since the Knight's Cross was often awarded for actions that would have resulted in a second-level decoration in Britain or the USA as opposed to the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor (if you read the circumstances, many of these men would have clearly received a DSO or DCM in Britain, not a VC - the ubiquitous Knight's Cross received by so many U-boat captains being a perfect case in point). That's why so many more were awarded. This is the problem with regarding recipients of a country's "highest" decoration as inherently notable; it favours countries that do not have a defined three-level decoration system as Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA do. Most countries, in fact, do not (hence the debate we have had as to whether the Legion d'honneur is France's highest decoration; it is and it isn't!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It would probably be better to have this conversation in one place rather than several at the same time. I suggest there are more participants already engaged over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), so it should proceed there. Once that discussion has closed, we can look at any consequential amendments to SOLDIER. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Since WP:SOLDIER is at the center of this, and this is the talk page for that essay, I wanted to describe the issue here. This is also not the only time I've seen discussions based on WP:SOLDIER, so the scope is broader than just Knight's Cross holder.
I won't add anything further, however. Roches (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Roches made a point that seems to have been missed - that about recipients receiving coverage in daily newspapers. There is a significant bias towards British military officers simply because their obituary makes the Telegraph. I have seen Majors with an MC survive AfD just because of getting a Telegraph obituary published. Why can't German newspapers be given the same level of credibility that the Telegraph enjoys? Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If someone has an obituary in a major national newspaper then of course they should be considered notable, no matter what nationality they are. However, that's not really the issue here. The issue is whether Knight's Cross holders should be considered inherently notable just because they won the Knight's Cross. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

French Foreign Legion[edit]

Could someone have a look at History of the French Foreign Legion? It is mildly bizarre in that it is referred to in French Foreign Legion as the main article on history of the unit but frequently lacks the detail that that article has. These issues were noted by Ian Rosein 2010 but there seems to have been no improvement.Monstrelet (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Passchendaele Suggestion[edit]

Template:Campaignbox Passchendaele Does anyone object to me altering the title of the campaignbox to The Flanders Offensive 1917 so that the contents can be labelled The Battle of Messines and The Battles of Ypres (with or without ", 1917")? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead, does anyone know why the changes show on some article pages and not others; have I missed something? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
it's a function of the way templates are transcluded, the old template will be stored in the cache. A WP:Purge or null edit to the articles should do the trick, I think - Dumelow (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that's done it, thanks very much. Keith-264 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Over the top categorisation[edit]

I have just removed Category:Military units and formations of the United Kingdom in the War in Afghanistan (2001–14) from the No. 27 Squadron RAF article as clearly adding a campaign category for military units with nearly 100 years of history doesnt add any value and just creates loads of clutter. There are other military units in the category with multiple campaign histories but not really my area so I though I would raise it here before this categorisation spreads to other wars and campaigns, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure anybody is interested in stopping this category creep, this week we have category for every location that a unit was base at Category:Military units and formations in Aden in World War II which for some units could overwhelm the article and add little value. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of "PCU" in bold title of future vessel articles[edit]

The lead sentence for the USS Gerald R. Ford article currently uses PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) as the bold title for the article. "PCU" refers to a "pre-commissioning unit" but is not part of the name of the vessel, which is currently Gerald R. Ford and will be USS Gerald R. Ford upon commissioning. The Naval History and Heritage Command clearly explains the use of prefixes in U.S. Navy vessel names over the past several decades:

The prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix.

Thus "PCU" Is not an actual part of the vessel's name. I cannot find a single reliable source to suggest that "PCU" should be included in the ship's name. The Navy itself uses "pre-commissioning unit" as a descriptor, rather than as part of the ship title. It's not even consistently capitalized when the Navy uses it:

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (NNS) -- Sixty new crew members checked aboard pre-commissioning unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), April 30, joining the first of the newest class of aircraft carrier.

And the subject of the article on the Gerald R. Ford is the vessel which will be known as USS Gerald R. Ford. There are a number of other pages I've worked on which use this convention without issue (see USS Manchester and the other not-yet-commissioned littoral combat ships for examples). The Manchester article currently uses future tense phrasing to line up the bolded article title with the current vessel status:

USS Manchester (LCS-14) will be an Independence-class littoral combat ship [...]

Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, the title of the article (which is "USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)" should be used and bolded. Thus, the bolded title should be either USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (going by the page title) or Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (going by the vessel's current name), and the use of "PCU" in the bold ship title is inappropriate.

However, I was reverted when I removed "PCU", and told to seek consensus here. I'm certainly against adding "PCU" to the bold title on other pages where it's not already added, and I don't see why it should be included in the bolded title for the Gerald R. Ford page when doing so violates MOS:BOLDTITLE. If people insist on keeping the description of the ship as a pre-commissioning unit, then the lead-in could be phrased as:

The pre-commissioning unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is [...]

I would accept this as a matter of lead paragraph phrasing, since it does not violate MOS:BOLDTITLE or falsely imply that "PCU" is part of the ship name. However, regardless of how the article is phrased, PCU should not be bolded. Please let me know whether you disagree with this, and if so, why. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and would be surprised if calling new ships "pre-commissioning unit X" is in line with WP:COMMONNAME given that news stories and other works written for a non-specialist audience tend to use either the ship name, or preemptively add the "USS" or similar. The Royal Australian Navy calls its ships NUSHIP X before they are commissioned (Eg, NUSHIP Canberra became HMAS Canberra), but I've never seen this terminology used by non-government writers. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick-D, for pointing out the WP:COMMONNAME issue, which is a concern. I've discovered that "PCU" is being used in a few places on Wikipedia in ways that imply "PCU" is part of the official or common name for pre-commissioned vessels. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Llammakey (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - I think there's a tendency among some of our edits to treat articles like they're part of the USNpedia instead of an encyclopedia written for a general audience. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth I agree, bolding it implies that it is part of the proper or common name rather than it's current temporary status/designation and neither is it needed for disambiguation. Gecko G (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Willy Albrecht[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Willy Albrecht has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subjects fails WP:SOLDIER per article text: "No evidence of the award can be found in the German Federal Archives. Albrecht's case was never processed by the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR). It is incomprehensible what evidence exists and who accepted him as a Knight's Cross recipient." The subject does not have a German wiki article. No significant coverage in RS can be found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

American military categories by state also by century[edit]

Please see my proposals to rename Category:Military personnel from Connecticut etc: also to have American military personnel by century categories eg Category:20th-century American military personnel; to match Category:20th-century French military personnel etc, and so that the category Category:American military personnel of the Korean War is no longer a subcategory of Category:20th-century United States government officials. Likewise for other centuries. Hugo999 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported removal of information[edit]

Please see Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm) this is just one example for many removals from the lists of KC recipients. The removal is not supported by the sources and I wonder if the removal is justifiable or if this is research? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nazi war machine[edit]

Nazi war machine, currently a redirect to Category:Military of Nazi Germany, has been nominated at RfD and members of this project are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 25#Nazi war machine. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Historic spelling of ranks[edit]

A slight dispute has arisen over James Whiteside McCay. McCay, who died in 1930, was an Australian officer who held the rank of Lieutenant-General. At the time this rank (as with other similar ranks such as Major-General and Lieutenant-Colonel that use a modifier to lower the main rank) was always spelled in British and Commonwealth English with a hyphen, and indeed was until relatively recently. I therefore altered his rank to the spelling with the hyphen. Another editor has altered it back with the argument that the article is written in Australian English, and Australia now does not use the hyphen in such ranks (neither, incidentally, does Britain). I would argue that since the rank was spelled with a hyphen at the time it should be spelled with a hyphen on Wikipedia, as his rank was actually Lieutenant-General and not Lieutenant General. Anything else would be revisionism. A minor point, but opinions would be welcome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur, modern illiteratisms should be deprecated. Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, having had a similar issue in the past regarding "Sergeant" and "Serjeant", that the spelling at the time the subject held the rank is the most appropriate. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
We should use what is used in the majority of sources used in the article. Bean, for example, uses Lieutenant-General. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Wilde Sau (Luftwaffe tactic)[edit]

Came across the above article, which is largely uncited and tagged refimprove since 2008. I'm not sure if this is fact or not. I am wondering if someone more knowledgeable would be interested in having a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A simple Google Books search (here) would have shown that it was the name of a Luftwaffe tactic developed by the chap who is credited with it in the article. I'm sure there is more than enough there to write a comprehensive article and closely cited article on it, without resorting to Kurowski. Why don't you give it a whirl? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well-documented in many places, actually. Intothatdarkness 17:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Egger[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Paul Egger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG & SOLDIER; pls see Talk:Paul_Egger#Notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Siege of San Sebastian print[edit]

If anyone here has any knowledge of writing about Napoleonic-era battlefield prints, could they take a look at Talk:The siege of San Sebastian (1813)#About deletion proposal? This is obviously the work of a well-intentioned newcomer, and I feel like I'm kicking a puppy nominating it for deletion two weeks after creation, but to me this looks like a generic souvenir print of the type that flooded Europe during the French Revolutionary Wars. I find it very unlikely that enough has been written about it to remotely scrape notability, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Assessment of the articles regarding the heads of the forces.[edit]

I having a sort of confusion while asses the articles relating to the position of the heads of the services i.e the articles relating to the Chiefs of the Staff or head of the service such as Chief of the Air Staff (India), Chief of Army (Australia), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee etc. should be assessed for the respective article classes or list classes? Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

GAR of interest to this project[edit]

Interested editors are invited to participate in this community reassessment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)