Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 126

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127


Sentinel tank

Gday - there has been a bit of work done on Sentinel tank today. Looks like there is only one citation needed but my sources don't cover it. Wonder if there is anyone with some knowledge of tanks / access to sources which might be able to track down the req'd citation? If so it might pass as B class. Any help would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Info I'm looking for a ref for is as fols: "The AC1 began as a 2 pounder gun-equipped design in November 1940, and was initially intended to be a true Cruiser tank. Like the Canadian Ram the Australian Cruiser was to be based on the engine, drive train, and lower hull of the American M3 Medium tank, mated to an upper hull and turret built closely along the lines of a British Crusader. By 1942, trying to keep pace with German tanks, the design specification had become more like an American medium tank." Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done This has been done now. Thank you @AustralianRupert:, @GraemeLeggett:, @Nick-D: and @Ways: for your work. Anotherclown (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

GA backlog

Gday. There is a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Warfare - currently 33 articles if anyone is interested in helping out. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 21/06

Draft:Boy Rist. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorted. --S.G.(GH) ping! 10:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The History of Submarine Squadron Four, US Navy

Can someone please have a look at this page? I removed most of what is on the new page from Submarine Squadron 4 as a lot of it is unnotable. Unfortunately the editor has a very close association with Subron4 and I got told not to edit the page unless I had served with Subron4. So having another view would be good. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WWII campaign map symbology

Hi there. I'm in the process of making a campaign map for part of the WWII Normandy campaign and I'm wondering if anyone knows what the following unit symbol means. It has the same bounding box as infantry/armoured units but has an equilateral triangle in the centre pointing downwards. I'd also appreciate confirmation that what looks like the infinity symbol () means an air unit. Many thanks in advance.  Philg88 talk 16:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For the triangle one, if the top of the triangle is the top of the bounding box, that is the WWII era symbol for Anti-tank -- modern symbology for anti-armo(u)r rotates it 180° so it's pointing up. The rounded-edge infinty like symbol can mean Air Force (as a whole branch), an Air Force unit, or Army Fixed-wing Aviation. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. you might find this helpful, It's some era specific symbols. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Gecko G, just what I needed. It's all to do with this thread at the map lab.  Philg88 talk 06:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
See [here] - I have the SVG with all of the individual components / symbols somewhere as well. Farawayman (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 26/06

Draft:South African Legion of Military Veterans. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Arnhem

Any Poles out there? You may be interested in what this article says about your countrymen.

It implies

1. the the Poles withdrew to Nijmegen where they helped defend the airborne corridor before returning to England in early October. Comment: In actual fact, they were parachuted into a hotspot, and late, with scant regard for their safety.

2. Shortly afterward, the British began making Sosabowski and the Polish Brigade a scapegoat for the failure at Arnhem.

3. On 17 October, Montgomery informed Alan Brooke—Chief of the Imperial General Staff—that he felt the Polish forces had "fought very badly" at Arnhem and that he did not want them under his command.

4. A month later, Browning wrote a long and highly critical letter of Sosabowski for Brooke's deputy. In it, he accused Sosabowski of being difficult, unadaptable, argumentative and "loth to play his full part in the operation unless everything was done for him and his brigade". Browning recommended that Sosabowski be replaced and in December the Polish government in exile duly dismissed him in a move almost certainly made under British pressure.

5. Brian Urquhart—who had done so much to warn his superiors about the dangers of Arnhem and later became Undersecretary-General of the United Nations—described the British general's actions as both grotesque and shameful.

Comment: In all these five points of this, to my mind, badly written piece intended to attack the Poles, the only one, right at the end explains the context of the criticism, in that the English wanted to shift the blame away from themselves for a planning disaster.

I have been having a problem with editor Steve Ranger, in that he is reverting everything I say.

The section related to the Poles is under Allied Losses. I tried to move this, and he reverts me. I am sick to death of the version of history presented from an English perspective, which maligns others. Wallie (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry...but this is a bit overblown. The sections in question actually do a pretty good job of laying out both the facts and historical commentary on what happened. Rewriting without discussion or presenting valid sources usually doesn't end well, and screaming "bully" when someone reverts opinion pieces also isn't effective. Intothatdarkness 21:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
You just don't get it, do you. There is a large section discrediting Poles in the Allied Losses section. Why is it there? Tell me. Also, now you mention it, there does seem to be a whole bullying culture. All this character has done is revert me and insult me. That is bullying. And if you support that, you are part of that culture. Wallie (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a potential conflict of interest as I was one of the people who wrote the extant version. I had a read and thought that it made it clear that Sosabowski and the Polish contingent were scapegoated by the British high command. I thought that the post-war dissection of the offensive by armchair generals, back-seat drivers, hacks and pop-history opportunists is given more attention than it deserves and that the description of the German side of the battle is insufficient (a common problem due to foreigners inexplicably writing in their language instead of English). If Wallie has sources which contradict the article, I'd be interested in reading them but if it's a matter of opinion perhaps Wallie might write a section on the talk page for discussion, rather than court revert frenzy on the main page?Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That's the point, though. There have to be sources and not just one editor looking for things that don't seem to be there. So far no sources appear to have been provided. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

TFA for 28th July - 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War

Suggestions / discussion welcome at the TFA requests page. Please join in - and why not nominate an article for another date while you're there? Thanks, BencherliteTalk 10:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: is there a tool which can be used to check which articles in Category:FA-Class World War I articles haven't already appeared on the main page? Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
Title Page ID Namespace Size (bytes) Last change Groups Namespace name
Talk:HMS Courageous (50) 539140 1 6577 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:HMS Hood (51) 686176 1 25905 20140625031213 2 Talk
Talk:Thomas Crisp 1424318 1 7671 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Ostfriesland 1727909 1 4562 20140627201739 2 Talk
Talk:Brian Horrocks 1820238 1 16327 20140627081049 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Goeben 1932519 1 19629 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Emden (1908) 2440332 1 15799 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Percheron 2619565 1 55385 20140624191514 2 Talk
Talk:HMS Furious (47) 3319919 1 10175 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:HMS Royal Oak (08) 4648921 1 23522 20140625031213 2 Talk
Talk:Arthur W. Radford 5201491 1 1113 20140621131319 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Seydlitz 5477297 1 8057 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:James Newland 5609017 1 1561 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Edgar Towner 5609044 1 1001 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Walter Peeler 5609422 1 3563 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:James Whiteside McCay 5633901 1 1746 20140621105411 2 Talk
Talk:HMS Argus (I49) 5789962 1 4218 20140625031213 2 Talk
Talk:Conte di Cavour-class battleship 5898315 1 699 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Courageous-class aircraft carrier 5964552 1 4794 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Lützow 5986126 1 1521 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Bayern 5986168 1 2752 20140627202138 2 Talk
Talk:HMS Princess Royal (1911) 5990148 1 5501 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:HMS Queen Mary 5990158 1 5905 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:HMS Tiger (1913) 5990163 1 3516 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Derfflinger 5996268 1 5226 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:König-class battleship 5996603 1 3883 20140627202019 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Helgoland 5996618 1 1309 20140627201728 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Kaiser (1911) 5996623 1 1436 20140627201905 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Oldenburg 5996627 1 1536 20140627201820 2 Talk
Talk:Kaiser-class battleship 5996638 1 3961 20140627201851 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Kaiserin 5996643 1 1435 20140627201939 2 Talk
Talk:SMS König Albert 5996647 1 1378 20140627201953 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm 5996714 1 2811 20140627200245 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Nassau 5996781 1 4404 20140627201604 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Schleswig-Holstein 5996844 1 5476 20140627201508 2 Talk
Talk:HMS Agincourt (1913) 6094170 1 1003 20140621105411 2 Talk
Talk:Japanese battleship Fusō 6328351 1 16764 20140621105343 2 Talk
Talk:Walter Model 6371545 1 15146 20140620120636 2 Talk
Talk:Russian battleship Slava 7317926 1 2544 20140618010930 2 Talk
Talk:Elwyn Roy King 7317972 1 945 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Jerry Pentland 7317985 1 2296 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:USS Massachusetts (BB-2) 7535299 1 4423 20140621105411 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Hindenburg 7562688 1 16838 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Westfalen 8852884 1 3428 20140627201624 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Kronprinz 9165147 1 2261 20140627202111 2 Talk
Talk:Russian battleship Retvizan 9388761 1 975 20140625031237 2 Talk
Talk:Russian battleship Poltava (1894) 9406544 1 4374 20140625031213 2 Talk
Talk:Cedric Howell 9432633 1 2813 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Roderic Dallas 9432640 1 33899 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:The Sinking of the Lusitania 9456063 1 3920 20140620190821 2 Talk
Talk:Bayern-class battleship 9556264 1 6366 20140627202120 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Posen 9727642 1 5172 20140627201638 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Rheinland 9727645 1 1373 20140627201649 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Wörth 11191781 1 1482 20140627160413 2 Talk
Talk:USS Indiana (BB-1) 11614993 1 2283 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:USS Orizaba (ID-1536) 11623336 1 1463 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:USS Kearsarge (BB-5) 11669377 1 666 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Nassau-class battleship 12171696 1 2930 20140627201554 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II 12171731 1 1076 20140627200001 2 Talk
Talk:Russian battleship Rostislav 12268767 1 2537 20140625031213 2 Talk
Talk:William Bostock 12491313 1 1685 20140625031237 2 Talk
Talk:SMS Thüringen 13128367 1 3588 20140627201756 2 Talk
Talk:Moltke-class battlecruiser 13196919 1 1349 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Indiana-class battleship 13728218 1 12499 20140618230930 2 Talk
Talk:Stanley Goble 14506620 1 4644 20140627081049 2 Talk
Talk:Fusō-class battleship 14743662 1 8837 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:RAF Uxbridge 15859169 1 7998 20140621034623 2 Talk
Talk:USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) 16927466 1 1676 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:SS Kroonland 17440431 1 1309 20140625031237 2 Talk
Talk:SS Montanan 18918821 1 773 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:USS West Bridge (ID-2888) 19179511 1 838 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Kosta Pećanac 20556351 1 11207 20140625031213 2 Talk
Talk:SM U-66 20614038 1 940 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Henry Wrigley 21728298 1 1803 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Vernon Sturdee 21751712 1 5669 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Raymond Brownell 22115600 1 1670 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:No. 1 Wing RAAF 25950742 1 5566 20140617222217 2 Talk
Talk:Almirante Latorre-class battleship 29646358 1 1154 20140621131319 2 Talk
Talk:Iven Mackay 36559474 1 1197 20140625031213 2 Talk
Talk:Southern Rhodesia in World War I 38822542 1 985 20140617222217 2 Talk
SMS Goeben would be an apt choice, no? cc @Parsecboy: Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agreed Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

World War I

  • 1914 – Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated (Ferdinand's blood-stained uniform pictured) by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip during a motorcade in Sarajevo, sparking the outbreak of World War I.

After a century of waiting the centennial anniversary is upon us. Lets make it count with quality content, good pictures, DYK spots, and TFA nods. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Cliftonian (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Move AirSea Battle

It seems that the term AirSea Battle was only used by CSBA.

While the Pentagon actually uses Air-Sea Battle

And some outsiders mix the terms

So move the article, leave a redirect, insert a short segment about CSBA and move the video game over? Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of La Malmaison

I'm working on Battle of La Malmaison here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox2 and expect to have something to upload in a couple of days but I can't get a redlink for the battle because of a redirect (I think) to the 2nd Aisne page and don't know how to change it. Can anyone help please? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just replace the content of the current redirect page with your new version. That should do the trick.  Philg88 talk 09:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, how do I find the redirect page?Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Found it.Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Started a new page and remembered to add the boxes on the talk page this time. Will complete the page over the next couple of days.Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability guideline for installations, question

Do we have notability guideline for installations, and if not, would anyone object if I wrote something up? Also, I seem to recall the discussion taking place a few years ago, but does anyone know where the discussion is where we stated that military and civil aviation airfields should be kept separate? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment If there is a guideline that military and civilian fields should be kept separate, it is widely ignored for in articles that mention former military airfields in my experience. The problem may be at least in part with the structure of redirect and disambiguation pages, but when the contemporary name of World War II US Army Air Fields appears in articles, I find that the redirect leads to (or the name has been piped to) the civilian airfield at least as often as the military airfield when there are separate articles (most examples being fields that were or are used by the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve after the war).

--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually think it's because people don't know about it, if it does exist. I just split off multiple articles in Massachusetts, and a user nominated all of them for a merge discussion. I did try to start noting which ones needed separation last September, but then my computer had a technical issue and I lost the data. If anyone wants to comment on the seven merge discussions, please be my guest. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It also might be because there are very few of us who mind splitting these installations up, including you, myself, and Bwmoll3. At times, I get the impression that we are the only ones who do care enough to split them up, so that also might be why it is done like this. Do you want to help draft some sort of guideline if there is none already? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A few years ago I started looking at World War II airfields in the United States, and basically just added some World War II history to many existing airports, which is what they turned into after the war was over. It was basically a sentence or two but not much else. Then I started going state by state and either creating new airport articles or splitting off the military airfield from the civil airport if there was enough information about them to warrant a separate article. Then I did a third go-around and began to generally split all of them off. The last one I did was Pounds Army Airfield which I split off from Tyler Pounds Regional Airport.
If for one reason or another I'll run into additional information or for some other reason (actually, I found additional information about ALGs in France that I'll go back to and split some of those off). But there really isn't any hard/fast criteria. It's basically a judgement call based on a significant amour of information that is available, which I tend to lean to splitting off when possible. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is some additional information you may want to use for those airfields in Mass. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The issue right now seems to be focused on military airfields, particularly those in the US during WW II. I've commented on the individual merge requests, but in general:
AAF installations that were large enough to be named Army Air Fields or Army Air Bases probably will meet notability guidelines, even if they were only used by the military during the war. Auxiliary Air Fields rarely had units larger than a detachment stationed there, and would rarely be notable by themselves.
I am less familiar with Navy and Marine stations, but it seems that Naval Air Stations would usually be notable, while OLFs would not. Naval Auxiliary Air Stations probably need some scrutiny to see whether they are notable.
Article naming might be an issue as well, in cases where more than one service used the installation. Should the main military article be at the chronologically last name used by the military even if use by another service with a different name was more extensive?
Another factor. Should the fact that the installation was originally constructed as a military airfield, rather than the military taking over an existing civil airport be a factor in deciding if a separate article should exist? Related is whether the field was completely taken over by the military, or was a joint-use airfield. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Dallas Love Field and Palm Beach International Airport/Palm Beach Air Force Base. Love Field was first built as a World War I training airfield and was turned over to the City of Dallas in the 1920s, In World War II it was a joint-use military airfield/civil airport. I suppose there is enough information in the Love Field article to split off the airport's Air Service origins and World War II use, but as of now it's all together as one.
Palm Beach International was established as Morrison Field in the 1930s, and was taken over by the AAF during World War II. The military history of the facility is significant as it was a major ATC facility during the war, and a major MATS base until it closed in the 1960s. Both the civil airport as well as the historical AFB articles stand by themselves as substantial. Its interesting that it's one of the few AFB's (maybe the only) in the US that the Air Force was literally driven out of by the local community.
Atlanta Army Airfield/Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport; similar to PBI/Morrision Field but there was enough information about Atlanta AAF to write a separate article for it, although there was nothing other than it's use during World War II by Technical Service Command. Also, the fact is that outside of that article, it's use by the AAF during WW II is relatively unknown. The Atlanta AAF article could easily be merged into the Hartsfield Airport article if for no other reason than to give the military history of the airport more visibility such as the Love Field article does.
As far as the WWII AAF Auxiliary Airfields/OLF's, they're not really notable other than identifying them in the main article about the airfield they supported; noting their location and perhaps some minor history. The Bat bomb article talks about one of them that was accidentally set on fire. Some were later developed into civil airports, but most today are farmer's fields with nothing left of their military past or abandoned runways that remain out in the desert that haven't been used in 70 years. The most notable of them, I suppose is the one at Area 51 that was a part of the Gunnery School at Las Vegas AAF (Nellis AFB). In fact, it was the abandoned Axillary Field that Kelly Johnson saw at Groom Lake and landed at that was one of the reasons the base was set up in the 1950s
I understand that we're focusing primarily on United States airports/bases, but Orly Airport/Orly Air Base in France is another which I wrote a separate military article about. The history of Orly Airport doesn't even mention its US Air Service origins in World War I, it just begins in the 1920s, however, the airport's origins as a major US Air Service facility in 1918, it's use by the Luftwaffe in World War II, and it's postwar MATS use are all separately documented in the Orly Air Base article. The sensitivities of some editors outside of the US would, I believe, preclude merging them.
Just some thoughts Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This is just a brief response to the above for now, but one thing worth noting is that we have an entire page listing the OLF's that are current, so there seems to be the idea that they are inherently notable here. Also, for auxiliary air stations, Naval Auxiliary Air Station Charlestown (which also operated under Quonset) comes to mind, as it was active for around thirty years, so I don't know how we'd be able to not call that notable. In terms of the name, I always go with the most recent name that it closed under, since that makes the most sense in the overall scheme of things, especially since it would create less confusion in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Note this article Dalhart Army Air Base Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

June article writing contest results

G'day all, the June contest is scaled and filleted, thanks to Zawed for helping out with the checking. Clearly Parsecboy was having a rest (and I was home most of the month with the lurgy) in June, as I managed to land the most fish this month on 44 points from 8 articles for the Wikichevrons, and Lineagegeek picked up the Writer's Barnstar with 24 points from 5 articles. Close behind were Zawed with 22 points from 4 articles and Parsecboy still pulled in 20 points from 3 articles. Others that threw in a line this month were Djmaschek with 12 points from 2 entries, Tomobe03 with 5 points from 1 article, Ian Rose with 5 points from 1 article, and good to see Gecko G casting again this month with 5 points from his single entry. Well done to Lineagegeek, I'll award his Writer's Barnstar, if someone would do the honours with the WikiChevrons for me. Get your entries in for this month's contest here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Chevrons served up, and tks as always for the quick work tallying! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries, Writer's Barnstar dished up too. I'll do the squash ladder in a bit. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ships as she: yes or no?

Just FYI: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#ships_as_.22she.22.2C_additional_points. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do sailors ever call their ships "he" ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The Bismarck was called "he" -- (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe Russian ships in general are "he", as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


I've just filed a dispute resolution request regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please consider taking a look. In eight years, I've never been as close to quitting this site entirely in the face of POVpushing. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

G'day Buckshot. I agree the behaviour is really irritating and unwiki, and should not be permitted on WP. Just remember that if you go to the boards it can be even more irritating because you have to explain quite complex issues to admins that may not know anything at all about the subject (no criticism of the admins, more the way the process is set up). I have found that can be a factor even at ArbCom. Have you considered shifting your attention elsewhere for a bit? There are plenty of areas that would benefit from your skills and attention. The "currency" issue seems to be contributing to the problem. I've had a look, but my own lack of familiarity with the current situation is an obstacle to useful input. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou Peacemaker67. Appreciate your advice. However if some users were prepared to revert removals of WP:RS content, this wouldn't have gotten this far. I'll think on what you say. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I have now watchlisted both articles and am prepared to try and assist should the issue arise again to ensure the appropriate policies are followed as you attempt to develop them. I suspect a few other editors have probably now done the same as well. Regardless, like Peacemaker I must admit that my knowledge on these topics is exceptionally limited so it makes it a little difficult to be helpful. Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That's kinda funny that this guy is still around. About 4 years ago I had a big argument with said user about the Somalia country article. Basically the whole article written mostly by him omitted everything which was only slightly negative about the country. Somalia was/is usually referenced as #1 failed state, but the article depicted it as some kind of heaven with only minor problems. The piracy issue, the starvation, the (back then) almost powerless government, the civil war and general disorder, some general (negative) key data most country articles have - almost nothing was mentioned. All those problems according to him are exaggerated by the UN and other international agencies due some kind of "conspiracy" against Somalia. Anyway, although I was able to get some of the most important points into the article (other editors had raised those issues before), it wasn't really worth the days wasted and I am afraid to look at that article again... StoneProphet (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much StoneProphet. I have heard one other user is willing to offer diffs in support of community discussion. Anotherclown, apologies, of course I should have realised you had been made aware of the situation. Thankyou for watchlisting the articles, and yes I intend to do some sort of further development at some point. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry mate, I certainly have it on watchlist and will dip in as I feel I can. I feel your pain. That is my day-to-day where I edit, and I know it is hard to walk away. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

James Patrick Murray (British Army officer)

I just created a short article on James Patrick Murray (British Army officer), who I found as a Member of Parliament.

However, he also turns out to have been a British Army general, so maybe someone in this project might like to see if the military aspects of his career could be expanded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Heads up! - 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak

As many of you are aware, AIDS has been eating out the heart of many Sub-Saharan African armed forces in the past twenty years. Now Ebola has popped up, and this has major regional implications, some military implications, and a minor risk of significant spread beyond West Africa. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Gerd Heinrich

I have a (very) long term aim to work Gerd Heinrich up to FA. He was a notable German entomologist, ornithologist and explorer. He served in both world wars, which doesn't make him notable as a military figure in itself, but I wonder if his flying exploits in WW1 as described on page 35 of this review merit interest. Apparently he declined an offer from Manfred von Richthofen to join his elite squadron. If he is notable, what is the likelihood of finding any independent corroboration beyond his own memoirs? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I found an entry for his WWII service HEINRICH, Gerd. 08.06.42 Hptm.(d.R./Fl.), trf from Stab/Lg.Kdo. Moskau to Koflug Thorn. — can anyone help me with understanding this? I assume that Hptm is "captain" and trf is "transferred" but d.R./Fl, Stab/Lg.Kdo and Koflug mean nothing to me. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Glossary of German military terms has Stab as "staff" (or HQ?) and Kdo. (Kommando) as "command; detachment; detail". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Stab basically relates to "headquarters staff". @MisterBee1966: can you help out with any of the rest, mate? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hptm stands for Hauptmann; d.R. stands for der Reserve and denotes a military rank of the reserve status; Koflug is the abbreviation of Flughafen-Bereichskommando, translating to something like airfield/airport sector command; Thorn I believe is the old German name of Toruń, Poland; Lg.Kdo. is the abbreviation for Luftgaukommando; Fl. I am guessing stands for Flieger of flyer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to all, i know he was at Toruń, so that fits too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou MisterBee1966; always good to know we can call upon the Experten. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 03/07

Draft:The Fort Leavenworth Lamp. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


FYI, Template:Battle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Stalingrad - casualties

This is the first time I ever have to do that, but I dont know how to proceed. I have a problem with an editor at the Battle of Stalingrad article. It is about the casualties. The section was already badly sourced beforehand, numbers have been changed over the years and no clarification regarding scope or time about the given numbers have been made. A new editor has now stepped in and #1 changed the context of some of the sourced numbers even worse and #2 added some strange numbers from dubious sources. I somehow rewrote the section using some reliable sources available to me (Beevor, Ziemke, Glantz etc.), while taking everything badly sourced out. He is simply constantly reverting me. The discussion there is now going back and forth without much progress and he somehow refuses to understand problems with his edits and sources. I have pointed the issues numerous times out and it gets exhausting. His version is atm partly up, I have not reverted him. Key issues:

  • He repeatly tries to insert a claim of 1,5 million German casualties for the battle. his source is a Russian webpage, a non working link to a Russia Today article and a ref to Overys 2004 book, which he simply copied from elewhere from the article (no page is given). I couldnt find the number in Overys book anway. He also tries to sneak this Russian webpage into other parts of the article to claim in return that it is already used and therefore reliable.
  • He changed the meaning of already written/sourced statements:
  • 850,000 Axis casualties for the whole Battle of Stalingrad was changed to 850,000 Axis casualties just in the city (although I dont know how reliable this number is, it has been changed over the last years several times too from the original edit)
  • Axis material losses of xxx tanks, planes etc. (sourced to Bergstroem, dunno if Bergstroem realy has tank losses too in his Luftwaffe book) was changed to "German material losses" so he now claims Hungarian, Italian, Romanian material losses are missing (which wouldnt be much anything I guess)
  • Soviet captured equipment (sourced to a Soviet report of the battle) are "addtional losses" to the figures given by Bergstroem for him -> thats is a bad assumption, imo
  • He is also constantly misinterpreting what I write in the discussion, like claiming Soviet losses for whole Case Blue were only 1,1 million and and so, despite directly in his face other numbers are giving.

I rewrote the article and added new sources, removing all dubious and worked in the sources I have (it is here now: User:StoneProphet/sandbox5). Half of it is the old version. There is probably still lots of improvement possible, but I just wanted to take the most dubious things out first.
I don't know what to do there, he is simply reverting me all the time when I change something because of "talkpage", but all the time he refuses to understand the isses with his edits and tries to distract with different things. Can somebody give some input there, or should I take this to a different institution (ANI, RFC?; never had to do something like that)? StoneProphet (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple of ACRs needing attention

G'day all, two lists and one article that need one more review each are Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (S less Sch) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Sch), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Chadwick. The first two have been open since mid-May, and the last one has been open since the end of May. They have two supports each. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Action T4

The article Action T4 recently got a section about language and the euphemisms used by the Nazis to sweeten the truth. That section gave me an uneasy feeling. Now somebody else adds a hidden comment that absolutely horrifies me.

Could somebody take a look and join the discussion at Talk:Action T4#Language? The Banner talk 19:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Tinian as POTD

Hi all, I had to write a blurb for the upcoming Battle of Tinian POTD (70th anniversary, after all) and since this involved using information from a map together with the article, I was wondering if anyone were willing to a) confirm that the blurb is accurate and/or b) improve the article to better support the information in the map. Thanks beforehand! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

43rd NY Infantry

I'm going to need an editor. Please check for inaccuracies and errors. Thanks.Erik L'Ensle :) (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Look at my 43rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment page. Please fix the problem. You'll know it when you see it. Sorry, it's my first real article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik L'Ensle (talkcontribs) 13:34, 6 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Occupation of Southern Slovakia


I've just raised some issues on the talk page of the Occupation of Southern Slovakia article. I'd be happy if you could share your views and help to solve the issues. Thank you! – Thehoboclown (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Never Mind

I fixed it. Erik L'Ensle :) (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Georgian War: GA reviewer requested

This article has been nominated for GA review. No one seems to have taken it up, yet, so I thought I'd leave a notice here in case anyone feels like reviewing it. Thanks. RGloucester 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

MilHist meetup at Wikimania

For those of you coming to Wikimania in London this year (or anyone within easy reach who's not coming to the conference but wants to join in!), I thought it might be nice for a group of us to meet up and chat over dinner or a few drinks. There are plenty of good pubs and restaurants near the Barbican and the main hotel. If you're interested, please sign up at wm2014:MilHist meetup (or email me - - if you don't want to sign up publicly) so that I know whether there's interest and if so roughly how many people to expect. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Limoges

Due to a recent magazine article, I was looking at our coverage of the Siege of Limoges. I noted the magazine article had already been cited. However, I was surprised to find this stub Massacre of Limoges - three brief sentences covered in the other article, no references. I don't think it can be speedily deleted as it picked up a merge request two years ago, albeit without response. Given the fact that the siege article covers the massacre and could be expanded, should Massacre at Limoge become a redirect? Monstrelet (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would think so, yes. Intothatdarkness 18:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything in either talk page history that indicates a merger discussion was ever posted although a merge notice was placed on the article page. Maybe that's why there was no response. In light of the magazine article, merging "massacre" into "seige" seems appropriate. The previous merge request was the other way around. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've done some basic work to improve the massacre section. The rest is poor though. I'll add a little more on the contenders when I have a moment. Monstrelet (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Project Appleseed

Can someone provide some input on the discussion at Talk:Project_Appleseed#.22Apolitical.22? Miguel Escopeta and I are seemingly stuck at two unreconcilable views points. Thanks. SFB 06:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Left a note. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting question

I'm trying to measure the readability of the word "season" ... a word used routinely by various wikiprojects, including Milhist. To do this, I have to ask other wikiprojects about military uses of the word (because I don't want jargon or expert opinion, I want the opinion of the general reader). So, here's a question about hurricane "seasons" for you guys: all Atlantic hurricane seasons officially begin on June 1 and end on November 30. The first storm of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was Tropical Storm Andrea, which developed on June 5, and the last was an unnamed subtropical storm that arose on December 5 and dissipated on December 7. Can I get some volunteers to give me opinions on when you'd say the 2013 season ended? - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that "officially" it ended on the 30 November, but to those experiencing the storms, it ended on 7 December. (i.e. I'd be using the term in the same way I'd use terms like "winter" or "spring", which have both an "official" start and finish date, and an unofficial usage, e.g. 'it was a long, harsh winter that only ended with the warm weather of late April'). Hchc2009 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense ... any disagreement? - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 10/07

Draft:17 Port & Maritime Regiment RLC. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Alphonse Juin's decorations

We have Marshal Alphonse Juin's decorations in the Musée de l'infanterie. Can anyone have a go at identifying them? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

An interesting exercise, let's see:
1st Row:
  • Grand Cross (Grand Croix) of the Legion of Honour (Ordre National de la Légion d'honneur)
  • Military Medal (not certaint since I can't see all of it)
2nd Row (assuming there is nothing under the lapel):
  • War Cross (1914-1918) w/ at least one (might be more under the lapel) silver (not sure?) palm (5 MiD's at the army level), 1 silver or silver gilt (not sure which) star (a mention at the division or corps level), & 2 bronze stars (for mentions at the Regiment or brigade level)
  • War Cross (1939-1945) w/ 3 silver (or perhaps silver-gilt) palms & 2 bronze palms (bronze palms are for MiD's at the army level, silver palms are for 5 bronze palms, and a silver-gilt is for MiD at the overall Free French Forces level)
  • War Cross for foreign operational theaters (Croix de guerre TOE) w/ at least 2 (might be more of the edge off the screen) bronze (I think it's bronze not silver) palms (for MiD's at the army level)
3rd Row:
4th Row:
5th row:
6th row:
7th row:
8th row:
9th row:
  • The 1st one looks kinda familiar, but I can't place it (red w/ white edges and 2 central blue stripes). Similar to Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal.
  • the 2nd is either the Grand Cross of the Order of George I (Greece) or Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown (Belgium) I think
  • ?? just guessing, but maybe Bolivian Order of Aeronatuical Merit??? (light blue with orange edges, device is white w/red stripes and gold wings)
  • The last one I'm really not sure, it looks kinda like a Orient and Dardanelles campaign medal or a Medal of Honour for Indirect Taxation, but I don't think either of those have any kind of devices (alternating white and green, with somesort of device - can't make it out)
anyone else agree or disagree with those? Any ideals on the unknowns? Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Sixth row, third in Croix de guerre (Belgium). Seventh row, first in Order of Orange-Nassau. Eighth row, third in Order of Military Merit (Brazil), fourth in Brazil War Medal. Ninth row, first in reminds me of Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal (colors are off, but the colors seem shifted/faded in this photo). EricSerge (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the last one on the 3rd row is either the Order of the Military (Morocco) OR Sharifian Order of Military Merit (Morocco), but there's conflicting info as to which ribbon is for which of those two.
Your absolutely right about the Belgian CdG, that's the 1940 (WWII) version w/1 palm (can't tell if it's Silver or Bronze), and thus the 6th row last one is definately the Order of Leopold then (I didn't think the Academic Palm was likely, I should of specified that) - BUT it means they are in the wrong order (or do the French simply wear foreign decorations in the order they are awarded?)
That's the second time the Orange-Nassau order one stumped me, though why is it not alongside the other Dutch one? (again, unless the French wear foreign one's in chronological order). I had noticed the American ones were not adjacent either, but I had figured that was because the DSM is not an "order", and thus was lower.
The last two of the 8th row both being Brazilian one's are possible, but isn't the inner white stripe too wide for the Brazilian Military Merit? but on the other hand the Brazilian M.M. has devices all without "wings" (That's what I call them, they probably have a proper name) just like in the picture (most orders have that for the second lowest class only). That other one does look like the Brazilian War Medal, though some sources have the service ribbon as different on the War Medal (ie [1])
Interesting about the QEII Coronation Medal, it does rather look like that (and probably why it seemed familiar). Was that given to non-commonwealthers?
Surprisingly missing is the Allied Victory Medal(s). Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the last one on the 4th row is the Tunisian Order of the Republic (1959-1967 style ribbon, (see here) or Tunisian Order of Indepence, in either case in the grade of Grand Cordon or Grand Officer. However, the 'net sources about Tunisian orders are too contradictory to tell for sure. Gecko G (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys. This is much appreciated. In Australia we alawys wear foreign awards and decorations after all our own, and in the order that they were awarded, so an American DSM would come after an American Good Conduct medal if they awarded in that order; the countries are not grouped. I just assumed that France was the same. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting about how Australian's order foreign awards, that looks to be the case here as well.
5th row, 3rd one, I knew I had seen it before- It's a distinctive former Laotian order, the Order of the Million Elephants and the White Parasol, grade of GC or GC with Collar (Some sources say it uses Grand Cross, others Grand Cordon). Gecko G (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

uh-oh, the link now say's "forbidden" and there's still 5 more we need to ID. Gecko G (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's back now. I've saved a copy incase it goes down again.
He was [at the coronation of QEII]- did any foreigners (non-Commonwealth) at the coronation recieve the Coronation Medal? Because it sure does look like the 1st one of the 9th row is the QEII Coronation Medal. Gecko G (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I am retiring from Wikipedia with immediate effect. Take care, it's been enjoyable Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I'm not sure of the circumstances of your retirement, but regardless thank you for your time and effort and all the best for whatever the future holds. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Vice-Admiral Sir George Frederick Basset Edward-Collins

Hi, I wonder if anyone find anything/knows anything on this bloke? I've got this, a mention in a book, and several mentions in the London Gazette. No Wikipedia page, no obits... He was knighted and a vice-admiral apparently, can you find anything? Thanks, Matty.007 16:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He's in Who's Who: "EDWARD-COLLINS, Admiral Sir (George) Frederick (Basset). KCB, 1941 (CB 1937); KCVO, 1939 (CVO 1937). Born 26 Dec. 1883; 2nd s of late E. C. Edward-Collins, Trewardale, Bodmin; unmarried; died 17 Feb. 1958" more. Career details mostly match those at your link.
Looks like Frederick Edward-Collins should get you more results. There's an article on his brother at Charles Edward-Collins, if that's any help... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
But still no Wikipedia page? I will create a stub at Frederick now, redirect from the others, and expand it over time. Thanks, Matty.007 17:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Andrew Gray: before I spend time developing the article, you definitely can't find a Wikipedia page either, can you? Thanks, Matty.007 17:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing I can see. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Most peculiar. I'll work on getting it up to scratch, hopefully a GA at some point. Thanks again, Matty.007 18:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel out of my depth, why is there more info on Captains and Commanders than a full Admiral? Anyhow, I will leave it as it is for now, I have put a load of potential references in a hidden comment at the bottom if anyone wants to expand it, but I haven't got much in writing, so will leave it as it is for now. Thanks, Matty.007 18:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Matty007, good work. Talk to User:Simon Harley, who is the resident expert on the RN in this period. Better still, look at his Dreadnoughts site and there may be a page on the Admiral already. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

American war dog urban legends

I started a discussion about one of these (that Sergeant Stubby not only held the rank of Sergeant but was promoted during WWI) at User talk:Drmies#Sergeant Stubby, a Boston Pit Bull in WWI but it's been suggested there that we need the input of a project such as this one, not Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs which is where I first went. There are several relevant articles - claims of dogs being given various medals, etc.. Any input would be welcome. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The main question is - is the dog a seargeant, does he had a military rank or it was a nickname. Also the article states that it was the most decorated dog in World War I - and is it possible that he was the only dog promoted during battle - an other claim. Dogs do get medals, but was he the one that had the most medals. Hafspajen (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually the US has no official way of awarding military or civilian dogs. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Help, Part II

The page of the 43rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment has multiple issues, and I can't get the image of their colors on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik L'Ensle (talkcontribs) 14:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks okay at a quick glance - what in particular's wrong? Help:Introduction to uploading images should explain how to get the colours included. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page question

User talk:Keith-264 does anyone know why my talk page has gone wonky?Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Be careful using nowiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I bow to your wikimojo.Keith-264 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

WWI divisional histories

Hi all,

I was delighted to discover today that a lot of the WWI divisional histories the British Library scanned for the Europeana 1914-18 project have (finally!) gone online. A good fraction of these were already in Google Books/Internet Archive, but many more are new scans - usually these are books published in 1924 or later and so not swept up by the big US projects. An example:

I've been adding links to these to the unit articles, and if anyone's looking for a small project to work on, there's a lot of very stubby divisions needing love :-). If there's interest, I'll post a complete list of what I've added here. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oi! I've been sweating blood to afford that lot! Where are the linksKeith-264 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Links are added to the divisional articles (mostly under "Further reading" if they weren't already used as a reference). List of what I've done so far is below; I'll add to it as I go along. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
BL-scanned divisional histories
Note that this list doesn't include some already in the articles from (which I've left, as it has a better reader interface)

...and this is the lot, at least for now. 22 divisions covered plus some already handled by histories on In three cases I only have vol. 1 - I'm fairly convinced that vol. 2 was scanned, as I've seen the files in some cases, but I can't quite get the system to tell me where it's posted! Will keep investigating. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

FLC that is not Military History

I've made no secret of wanting to take Audie Murphy, which is military history, and all its related articles to FTC. It's stuck right now on one FLC not related to military history . If it wasn't appropriate for me to mention this here, I apologize. But I don't see any FLC procedures for moving this forward if there is no interest, and apparently no associated project to prod on this one. That is to say, the Texas/WPUS projects are not buzzing with activity on anything. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Auto ed script question

Does anyone know how I can test the script here User:Keith-264/common.js to see if it's still working? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

New article needs some tidying

I've just created Archibald Cochrane (rear admiral). I think that you lot like to see infoboxes and I have a feeling that there may be a template for formatting ship names. Could someone oblige, please? Do anything else that seems necessary, obviously. Do you usually include a picture of one of their commands, at least in the absence of a pic of the man himself?

I have the feeling that there should be at least another couple of bio articles for unlinked names in there - Basil Cochrane and Sir H. Grenfell (who is not H. H. Grenfell). Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Basil Cochrane doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and probably wouldn't really satisfy the notability test, I don't think. He was retired as a Captain upon reaching the age limit of 55. Amusingly the exact same thing happened to Archibald Cochrane, who was placed on the Retired List on hitting 55 on 20 June, 1929, and was subsequently promoted to flag rank on the Retired List, like his father. Quite frankly it's a bit dubious whether he's notable enough either. Vice-Admiral Sir Harry Tremenheere Grenfell doesn't have a Wikipedia article. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Ask for it to be deleted if you want. I'm coming at the thing sideways, from Stubbington House School. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Star ranks again

Please see Talk:Five-star rank#Scope of this article. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That discussion has now broadened a bit... our current articles are not consistent regarding, for example, whether OF-6 corresponds to Colonel or to Brigadier General. See that talk page for details. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of battle of the Spanish Army in 1989

Can we please get some further Milhisters involved in this discussion? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Do we have a guideline and policy with respect to Wikidata? If yes, where is it? I was wondering if we should pay attention to the content of Wikidata when reviewing an article. I noticed that in some instances the Wikidata description in English of an article is missing. I therefore wonder if checking and updating the Wikidata items during one (A-class?) of our review processes is within or not within scope of this project. What do people think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone generally has a guideline on Wikidata other than infrastructure-oriented activity (ie, the ones actively pulling data from WD). Requiring it seems a bit much, but it would certainly be nice to do :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It is plagued by mysterious bugs that can take a long time to correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
WikiData is messy, I've asked about correcting interlinkages there in the past, and it's all very confused. (such as what the "topic" of any wikidata page is supposed to be, how to create a new one, etc) But some other Wikiprojects have started living there... wikidata:Project:WikiProject Physics -- (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Progress bars

I've split pictures off from the other content - I think FLs, FTs, and FPOs were getting a bit swamped - well over half of all the credits in that category were FPs.

We want pictures, of course - well, I would say that, I work on them - but we don't want to emphasize them at the cost of other valuable content. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Good call. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Assistance with vandalism please on German data entry

I have been updating data and improving the overall content of Military production during World War II since June, with a particular focus on including more data about Germany, the Axis, historic context, German technical achievements and other information related to the German experience of the war. Today Bender235 deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work and that of others, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this "editor". Can you please help me reverse all the deletions and keep this guy off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this. These actions were not constructive and have reduced the quality of the material to a shadow of its last version before his vandalism. --Brukner (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored the content with an edit summary that says "take it to the talk page." We shall see. 7&6=thirteen () 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
G'day, revision and discussion does seem the best course of action in this circumstance, given the scale of the changes involved. It is also a key part of the bold-revert-discuss editing guideline. That said, Brukner, while I understand your frustration, please be more considered in the language that you use to describe other editors. Labelling someone as a vandal just because they have changed something you have written goes against one of our core policies: assume good faith. It also does not promote a collaborative editing environment. Having said all of that, thank you for your hard work so far in developing the article, and good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur totally with AustralianRupert.
However, I understand the sense of frustration and exasperation that could be induced by such a large purging of content — even if it was well-motivated and in good faith. OTOH, the existence of an apparent dispute about content and sourcing does not yet warrant a statement that the other editor is a vandal. One ought to go slow on that, as these are basically construed as 'fighting words' that can be a violation of civility.
I took this action based on WP:BRD. I would assume that all of the regular contributors to this article are familiar with it, and can and will work through this situation on its talk page.
Best regards to all concerned. 7&6=thirteen () 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Formidable (67) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Formidable (67); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for Russian battleship Pobeda needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Russian battleship Pobeda; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mussolini assassination plot involving 617 squadron

Mussolini assassination plot involving 617 squadron is an article that popped up on my radar today. It's currently uncited as to its major point but I can find newspaper reports from 2010 when the National Archives released the documents that mentioned it. My instinct is to straightforward Prod as not-notable, but perhaps someone knows of some other article that some content could be retained for. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If references exist, this might warrant a mention in the No. 617 Squadron RAF article. It appears to have been one of about a bazillion 'good idea' special forces-type missions which were considered but not conducted during World War II, and is unlikely to be notable in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A question for Milhist veterans (circa 2008)

A query for Milhist veterans. Just gnoming on Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging, and the banner on Talk:5th Red Banner Army has an A-Class=fail, but there is no AH for it. It was placed on the banner in 2008, I'm wondering if what the system was in those days. The edit changing it is here. Help or advice appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Howdy - failed ACRs are kept in the archive. The relevant one for 2008 is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008/Failed. I've added the article history for the article in question now but suspect they may be quite a few out there with similar issues given the number that seem to have been failed in 2008! Anotherclown (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ac. At least I'll know where to look if the issue comes up again. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I haven't been following this closely but just removed a lot of citations to Twitter and various other unreliable sources from the section on military equipment. It would be helpful I'm sure if some people from here put it on their watchlists. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Olsberg mid-air collision

An issue is being discussed at talk:2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to voice their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talkcontribs) 21:15, 20 July 2014‎ (UTC)

American Civil War generals becalmed at GA Review

Quite a few ACW generals currently awaiting a GA reviewer at the moment. Anyone with some knowledge / interest in the this area willing to assist by doing a review? Articles include: P. G. T. Beauregard, Braxton Bragg, George S. Greene, Henry Halleck, Joseph E. Johnston, J. E. B. Stuart and William Rosecrans. Many have been there for nearly two months. Pls check out Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Warfare if you are able to help. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Aw, crap. This is why I love MILHIST: My efforts to help illustrate everything always fall badly behind. =) We have an FP for Bragg, and nothing for anyone else. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, guys. I've just reviewed the images, and you're breaking my heart. You're better than this. So much better than this. Look at this image of George S. Greene. It's not properly documented. Even if you don't know you have to download the TIFF from the Library of Congress and convert to JPEG to get full resolution files, the high-res JPEG is not hard to find.
And that's not even the worst. You're using this for J.E.B. Stuart. That's a third generation photocopy of the original. Look at the original here: [2]. There's not even a comparison.
Look, all sort-of-joking aside, I know not everyone knows images, but - please - if you need help, ask me. I can at least show you how to use the Library of Congress database, and that'll vastly improve illustrations. Think J.E.B. Stuart and George Greene are the worst offenders, so I'm going to prioritize them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Untagged Canadian WWI battalions

Gday. There seem to be quite a few articles here that aren't tagged for MILHIST - Category:Battalions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. I've gone through and checked them down to 62nd Bn but need to go to log off now. Anyone else interested in tagging a few? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look. A number of them seem to have issues with their titles as well. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
While you're doing it, could you make them tagged for {{WPCANADA}} as well? -- (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I had already tagged the rest of the ones that exist. Some seem excessive and of questionable notability. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing this, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cuban Navy

Cannot find info on pre-Castro Cuban navy. Is it absent, or have I missed something? Davidships (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hemmema at FAC

I just nominated hemmema as a FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a notification here. If you have time to spare, please drop by with feedback and criticial comments.

Peter Isotalo 10:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Pls note that, wearing my FAC coordinator hat, I've removed this one per the FAC instructions (only one solo nomination at a time). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Darn... I thought I had checked the rules. Sorry about that.
Peter Isotalo 19:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Superintendent (United States Air Force)

Can someone have a look at this before I AfD it - is this really worthy of an entry on WP? Gbawden (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Thomas Whetton

Hello, military experts. This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a notable person? I don't seem to have the "plugin" needed to see the references. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

McCook (NE) liked our articles (hmmm...)

For those who edited, reviewed, or even heard of the Audie Murphy articles, you might find the McCook Gazette articles vaguely familiar in their prose and content. Wikipedia is not credited, nor is any other source. However, McCook Gazette is now claiming a copyright to the content:

From Audie Murphy and Military career of Audie Murphy, compare sometimes word-for-word with Audie Murphy, America's hero, Part I, The War Years.

From also Military career of Audie Murphy, plus Film career of Audie Murphy and List of songs written by Audie Murphy, compare sometimes word-for-word Part II: Audie Murphy -- Hollywood. A lot that was recently added to Military career of Audie Murphy when I was getting it in shape for GA review, and to List of songs written by Audie Murphy on May 20, the date I nominated it at FLC.

Pat yourselves on the back fellow WP MH editors. You did a good job editing, correcting, reviewing and etc. etc. Somebody like it enough to reprint it and claim it as their own work. — Maile (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You may want to add {{backwardscopy}} to the talk pages so people don't think our page is the copyvio. User:Moonriddengirl may have suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Otherwise, there is the real possibility that down the road somebody will find the similarity and delete the text from our article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Shuja'iyya Incident (2014)

The above article is currently being considered for deletion. There is a comment on tfe AfD to the effect that someone can't see how one battle is more notable than another. I'm not sure it's necessarily within your scope, but I figured you all might know best about the lasting notability of battles. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Request opinion on suitability of "Report of Proceedings"/"CO Report" as reliable source

Hi all. I've just dropped a post on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the suitability of a modern patrol boat captain's Report of Proceedings/CO Report as a reliable source for articles on the relevant patrol boat. The opinions of the more militarily wise would be useful, so please comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Warship captain's "Report of Proceedings/CO Reports"... reliable_source? -- saberwyn 12:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarah West

Can I get some assistance on Sarah West? bunnylover23 (talk · contribs) is currently deleting sourced content on the grounds that he is 'removing lies', and I don't want to be caught in a 3RR situation. Benea (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

One more reviewer needed on several ACRs

G'day all, there are 5-6 ACRs that already have two supports that just need one more reviewer (and support, of course) to meet our requirements. I'll have a look at a couple I haven't reviewed as yet, but it would be good if we could clear a few over the weekend (wherever you are in the world). I know it's coming up to exam time in some jurisdictions, but if you get a chance... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 17:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm halfway through a review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Formidable (67) and don't expect there to be many issues. I'll try to look at a few others as well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Two have now been passed, any and all help appreciated in shifting a couple more of the older ones. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


The guideline says "Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps,". Is there a stylistic convention for brigades in English ie is 2nd Brigade more commonly used than Second Brigade or II Brigade? I am not creating any articles on brigades, but I am creating articles on the Waterloo Campaign and many of the movements and skirmishes were fought at brigade level.

As soon as the French had assembled in sufficient force at Charleroi, Napoleon ordered Count Pajol to detach General Clary's Brigade towards Gosselies, and to advance with the remainder of the First Corps of Reserve Cavalry towards Gilly. General Clary, with the 1st French Hussars, reached Jumet, on the left of the Brussels road, and only but little more than a mile from Gosselies, before the First Prussian Brigade had crossed the Piéton.[3]

That by the way is the "Prussian 1st Brigade" not the "first Prussian brigade"! — but William Siborne's editors in that edition did like capitals. In this edition, by different editors, published in the same year, it has "1st Prussian brigade" — they didn't like capitals! -- PBS (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move for the War rape article

It's recently been proposed that the War rape article be moved to Wartime sexual violence, and there's a discussion of this at Talk:War rape#Requested move. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Military history interactive timelines

Hi all, I recently spoke with Harry about a project I'm presenting this year at Wikimania, which I hope you’ll find interesting and useful. He suggested I post an introduction here.

The project is called Histropedia and is aiming to use data within Wikipedia and Wikidata to create an interactive timeline of everything in history. The site is free to use and all the data we have is editable and published under an open license. Here are some example timelines to give you an idea of what the interface is like (for best performance use Chrome)

The controls are like a mapping application, click and drag to move through time, use the mouse wheel to zoom. Double click on an event to open the Wikipedia article.

The final vision for the project includes a single timeline of everything in history that can be filtered in any desired way, as well as a directory of timelines on every topic available directly from the search box.

With the current version, you can create custom timelines very quickly by searching our database of over 1.5 million events. We have also just introduced the ability to automatically create a timeline using any Wikidata query or Wikipedia category.

Here’s an example of a timeline created using a live Wikidata query. World War I (around 230 events)

We are very interested in suggestions for features that would benefit the community – Harry has already suggested an ‘on this day’ tool which I've added to our ideas forum for comments, votes and suggestions.

Of course general feedback and suggestions are always greatly appreciated.

You can learn more about the project on our about page

Best regards, NavinoEvans (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility issue with infobox ... not seeing it

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Pacific typhoon season/archive1, I'm not getting the complaint about the constrast level for the links in the infobox ... the contrast seems similar to contrasts in many Milhist infoboxes. I wouldn't want to see a proliferation of new rules at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've checked the visited/unvisited link color contrast combinations with the background colors used in our infobox styling, and they're all WCAG 2 AA compliant (and mostly WCAG 2 AAA compliant), so I don't think it's an issue for us. Kirill [talk] 20:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic Kirill, thx. I'm ignorant about these things, but the contrast looks really solid to me, so I'm guessing the reviewer is pressing for AAA compliance ... which, if I understand you right, would be a problem for some of our infoboxes. I'll ask at the FAC to make sure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, WP:CONTRAST only requires AA compliance; AAA compliance is recommended "where feasible", but I think a blanket requirement for it would be unsupported by the guideline, even at FAC. Kirill [talk] 00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I took at look at your infoboxes, colors seem fine, as Kirill mentioned, but one problem I noticed is that the name parameters use the Infobox 'above' parameter (ex: | above = {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}). You should use | title = {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}. The title parameter sets that "name" field into the caption of the HTML table that contains the infobox, which is in accord with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Tables. -- Netoholic @ 06:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anglo-Saxon Armour and Weaponry

Dear weaponry experts: (the "weaponry" project seems to redirect here) This old AfC submission was declined with the suggestion that the information be merged. Is this a notable topic, or can some in fact be added to another article? If so, would someone like to do it? Weapons are something I know little about. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There is Anglo-Saxon weaponry which the content might merge with. Or possibly into Anglo-Saxon military organization and/or Anglo-Saxon warfare GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The best solution would probably be expanding Anglo-Saxon weaponry along the lines of Viking Age arms and armour Monstrelet (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
It should not be merged into any article unless the general references are converted into inline citations (WP:BURDEN). I think that it is inexcusable to add paragraphs of new content without them being supported with inline citations. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? That's the ideal situation, but it's certainly not a requirement for a new article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
First problem to overcome is no-one has yet offered to do it. If my solution is followed, it would be an article expansion not a merger (as no article on armour exists what would one merge?). It would indeed be nice if additional content was in-line cited but most articles wouldn't get developed if that was essential from the off Monstrelet (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
For me, it would depend on whether the uncited material looks correct; if an editor (e.g. PBS) has concerns about it, then yes, I think we should avoid adding it in unless it is supported with citations. If we are all thinking it looks accurate and above board, then that's a different matter, of course. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay; it looks as though my task is done; I'll leave it to the experts. PBS has edited the draft, so it will hang around another six months until something is done with it. If any content is merged, don't forget to credit the draft's creator in the edit summary. Thanks for taking time to check this out. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 and Monstrelet, I've challenged it so the burden is on anyone who wants to added the material to provide inline citations (the very first section of the verifiability policy). I am surprised that 8 years after the debates on quality not quantity, that experienced editors would contemplate supporting the addition of paragraphs of text without inline citations. To show I am not hypocritical on this: I nearly always create new articles with inline citations here are my five most recent (created since the 25 of July): Stedman (30th), Stuart (29th), Piéton (28th), Röder (27th), Hobe (25th) -- they are some small support articles for a set of much bigger articles on Waterloo Campaign, which are still under development. Earlier this year I created a 1 sentence Belgian village stub article (linked to French and Dutch article that were not much bigger), and then I had to spend time arguing with some zealous editors that 4 lines of warning template was inappropriate, so to prevent that happening again sub articles like Piéton now get citations even if they consist of just two short sentences. -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
As it happens, I didn't volunteer to extend the Anglo-Saxon weapon article because I don't have the sources. It would have lowered the quality of the article overall to do it without. But it is not a requirement of creating a WP article at present, as Sturmvogel commented. Whether it should be is a debate for another time. Monstrelet (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Surprised as you may be, I stand by my statement. A pronounced dislike for uncited text is your only reason? I applaud the fact that your own work is always cited, but this "habit" of yours is severely unfriendly to new editors who likely don't understand the need for cites or even how to do them properly. You've "challenged" the information so it gets deleted/rejected and you don't even have the common courtesy to let the editor know that he should improve his cites? Or how he can do so? Your interpretation of BURDEN is very strict and arguably contrary to the spirit of the last few paragraphs where cooperation to fix the identified problem is urged rather than wholesale condemnation, which appears to be your favored method of implementation.
I can understand challenging specifics that might be incorrect according to your own knowledge, but a blanket condemnation because it lacks in-line cites? I would argue that that's misreading the intent of BURDEN, otherwise we'd have to blank an enormous number of articles, many of them substantially correct, for lack of cites and/or references. And I don't believe that that is in accord with the principles of Wikipedia. Validating/expanding an article with cites, etc., is a perfectly normal thing to do, as is creating a stub with no cites or refs. Ideally, that's all done in one step, but it's hardly a requirement. I've created many stubs myself with just a single line of text, an infobox and nary a cite to be seen. Some of these have been properly expanded by myself or other editors while others still slumber awaiting their prince. If you want to go ahead and "challenge" them for lacking cites, feel free; I'll enjoy the fireworks. But now I am thinking that I need to keep an eye on how BURDEN is interpreted in reality and intervene as needed lest you illegitimately shut down new editors for failing to meet your standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion there is a difference between text which has been in Wikipdia--in some cases for years--and the addition of new information. In the case of the former the correct procedure is to add the various templates to request citations or to add the citations yourself (as footnoted in "Responsibility for providing citations" ), but with new information added to an article there is no excuse for not providing inline citations. I think you need to consider the statement "challenging specifics that might be incorrect according to your own knowledge", if something is incorrect according to my own knowledge I will fix it (and add inline citations to the fix) what is more of a problem is in "specifics" when I have no idea if it is correct or not. Take an article like the Battle of Waterloo at the start of 2007 it had (thee inline citations, one other footnote and four general references) by the start of 2008 it had 128 citations/footnotes. If you read the two article there is little difference in the facts included in both versions, but the rigour involved in adding inline citations did two things it forced editors discuss and find citations to verify facts while obvious to them may not be obvious to everyone (eg what was the precise time the battle started, and where exactly did Blucher and Wellington meet after the battle?), but more importantly, readers could check the inline citations to verify the facts in the article and be relatively confident that the article is accurate. I notice from your edit history that you were not editing back in 2005 so there is no reason why you should know that once Google started to default Wikipeida to the top of its searches Wikipedia became much higher profile, and in 2005 it was fashionable and an easy assignment for journalists to write a story on how inaccurate Wikipeia was and many such articles appeared that year, either by finding a subject that had wildly inaccurate coverage in Wikipedia ("what can you expect from a bunch of amateurs?") or about professors banning their students from even acknowledging that they read Wikipedia let alone citing it. This lack of credibility was considered a real problem for the Project. Thanks to the initiative by many editors to add inline citations, that is far less common now and many more people publish articles stating that Wikipedia is a good place to start looking for information, than rubbish it -- For example there was a first on Desert Island Disks this week when Professor Dame Wendy Hall asked to take Wikipedia to her desert island (the presenter allowed her to take a printout of the complete encyclopaedia -- it must be a big island).-- PBS (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War

So, while searching for sources for an article I'm writing I found this source. It looks reliable, but I wanted to ask and make sure that it's as reliable as it appears. Also, if it is a good source, what do I cite it as? A book perhaps? Thanks in advance for any assistance. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the information provided on the page, it is a complete digital copy of the Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–45. Despite the usually loaded term of "Official History" (which in this case means little more than "published by the Government"), our article on the series says that the overall author, Howard Kippenberger, took pains to avoid censorship and government whitewashing. I would consider it a reliable source.
The best form of citation would be as a book, with the URL links pointing to the website (for example, this cite lifted from the Battle of Crete article: Taylor, Nancy Margaret (1986). "Chapter 8 – Blood is Spilt". The Home Front Volume I. The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–1945. Wellington, New Zealand: Historical Publications Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Government of New Zealand. p. 299.  ) The few 'books' I checked appeared to be broken down by chapters and show where the page numbers of the deadtree copies fell. -- saberwyn 23:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The NZ official history series is clearly a reliable source. Like other works of its era it's now somewhat dated, but it was written as a serious historical enterprise and remains the major work on NZ's experiences in the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Looks like it's good to go then! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Waffen-SS Commanders

Can someone who works in this area try link to this orphaned list? Or alternatively redirect if there is a better page? Gbawden (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks

Could we clean it up first, before adding it to the template? (the references should be clarified) -- (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Poorly named article. It is a list of commanders of the divisions of the SS. This information can be covered in the articles on the divisions. Another approach would be to include other SS commanders such as corps commanders and army commanders. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I've moved it to reflect the content (divisional commanders). It needs proper references, I've deleted Feldgrau, Axis History Factbook etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that the article is at List of Waffen-SS division commanders, what do we do with the redirect Waffen-SS Commanders ? Commanders of units that are not divisions would not be listed in the list. -- (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
There were no Waffen-SS commanders other than divisional commanders on the list anyway, so I would say it could be deleted. So long as the new list is added to the Waffen-SS article as a "See also", there should be no need for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I've activated the link in the template to the list article. I leave nominating for deletion the redirect "Waffen-SS Commanders" to others. -- (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone read Dutch?

And/or in a position to offer an opinion on this article name? No. 322 multi-role F-16 Squadron, RNLAF. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Should just be No. 322 Squadron, RNLAF. Everything else is liable to change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The pages should probably be merged, shouldn't they? Brigade Piron (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
With No. 322 (Dutch) Squadron RAF ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That's probably a bit excessive, IMO. The RAF and the RNlAF squadrons should have separate articles unless there's a real shortage of sources for the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly see the justification - I've worked with 350th Squadron (Belgium) (formerly No. 350 (Belgian) Squadron, RAF) but in my mind the unit name guidelines apply here too. To have two articles (which will both inevitably overlap extensively in the Background section if not elsewhere) is just a content fork. Brigade Piron (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the modern Dutch air force uses 'No.' at the start of unit names. The order of battle for the force labels the squadrons 322 Squadron, etc. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
When doing a little on the main RNLAF article I created a bunch of redlinks at '3XX Squadron RNLAF' and that includes 322 Squadron RNLAF. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

After 1945 the LSK (1946-1953) and then RNLAF (since 1953) never used 'No.' before the Squadron number. It's for example 313 Squadron (F-16 Squadron now based at Volkel AB) and not No. 313 Squadron HWClifton (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Messines (1914)

Battle of Messines (1914) I put a location map under the infobox as per the French ones, remembered that it's in Belgium but don't know how to add a red dot. Does anyone have suggestions pleaseKeith-264 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Gideon Welles

This needs a good lead image, and here are some possibilities, but they need restoration (all the photographs are on the first page of the search results). Now, I can't promise to do the first choice - sometimes there's a lot more damage than it looks at small scale - but can I get preferences? Maybe a top three? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there is a lot of repetition among the images, I'd vote for the one that needs the least cleanup. To my untrained eye that appears to be the one identified as "Gideon Welles, 1802-1878", but I'm not an image expert. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cactus Air Force Article

Re: Cactus Air Force.

I came across the above article and I feel that it would be worthy of a B-class assessment. That's upto anyone who is willing to put in the effort to get it to be B-class assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

U.S. General Is Reportedly Killed by an Afghan Soldier

The New York Times reports: "U.S. General Is Reportedly Killed by an Afghan Soldier". The article does not identify the general, but perhaps an updated version of that article will provide the missing name. In any event, it may be valuable to create articles on all officers posted to Afghanistan whose rank or other accomplishments indicate notability. Copyright-free photographs of U.S. military personnel are often available through military websites. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 15:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cites to subscription sites

This edit caught my eye. In a nutshell: inline cites to the subject's biography on the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography were removed, and replaced with a general link in the references section, on the grounds "Remove ONDB cites (link requires login)". Should cites that link to a subscription site not be used? In which case the citing of a whole lot of articles need to be rethought. I haven't been able to find anything that says this should be avoided, and WP:PAYWALL seems to indicate this method of sourcing is fine. Benea (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Paywall allows it. Subscription content is not much different than having to buy a book that's not in a nearby library. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely should be left in place. This is more accessible than citing the print ODNB, and I can't imagine anyone challenging that as inappropriate. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've mostly reverted the edit (leaving of course the updated EB1911 template). Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
If citing the online 2004 ODNB then suffix {{ODNBsub}} to the citation (eg: see Richard Carnac Temple). - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Even better, {{Cite ODNB}} will provide a neatly formatted template along with the subscription-access suffix :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Only if the article is already using the {{cite}} format, otherwise you've got to jump through WP:CITEVAR. In any event, certainly at FAC, I've found people picking holes in that particular template. - Sitush (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Len Ford/GA1

I am reviewing Len Ford, who is a Pro Football Hall of Fame athlete who served briefly (a few weeks or months in 1945) in the U.S. Navy. Can anyone find his rank and maybe where he did basic training. Drop a note at Talk:Len Ford/GA1 or be bold and edit the article, if you can help. Also, help us identify appropriate military service categories for the article, which currently has none.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi folks, just asking for an opinion on the criticism section that an IP editor from Taiwan has been updating and restoring almost constantly over the last 12 hours or so. I initially removed it after patrolling recent changes (as it was completely unsourced) however I'm now not completely convinced about the way it's written and about whether the sources provided are considered reliable or not. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated, I have no real knowledge of the area. Thanks, CaptRik (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That section was a train wreck. I've just removed it. As the editor has a history of similar behaviour I've blocked the account for a month. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I need help with a draft about a Tactical Data Link system

My ignorance of the subject is inhibiting my ability to turn User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Link-ZA into a reasonably decent article. I fear I might skip over fundamental basics and/or give undue weight to minor details because I do not know enough (read "practically nothing") about data links and communication systems and protocols to competently paraphrase sources. (I can just barely manage a rough explanation of the difference between TDMA and CDMA!). Thus I would appreciate it if a technically knowledgeable editor might join with me in creating the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there really nobody here who knows about data links? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

List or timeline of conflicts by decades

I've been browsing Conflicts in [Year] categories, such as Conflicts in 2000, and an idea occurred to me that it would be very useful to put all conflicts in a unified table for better context. I've been going over in my head on how best to achieve this, and so far I've been able to come up with the below table, which would act as the main piece for an article like List of conflicts in the 2000s, in which we would plot in chronological order, from the earliest to the latest, each conflict from its start to its finish. (Those conflicts starting before the given decade and/or finishing or ongoing past the given decade, the plotted line would span the entire decade, perhaps with symbols at the start and end of the line linking to where it stars/ends.) This is just a quick and dirty table, meant to raise some discussion. I feel these would be highly interesting and useful articles to have, due to the sheer volume of conflicts in the world now and in the past, many of which happen at the same time. For someone trying to figure out which conflicts were ongoing in the world simultaneously in, say, 1980, it would be quite a tough task. That year's category will just give them a list of conflicts with no context. This would present an easy graphical overview of the entire decade, making it easy to see when any conflict started, when it ended, and what other conflicts were contemporaneously happening. This would not qualify as original research, as we would simply be tabulating existing dates and not drawing any analysis, only presenting the visualized data.

So here's what I think it could look like:

Event 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

I'm not extremely proficient with tables, and I cannot seem to make the "Event" column be the width of the text in its rows for some reason, and I'm sure the code could be improved, and so on, but I'm curious to hear any initial feedback to this idea overall. Yes, the table is very wide, but there's really no going around that, it seems. Jmj713 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Do it in a spreadsheet and upload as an image. Dump the spreadsheet somewhere that enables people to add any future data and regenerate the image. Use an open spreadsheet format, not a proprietary one. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think an image would be a very good idea, because it's not as quick and easy to edit as a table. I will be compiling the data into a spreadsheet, but then using that as a guide for the table. I'm just now seeking opinion on how to make the table itself better, perhaps, and also wondering if anyone wishes to lend a hand on this project. Jmj713 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? Tables on Wikipedia are notorious for getting broken and being hard to debug. In fact, improving the ability to create and edit tables has been one of the long-standing requests. Maybe Visual Editor does that but I don't use it and nor do an awful lot of other people. Anyway, it's entirely up to you: I was just passing, saw your note and did a bit of lateral thinking. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

10th Queen's Own Canadian Hussars

I've just been searching to see what the wiki has on this unit and can find no mention of it anywhere. I'm aware of my own failings however and wonder if anyone else has been working on an article on the Canadian Militia which includes the 10th QOCH? There are some sketchy details here.

If nobody is aware of anything then I'll do a page startup and at least get a stub article up. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We're pretty light on articles about Australian/Canadian/NZ militia units like this - because they often never saw combat there's not usually much on them. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
As I can find nothing on them in the pre 1939 Canadian Militia, unless there are objections, I will start something up. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Our coverage of Canadian military history is generally pretty under-developed in comparison to that of the other English-speaking countries, so the lack of an article on a viable-looking topic (such as an army regiment) should generally be interpreted as a good opportunity to write a new article :) Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It's in progress today. Not making much headway though as I have other domestic tasks to attend to. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Article created at 10th Queen's Own Canadian Hussars. May I respectfully request someone from the project review it before one of the keener deleters from our number decides to put a "delete" notice on it? Getting information online to make it interesting has been quite a challenge so it will need a little more time. I'm not confident of creating a masterpiece out of this one though. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to those who stepped in to review and improve the article. I've been offered a good badge image from a copyright holder on a collector's website and once I sort out the CC licencing with him I'll get it up there. SonofSetanta (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Help to resolve redirect frenzy please

I started an article First Battle of Picardy but it redirects to Race to the Sea or goes to a page titled 1st Picardy, which is the abbreviation in the Race to the Sea template. I've tried to edit the redirect following Wikipedia:Redirect and only managed to bugger things up more. Does anyone know how to put it right? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I can fix it - do you want the article currently at 1st Battle of Picardy to be at First Battle of Picardy? Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably better to look here first Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 6Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Henry Wheeler (signalman)

Can anyone find any service records for Henry Wheeler (signalman) (British navy, served in WWII), please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Are FBI medals a "significant award or honor"

Hello, I'm trying to determine if a fallen FBI agent named Christopher Lorek meets Wp:Notability (people). The FBI WikiProject seems to be inactive so I thought this was the next best place to ask. His tragic death has significant reliable coverage (New York Times link; CNN link; USA Today link). My initial reaction is that all this coverage is for his death and not a life accomplishment, so maybe not notable. But the new editor who first brought Christopher Lorek to my attention said that he was awarded "the FBI highest honor" Memorial Star; and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Medal of Honor. So I thought these two medals might be considered a "significant award or honor". However, I couldn't find any links confirming his receiving these medals. So that's where I'm at. I don't know much about Military medals and editing policies so here I am asking the experts. Thanks for taking the time. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're looking at enough notability to establish a biography on its own. The FBI's Memorial Star was probably not awarded to Lorek. The FBI's pages about Lorek do not mention a Memorial Star.[4][5][6][7] If such a star is rewarded to someone, they make sure to mention it.[8][9] The NLEOM did not give him a 'medal of honor', instead they added his name to an engraving, a list of those who have fallen in the line of duty.[10][11]
So, as regretful as it is for a brave man to die in the line of very difficult duty, Lorek was not so notable that Wikipedia will have a biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Binksternet, I will inform the new editor of this discussion. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet, it appears that I am in conversation with Christopher mother; found here. She says that he received the Memorial Star in a private ceremony but could only find mention of it in a non-digital National Eagle Scout Association magazine. Would the FBI issue such a medal without mentioning on his memorial profile? Also, if there is a way to WP:Verify he received this metal, is this metal enough to meet WP:Notability (people)? Thanks, Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that the FBI's Memorial Star has been used as the sole reason for notability on Wikipedia. Certainly it would help, but a private ceremony without anything published is less notable, by definition. If you go to the trouble to verify the medal in the National Eagle Scout Association, Lorek may still not have enough notability for Wikipedia. It looks to me like more would have to be published about him. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


I want to restore 25 WWI images by the end of the year, preferably suitable to run on the main page for the anniversaries of notable actions. For now, I'd like to cover the period September 1914 to June 1915; this will, of course, progress over time.

Besides the obvious Library of Congress and Bibliotheque Nationale de France, resources I have include Punch's History of the Great War, and the History of the Great European War.

If anyone has advice on what I should work on, do say. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adam, is there a listing of the images you're considering working on somewhere? Images of the first months of the war would be particularly valuable: this period of fast moving (and very bloody) 'open' warfare is relatively little remembered compared to the major trench battles. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
So true. A British Army mate of mine recently told me his great grandfather was seriously wounded in 1914 when he was lanced in the side by a Prussian cavalryman! Not something we usually associate with WWI... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
See User:Adam_Cuerden#WWI_Anniversary_images. I might remove a couple, as there's about four Lusitanias in there. It's not a very good list yet, that's why I'm asking. =) (Mind ye, next thing to come out is probably Philippe Pétain, which is a different World War - well, sort of. He certainly served in WWI, but he's most significant for his actions in WWII) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
A personal request - could one of the pictures you choose depict Belgian infantrymen? They are, after all, the forgotten allies and there are some well composed photos available on commons which would easily meet the bill! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: I would love to. Any particularly good photos you know of? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Great! Personally, I think this one captures a certain something of 1914. Perhaps it's the ludicrous top hats? Not sure if it's too badly gone though as a photo.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Doubt that's featureable, but it's probably improvable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Harold J. Greene

In light of recent events I've taken a stab at expanding this General's page here, but I badly need an independent set of eyes to read through the new introduction and make sure that the lead paragraphs are free of spelling and grammar errors. Since this man is currently in the news, and we are widely held to be a go to source for information, I want to make sure that there are no little flubups in the intro section I wrote so as not to insult the man's memory. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Gday - I had a quick look and its certainly an improvement on what was there. It is a little abrupt in its summary of his career, although I imagine this is due to limited material currently being available. I could not see any issues IRT tone or anything like that. Anyway I hope that helps. Anotherclown (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Operation Great War Centennial

I'm posting here about Operation Great War Centennial, listed under this WikiProject's Special Projects. I mentioned this subproject recently over at Talk:Main Page, see Talk:Main Page#100th Anniversary of World War I ([12], [13], [14]). There is some truth to the opinion there that not enough has been done on the top-level WWI topics, but there is a lot of work going on relating to WWI articles, just not (as far as I can tell) very much co-ordination or telling people what is being done (e.g. regular newsletters and updates). I started a related discussion here at the talk page of the 'In the news' section and created Centenary of the outbreak of World War I (any help with that article would be greatly appreciated).

Getting back to 'Operation Great War Centennial', as I said over at the Main Page talk page, activity appears low at Operation Great War Centennial. What I'd like to do is to appeal to the co-ordinators of WP:MILHIST and any active editors here who want to help out in this topic area, to try and re-invigorate co-ordinating activity in this area. Some things that could be done:

  • (i) Re-purpose 'Operation Great War Centennial' from "identify core topics on World War I and aim to bring them all to top quality before the Centenary." to "identify core topics on World War I and aim to bring them all to top quality during the Centenary.".
  • (ii) Archive (before a certain date) the current 'Operation Great War Centennial' talk page.
  • (iii) Reach out to current and new editors on the topic and tell them about this project (look at the archives of WT:MILHIST and the various new article reports produced and the edit history of WWI topics and watchlists covering the WWI topic).
  • (iv) Change the current redirect on the WWI taskforce talk page to redirect to the 'Operation Great War Centennial' talk page instead of here (I mentioned changing the redirects several months ago, but not sure if that discussion ever went anywhere).

Apologies if any of this was discussed in previous months or has been discussed at the MILHIST co-ordinators' page. The key thing, I think, is to get a core group of people who work regularly in this topic area to come together at the 'Operation Great War Centennial' talk page and move things forward from there. To that end, I've posted this notice there. Please comment here and/or go and sign-up there! Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Peer review for 33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry

G'day all, a peer review has been started for the article on the 33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry. The review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry/archive1. All interested editors are invited to participate. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Johnson South Reef Skirmish#Casualties and losses

I like your input. Is it proper to state: "Over 70 killed; Vietnamese figure: 3 killed and 74 missing" (like this [15]) in the infobox of the article or should the "over 70 killed" be combined. --Cold Season (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sign up for the September-October backlog drive!

G'day everyone, just a warning order that we are running a general backlog drive starting on 1 September and running for six weeks. You can sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2014 backlog reduction drive. The more the merrier! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC) for the MILHIST coordinators

Reviewers, please!

Hi all, I know the Featured List process is a little more obscure than its Featured Article counterpart, but List of cruisers of Germany has been up for review for over a month now and has garnered a whopping 0 reviews. If you could spend a few minutes to review the list against the FL Criteria, I'd be very grateful. Thanks much. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day Parsecboy, I'll get some time to have a look over the w/e. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


I think we should pay attention to the backlogs. They need to be done before anything else so they don't add up and become overwhelming. Let's say do them in the next two weeks for them to be at 0? Adamdaley (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We'll just reset them at 0 just before the drive, won't we? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
At the moment there is 839, give or take a few. Sometimes, I try to get some done. That's all I can do. Adamdaley (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Upto 912 (742 over the limit and in the Assessment tab) as of August 12, 2014. We seem to have the majority of our time writing our own articles or updating them rather than having an our time across the board. Adamdaley (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Adam, what specific backlog category are you referring to? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What other backlogs are there in the "Assessment" tab other than the follow: Category:Unassessed military history articles .... This: Category:Military history articles with no associated task force and this: Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Adamdaley (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You didn't say the "Assessment" tab. There are also the "Articles that need specific improvements" backlogs, like Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of military history... In any case I expect that the pending backlog drive of six weeks duration will bring them under control. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I did say the Assessment tab at: 00:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC) or see above. Adamdaley (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Besides, those that want to contribute to "specific" attributes of articles, go ahead. There will always be a backlog of the 3 categories as above. It's just people rather do their own article and their interest and basically ignore these three. No skin off my nose. Thought I'd pay attention to it and so others could participate in it before it reaches 28,000 like it did a few years ago. Don't come running to me when it reaches over a 1,000 in each. Adamdaley (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't come to Wikipedia to do 'paperwork' like manage backlogs... I get enough of that at work. I volunteer my time and effort to Wikipedia to relax by contributing information to "the sum total of human knowledge" in the small areas that I know about. I will clean up where necessary after myself (and occasionally elsewhere just for a change of pace). I respect and admire those who do come here to relax by improving the behind-the-scenes workings of this project. However, I am not one of them, and I do not believe that the world will end if people neglect to tick a box or cross a T somewhere (and if it does, we won't be in a position to complain about it). I am tired of what feels like near-constant complaining about paperwork issues. I will not contribute to the backlog-clearing drive, or any backlog-related work, because, unless you start paying me to be here, I will do what I enjoy doing. Feel free to kick me out of the project or ban me from the encyclopedia if this is a problem. -- saberwyn 09:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

saberwyn – Maybe you could apply to do whatever that particular position that pays part of whatever, Wikipedia has? I can't think of what and not sure of the name of the position it has within Wikipedia. I'm sure someone in WP:Military History would know what I'm talking about. You don't need to help in anything if you don't want too. Besides, I don't know if we've ever seen each other (let alone communicated) on Wikipedia. I was basically saying that if anyone wanted to help like they did before when it was around 28,000 backlog, then they could and I've certainly done a few articles today to reduce the backlog, while there is plenty still there. Too much for 1 person. Adamdaley (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
And all I tried to do was make the point that in 18 days we will (hopefully) have a good number of editors working on the backlogs for six weeks. Why don't you sign up for the drive? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I probably would do 5 articles but it would take longer than 6 weeks. Why? I've semi-moved out of home. I spend 4 nights at my own place, and 3 nights at my mums place. Let's say it has been an "independence" type of thing. But I do participate in Wikipedia, while not madly playing my PS2 or PS3. Adamdaley (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Could anyone comment here? Thanks! Harry J. Malony United States Army Reserve Center. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Medal of Honour awardees

Two people have been removed form this list, without explanation [16] and [17]. Any Milhistorian or User:Jayjg who might have an opinion on whether these removals are justified is hereby pinged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough19:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

I've reverted both (and the associated edits to the individuals' bios) - there are plenty of sources that confirm that they were both, A: Jewish, and B: Medal of Honor winners. I'd wager somebody is trying to enforce a stricter definition of who is and is not Jewish... Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Regiment of Riflemen (United States)

The Regiment of Riflemen was an early nineteenth century formation that was raised at the behest of Thomas Jefferson and was disbanded sometime in the early 1820s. More research is required. It served on the Canadian/U.S. border during the War of 1812. It rarely, if ever, fought as a regiment and instead had its companies farmed out to other commanders. There were also a Regiment of (Light) Artillery and a Regiment of Cavalry; those are questions for another day. The Regiment of Riflemen was not a numbered infantry regiment and there may have eventually been four of them, at least on the books. No other unit seems to have inherited its lineage and honors.

As far as I can tell, there is no page with a name resembling "Regiment of Riflemen (United States)" Is anyone aware of us ever having had such a page on Wikipedia?

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I've created Draft:1st Regiment of Riflemen (United States). I'm looking for resources other than primary. There are a number of pages in WP that reference (not link to) the riflemen.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Optional country disambiguation of Canadian Expeditionary Force battalions

G'day everyone, a large number of articles have recently been created for the battalions of the CEF raised during WWI. Almost all currently include ", CEF" at the end to disambiguate them from any other "Foost Battalion". There is no information I can see that there were other Canadian battalions with the same numbers (although I will bow to the superior knowledge of others, of course). My view is that they should be disambiguated by country per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME in the same way as the Australian AIF (Australian Imperial Force) battalions of WWI, ie "Foost Battalion (Canada)" rather than "Foost Battalion, CEF", for consistency. I had to think hard (and look at a couple of articles) before I realised "CEF" was equivalent to the Australian "AIF". I don't think people will naturally type in "Foost Battalion, CEF", they are more likely to type in "Foost Battalion Canada" or similar. What say you? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As with the AIF, they would almost certainly type in "201st Battalion CEF". Like the Australian Army, the Canadian used Kitchener's New Army model, with battalions being raised with numbers and no formal affiliation with existing units. This came after the war. The difference between the AIF and CEF was that instead of sending reinforcement drafts, the Canadians sent whole battalions. Hence the very high numbers. Most were broken up for reinforcements in Britain. Since casualties among the junior officers and the rank and file was higher than among the field officers, the result was an accumulation of field officers in the UK. The numbers are unique, but a series of reserve battalions were formed in the UK, which do not have articles (yet). The CEF battalions have different articles from the battalion that they were affiliated with. So 72nd Battalion (Seaforth Highlanders of Canada), CEF (the only Canadian regiment in World War I to deploy with its traditional regimental number as its CEF battalion number) has a separate article from The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well by example, I just found 5th Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles, CEF and I agree that - in absence of a later 5th Bn of the Mounted Rifles - the CEF is superfluous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that any that are clearly "Canadian" from their "name" (like the one you identified), could do without the "CEF". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree - it seems unnecessary. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
If, as Hawkeye states, the ordinals are unique, then there is no reason not to drop the CEF and replace it (where necessary) with (Canada). 72nd Battalion (Seaforth Highlanders of Canada), CEF doesn't need (Canada) because it has (Seaforth Highlanders of Canada) instead, so it should just be 72nd Battalion (Seaforth Highlanders of Canada). There are others with provincial names like Ontario or Saskatchewan etc in the title, and they could probably drop the CEF (or (Canada)), as almost everyone will identify them as being Canadian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rhino ferry, used at Normandy

I've been asked to help expand this article, but I'm in the middle of a move and have absolutely no time to do so. Would any of the good topic experts here be able to lend a hand? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Having tweaked it a bit - I've found an existing article on the subject: Navy lighterage pontoons. And put merge suggestions up. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with uniform identification

This image from the Imperial War Museum shows five men in WWI, of whom three are named. I've got a feeling that the IWM caption (which is more or less our caption) is ambiguous. Are the three men really named from the extreme right or are they named from the right of the shell that is shown? My reason for doubt is that William Beach Thomas was a war correspondent and British war correspondents wore armbands, as the middle chap in the three at the right of the shell appears to do. BT was also particularly tall for his era, but both "middle" men - counted from the extreme right and from right of the shell - are clearly taller than the others shown!

The way to clear it up is to work out the uniforms/insignia. Both BT and the other British newspaper chap would have been captains, and the uniform of the Belgian chap should be distinctive from that worn by the Brits. Failing this, I'll have to have a word with the IWM (I know a trustee, which might speed that up, but I'm wanting to take this article to FAC and it could take ages even as an inside job). - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm no uniform expert but only the middle of the three to the left of the shell appear to have British military uniform. Also, the middle figure of the three counting from the right of the picture (the man just to the right of the shell) is wearing an armband. You wouldn't see an armband on the first figure on the right if it was worn in the same position to the other two British figures. Hope that helps. Monstrelet (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to say the one on (our) far right is Robinson - compare this photo. Next one has an armband, just visible, and is probably WBT. The man at the back is probably our Belgian - note the interesting collar on his uniform, which is definitely not British.
The next British man (second left) is not named but is probably a "real" British officer as an escort/liaison - he's wearing medal ribbons. The final one is another Belgian judging by the uniform. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, compare the figure here. Looks like the same man as the second from right with the same rumpled cap. Monstrelet (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all, for input so far. Yes. Monstrelet, that was what I was thinking during the GAN. Also, the chap holding the map or whatever, looks very different and has a two-tone band - the correspondents wore, I think, a green armband (no mention of two-tone). As long as I can get some sort of consensus here, I'm happy to face the wrath of FAC ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
After peering a bit more, I'm confident both #1 and #3 (from our left) are Belgian - compare this tunic. I can't seem to find a clear indication for how the rank badges worked at the time but Belgian military ranks suggests that three pips is (currently) used for a captain, and #3 definitely has three dots (though in a triangle not a line).
I can't identify the British officer's rank insignia, but the medal ribbons are probably the Military Cross (striped) and something else (would have said the DSO, but that would come before the MC not after it). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am happier now: the comment at the GAN threw me a bit, even though we agreed to let my caption stand. Thanks to everyone for their input. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation hiring an experienced humanities editor

Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with Panzer 58 article

Does anyone have any information on the basis for the 90mm gun used by the first prototype of this tank, I theorize it is based on the Pak 57 AT gun but I cannot be sure that it isn't based on the F3 french gun or that it isnt proprietary without more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietrus69 (talkcontribs) 05:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Bloody good question, can only suggest trying to locate a copy of Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift, Volume 126, 1960, or Panzer und Panzerabwehr, 1982. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Not that they are necessarily reliable sources, but there are several websites that state it was a Swiss-designed 90mm gun, and says it was manufactured by Eidgenoessische Konstruktionswerkstaette in Thun, using the designation "1948". Consistent with a prototype using an in-house gun, it obviously didn't meet specs, as they quickly went to the Centurion 20-pounder and then a 105mm for the short run of 10 tanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I guess I will just have to wait until new information surfaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietrus69 (talkcontribs) 17:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Map question

Battle of Messines (1914) I put a location map into the infobox but bungled the red dot for Messines. Does anyone know how 'tis done? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, took me a while to notice, but you had the values for latitude and longitude swapped. (Hohum @) 22:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, egg on face. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed non-free copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kprtqrf06.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Howard Eugene Beagle - notability

Howard Eugene Beagle is clearly somebody who died with "extraordinary heroism" and was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. The article is almost all a copy of a report of his actions that lead up to his death. Not an expert on American military bios but it doesnt look enough for a stand-alone article? MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A Google Books search does not bode well. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER, the DSC is the second highest award for gallantry, but as a sergeant I don't think he is ever likely to meet the guidelines. I'd PROD it etc.Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Henry Wheeler (signalman)

Can anyone find any service records for Henry Wheeler (signalman) (British navy, served in WWII), please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: are you sure that WP:BIO is met here? A single appearance on a radio show doesn't seem sufficient. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah - he fails the various alphabet-soups pretty hard, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not a single appearance on a radio show; that's an entire radio show about him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Undisambiguated USAF units

G'day all, I was just pulled up for pre-emptively disambiguating Eleventh Air Force to Eleventh Air Force (United States), and told that in the case of USAF units, pre-emptive disambiguation is uniformly ignored. I was unaware of this rule, and think that if it is accepted as an exemption, then it should be reflected in WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The text in the MilMoS says "In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces.....the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created..." Have there been any other cases where nations have numbered "Air Forces"? (The Soviets used Air Army)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. In WWII, the Italian Regia Aeronautica used "Squadra Aerea" which is usually translated by RS as "Air Force". Per "5th Squadra Aerea", for example. Also, it is about a reasonable expectation of use, not necessarily whether it has happened yet. For example, the Chinese currently have regional "air forces" named after regions rather than using ordinals, but would only take a stroke of the pen for them to decide to use ordinals instead. If the USAF was massively larger than any other air force, then the argument might be valid, as it might be unreasonable to think that anyone else would ever use the term, but given the size of the Chinese air force I think it is more than reasonable to expect that First Air Force and other numbers will be used by more armed forces, whether they currently are or not. Given the Italians used ordinals for air forces in WWII, I don't think there are any grounds for an exemption for USAF. I also note that there are a lot of USAF units (not just air forces) that seem to be exempt from this aspect of MILMOS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Eleventh Air Force

moved from Peacemaker67's talk page

Since Eleventh Air Force redirects to Eleventh Air Force (United States) why the need for disambiguation? Getting ready to start an article ? Cheers. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, we pre-emptively disambiguate military units by country per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
A convention that is universally ignored for USAF units. There have been previous discussions on that on the MILHIST talk page. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware of that. My view is I can't see any reason whatsoever why USAF units should be exempt from the policy, but if that is the consensus, perhaps we should add that exemption to MILMOS? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Lineagegeek - can you pls provide a link to the relevant discussion? I'm not aware of this either and I don't see any obvious reason why we would treat them any differently. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
IIRC, it's in an archived MILHIST Talk page, and my limited computer skills won't let me locate it without devoting all my Wiki time to the effort. My recollection of the discussion was that it was decided to let this exist as a legend. Even if omitting the (United States) from the page is US-centric, establishing a special rule for US units would be even more US-centric. I think inertia was a factor as well. I would estimate that between 5000 and 10,000 pages would have to be moved for the USAF alone. In addition to the page you moved, I'm only aware of a couple of USAF unit articles (air divisions) that include (United States). A quick peek at "field artillery battalion" indicates that the US army is a mixed bag of articles with and without the designator. US Navy articles generally avoid the issue by titles like VMF-nnn or USS Foo. If the discussion is as hidden in archives as I suspect, perhaps it's time to reopen the subject. My sense is that there is little need for the disambiguation because most non-English speaking country's aviation units tend to have names like Lufttransportgeschwader n or Escadrille de Chasse n even on the English Wikipedia. Commonwealth units tend to be in the form No. n (Fighter) Squadron, rather than nth Fighter Squadron. I can think of an exception for Canadian units for specific cases, since I believe they now use the form of n Fighter Squadron (although I think their squadrons are all numbered in the 400s because of their past as RAF units), which could be confused with nth Fighter Squadron. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm copying this to the MILHIST talk thread so we can have the discussion in front of the whole community. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
MILMOS#UNITNAME says the unit should be pre-emptively disambiguated when other use is likely - not always, or as a hard-and-fast rule. There is very little need to disambiguate most USAF units because they use a unique kind of technical jargon rarely seen elsewhere. Nowhere else in the world will you find a 55XXth Tactical Fighter Training Squadron - the Brits would simply have X Squadron RAF, the Canadians have X Squadron RCAF, the French don't use this kind of complex name, Israel = X Squadron (Israel) and the Russians/Chinese etc work on the Regiment, not the Wing. Anyone who wishes me to go on about the way we disambiguate military aerial units, I can, but as far as I can see at the moment, there is not need to change MILUNIT and stipulate mandatory usage of (United States). (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFF being raised here, and frankly, I'm not much interested in it. This discussion began regarding the Eleventh Air Force, not individual USAF squadrons. Naturally, en WP involves a lot of Anglo/US-centric stuff, which is really not justifiable or consistent. In my view, all the USAF "Foost Air Force" articles should be disambiguated with (United States), because we had at least five if not more Italian "Air Forces" in WWII. That is as far as I want to get right now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
With the limitation to Eleventh Air Force in mind:
As to the possibility that some large nation might rename a geographical air unit to a numbered air force: 1-7, 9 (the first one), 11 (the first one), 16, 21 and 22 US Air Forces have all started off with other designations, with all except for Ninth being geographical, and 6, 7, 11 (the first one) and 23 (the first one) have all gone from numbers to another name so it might happen.
As to the liklihood preemptive disambiguation is needed for NAFs. It's possible but it hasn't happened.
As for exact duplication, except for a brief period in 1942, the US convention is that the numbers of its air forces are spelled out. Therefore, it is always Eleventh Air Force. That seems to make it less likely that a duplicate would be more likely to be 11th Air Force, People's Liberation Army. If that were to happen, it would be simple to change 11th Air Force from a redirect to a disambiguation page, or use a hatnote like 11th Air Force redirects here. For the 11th Air Force, Peoples Liberation Army, see . . .. Thanks for clarifying that you are only talking about the NAFs. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Right. Peacekeeper67 has a point. PK67, please provide some sort of source regarding the Italian X Air Forces, then we better start disambiguating numbered air forces. It was my view that up to now, there were no other numbered air forces (the Luftflottes being the closest, sometimes translated as Air Forces, but better as Air Fleets or even better still left untranslated), but if there are, we need to disambiguate, and English-language/important-air force parochialism should not stand in the way.... Buckshot06 (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure. A high quality source for the use of "Air Force" as a translation of Squadra Aerea used by the Italians is Walter Boyne's Air Warfare: An International Encyclopedia - Volume 1 p. 519. With Luftflotten, it at least is generally understood as meaning "air fleet", just by looking at it, due to our familiarity with Luftwaffe and the similarities of the English and German words for "fleet", so I can see why many would not want to translate it into English. However, Squadra Aerea doesn't have that "advantage", to look at it, you might think it was "air squadron", which is actually squadriglia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Spring Offensive

Gday another editor has made a decent start on an article for the Chinese Spring Offensive (an action in April and May 1951 during the Korean War). I've gone through it and tried to assist where I could but it could do with a few more editors having a look. In particular it needs a copy edit and some more references. Would be good if someone knowledgeable on this period could read over it to fact check it too. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, look on the bright side, if this article is properly developed, fact checked, opposing POVs examined and remain neutral, this will the be the first time in Korean War historiography that someone wrote an comprehensive history of Chinese Spring Offensive. No pressure of course. Jim101 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Photos of medals - anywhere they can be useful?

I took some photos of my grandfather's World War II medals - he just got the standard complement of "participation" medals (3 campaign medals, victory medal, honorable service lapel and honorable discharge button) and posted them on the commons. For the ones that have an article and where appropriate, I'm incorporating the photos into the article (American Campaign Medal, for example), but I thought I'd mention it in case you guys would find it useful elsewhere. I've collected them in a gallery in my userspace here. The one medal where I don't see an obvious place for it is this one, the US Navy Honorable discharge button. I don't see that it has its own article. Any suggestions on where this might be aappropriate? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is to create a gallery on Commons for military discharge papers/memorabilia/medals/ribbons/etc, and put it there, and then link to it from military discharge
The only place it could currently be used here is Military_discharge#Honorable -- (talk)


Under WP:SOLDIER, is a colonel who brevetted to brigadier automatically considered to be notable?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Beginning with a question: What military? In the nineteenth century US Army brevets were usually a way of honoring individuals, because until the War to Preserve the Union introduced decorations there was no other way to recognize distinguished service. If the brevet was in the nature of an award I would think it would not make the individual a flag officer automatically. That being said, remember the word "usually" If there are reliable sources about the individual be bold, if not, I would not think the notability requirement would exist. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
U.S. Army. The officer in question was Thomas A. Smith, who was the colonel of the Regiment of Riflemen. (We have a page for a Thomas A. Smith but he's a twentieth century person.) During the War of 1812, Smith was brevetted to BG and commanded larger forces. After the war ended, he reverted to his former rank and resumed command of the Riflemen for a time.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Fort Smith, Arkansas got its name from "our" Smith.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a good start, but WP:SOLDIER is a Milhist guideline, WP:GNG is the main one. It requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. If you have that, you're fine regardless of what rank he was. Commanding a regiment and above, and having a fort (and city) named after him bodes well, but the key is the coverage. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. When I'm sure my current project isn't dead on arrival, I'll start working on Smith. What's a good page name since his name is already in use? I think I saw his middle name somewhere, but I'll have to find it again.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably Thomas A. Smith (soldier) would be best, unless your fellow is far more notable than the current one (which might well be the case), then we might need to move the current one to Thomas A. Smith (scientist) and have your fellow at Thomas A. Smith. You'll probably need a tag at the top of each article to point where the other is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- (e/c) Smith is listed as "Thomas Adams Smith" in Fort Smith, Arkansas, but that is uncited. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Just found "Adams" in the Papers of Andrew Jackson. Thanks.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

9th Air Command

Can someone please translate this into English. I found it impossible to fathom!--Petebutt (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, except for the fact that it is a textbook-case of the most bare bones summary imaginable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Is not understanding Drvar or Drvar 2. Without more am agreeing with Petebutt. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kos93: Drvar and Drvar 2, to my mind, are reorganisation programmes - says so in the middle, and there's two references to Drvar I at the bottom. Kos93 is doing a smashing job on a completely neglected subject.... Buckshot06 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
While we're kicking this around, should 9th Air Command be renamed to 9th Air Command (Yugoslavia)? The current page name is kind of generic.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
From List of Yugoslav Air Force squadrons: "Until the start of the 1959 reorganization of Yugoslav People's Army known under codename "Drvar" [See Raid on Drvar], each Aviation Regiment of the Yugoslav Air Force comprised three aircraft squadrons and one technical squadron ... After the application of the "Drvar" reorganization for the Air Force, from April 1961, new type designation system is used to identify squadron". Also Yugoslav Air Force#Rebuilding Soviet support. --Kkmurray (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated content

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Japanese occupation of the Philippines#Duplicated content. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hemmema at FAC

I recently nominated hemmema as an FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a notification here. If you have time to spare, please drop by with feedback and criticial comments.

Peter Isotalo 07:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Peruvian Ministry of Defence photos

Hi all, after my request the Peruvian Ministry of Defence has kindly relicenced their Flickr photos to a CC licence and I am uploading them to Commons. They will be found at C:Category:Photographs by the Peruvian Ministry of Defence. Please put these photos into use, and if anyone feels like helping to categorise them I would appreciate it. I can be contacted via my Commons talk page at C:User_talk:Russavia. (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD of Possible Interest

There is currently an AfD discussion concerning an article that may be of interest to members of this project. Comments are welcome. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Puma Display Team -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with highlightText

Please see WT:FAC#Help with highlightText. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Last call...

Last call for comments on the article talk page with regard to the proposed split of the article Presidential Unit Citation (United States) into two separate articles; one containing the general information about the ribbon, and the other containing the recipient units of the citations. The consensus so far has been to split the article; however, I would like to get further input before actually attempting such a split. Please leave your comments on the talk page of the article along with any ideas and suggestions. I will leave this open for 30 days before attempting any action or inaction. The proposed split has been open since December 2013. Thank you. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If the list were short, I'd be against the split. However, seeing how the long the article is, and how long the list itself is, I support a split. Illegitimate Barrister 03:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for return to page name List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Asian-American Medal of Honor recipients#Asian American. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

British Land Units of the First World War

Could someone please have a look at this orphaned article and see if its necessary or if we can add some links to it to deorphan it? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted towards deletion. It's mostly a list of regiments and corps, all of which are covered elsewhere and mention of some service and TF battalions chosen by the unusual criterion that they had a different cap badge from their parent unit. Nthep (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That was my thought too. Wanted some input here before I nominated it Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
does seem to duplicate (or overlap?) on existing articles - eg (list of) Second line yeomanry regiments of the British Army, List of British corps in World War I. There might be a place for a List of regular army regiments at the start of the Great War. But this doesn't look like it. It could be renamed and re-purposed, but I think I'd delete the name rather than save it as redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to Battle of Leyte Gulf

Hello. I have just reverted this [18] edit at Battle of Leyte Gulf article but was hoping someone with some knowledge of the subject can review my edit in case I got this wrong. As far as I can see the sources indicate the Fuso was sunk by USS Melvin not Yamashiro but the previous edit swapped them around and I'm not sure why. Of course I could be wrong so if I am pls revert. If I am right though then I have concerns about other material this editor has changed / added recently as this looks like vandalism so its possible their other edits are suspect as well. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fortuitously the material is cited, so if we can locate the source then then we can make a case for WP:V's verifiability not truth position. For now, that'd be the grounds I use to counter. I'm dealing with a leaky ceiling here, so I may come back to extend this point a little later on, but I thought this would be a good place and time to point out WP:V. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you read this record?

I'm trying to read the hand-written military records of a Joseph Henry Brazier (service number: 1007332; former service number: 68059), who served in the Royal Artillery in WWI:

  1. File:Joseph Henry Brazier military record 01.png
  2. File:Joseph Henry Brazier military record 02.png
  3. File:Joseph Henry Brazier military record 03.png
  4. File:Joseph Henry Brazier military record 04.png

In particular, one column in image 3 includes:

  • 1914 Star
  • Wmd (?) 10.10.16
  • France(?) 1914-1919
  • [...] Victory(?) Medal [added in a different hand]

and in image 4, there's "[something] T of E" [Somethign]", followed by a load of code numbers.

Any clues as to what the former text says, or the latter means, would be greatly appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think image 3 says B. Star and Victory medals for Bronze Star and Victory medals, "1914 Star", and "France 1914-1918".

Did you check this resource: Johnson, R. M. 29th Divisional Artillery War Record and Honours Book 1915-1918. Luton: Andrews UK, 2012. <> to see if he is mentioned? TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Artillery was actually several regiments. I couldn't read the regiment number, but if you can find that it would help. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Driver Joseph Henry Brazier, 26th Brigade RFA. 1914 Star awarded due to his departure to France on 16 August 1914 (very early!) British War Medal and Victory Medal making him a full Pip Squeak and Wilfred man. The entry fro October 1916 is probably Wnd for wounded. Image 4 is his discharge under paragraph 484 (vii) of Kings Regulations which was his transfer to the Reserve on termination of his first period of engagement as a regular soldier - T of E = Terms of Engagement. The B numbers will be the medal rolls on which his medal awards are recorded. Nthep (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress

Many of you may have come across my edits in the eight years I've been operating here, mostly working on post-1945 military history in a variety of guises. I've tried to spend significant time on less covered subjects. Yet I'm considering throwing in the towel over this user, Middayexpress: he determinely resists fair coverage of Somalia-related war activities. I have followed all the suggestions and rules for addressing this, and at this moment, this RfC-U may be dying for lack of interest. Please, take a moment, examine the evidence, and have your say - otherwise in another little corner of WP, NPOV will wither. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War – Death Statistics – According to the Dyer Compendium


I have completed a small page (as noted above) of the death statistics in the Dyer Compendium (Volume 1) from the 1959 edition. I'm going to be moving the sandbox-type-page to a userpage of mine and what should it be named as? Remember I do have an "American Civil War Regiments" subpage already. Adamdaley (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The death percentages range from 1.75% to 28.84% for the individual states and 12.94% for overall. I guess no one is interested in a name for this on my userpage or an article for it. Adamdaley (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive

The Great Backlog Drive Banner 1.jpg

G'day Milhisters, just a reminder that the 1 September-15 October 2014 backlog reduction drive starts in one week! Sign up here! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC) (for the Milhist coordinators)

A source of interest...

It amazes me that such resource is not locked up in a research library along with weeks of wait list...

Article/Topic: Kagnew Battalion, Military History of Ethiopia during the Korean War.

Jim101 (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Screw it, the entire series of books on South African, Ethiopia, Belgium, Thailand, Dutch, Philippians, Colombia, Turkey, Greece, France involvement in the Korean War is all available for download at [19]. Jim101 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This is excellent! The way the poplar media (yes I'm pointing at you History Channel!) treats the subject, one easily falls into the trap of thinking the Korean War was purely a "Yanks versus Commies" affair - much to the irritation of the other countries involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ford Island needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ford Island; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

30 SW and questionable editing

I have been monitoring the work of 30 SW (talk · contribs) for months now, and have been trying to fact-check his new articles. Oftentimes, he creates articles that are so overly-technical in their detail that they read like a technical manual. At the same time, both Tdrss and I have noticed that there are many articles with outright fabrications (Clear Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field being created under another name because they found one source of questionable reliability) or are questionably notable (Cheyenne Mountain Shooting Complex, for one). I am wondering if anyone else has had an issue here with them and to see if people want to proceed with some sort of mentoring program, as they are useful to the project, but they are starting to become a burden to all that we do here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I decided there were more productive things to do on Wikipedia than engage in an edit war. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I also have severe concerns regarding this editor. Open to suggestions as to the way forward. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: I have thought of bringing the user to AN/I, but I wanted to discuss the issue here before we went there. I have left them messages on their talk page before to no effect. Blocks probably won't occur unless they show complete incompetence, although we're also bordering on the line of that at this very moment, so I could see it happening in the near future. What would you advise, as I don't want to see them thrown off the project, but if they can't reform, that might be the best option. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have been advised in similar cases to consider WP:RfC/USER. Suggest you consider that page, then e-mail me. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: You also might be interested in commenting here, based on a comment that you left on their talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

See "Fairfax" below. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Did You Know's

There are a few military related DYKs in the nominations queue for July 30, Aug 3, etc. If someone has time, can they go over and review them? Thanks in advance! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Russians in the Donbass

In my first edit to War in Donbass, I've run into a disagreement over how to represent Russia in the Infobox. In brief, numerous parties, including Kiev, the U.S. State Department and NATO, allege that Russia has provided various levels of combat support, weaponry, or personnel to the insurgency in the Donbass. Russia denies this, but it seems appropriate, given the preponderance of sources, to list it as a belligerent under the heading [Various insurgent groups] "Supported by: Russia" Another editor quickly removed the heading "Supported by"; I find this bizarre, as the Russian Federation is obviously not a formal participant in the conflict, whatever its levels of clandestine support, so listing it as a full belligerent doesn't make sense. "Supported by" seems to be pretty universal in cases like this—the Jordanians in Syria, the Chinese in Vietnam, the Italians and Germans in Spain, all of whom provided vastly more combat and material forces than Russia is alleged to have in the Donbass. Thoughts? Albrecht (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as a matter of content meant for the talk page of the article. Be weary of forum shopping. We've had numerous and superfluous discussions on the talk page about the "Supported by". Please note that I maintained the "Supported by" in the infobox for months until sources were provided by various editors that made it clear that Russia admitted to carrying out intervention in the Donbass. This intervention (the forcing through of the "humanitarian convoy") was viewed as an "invasion" by the Ukrainian government. I believe the Ukrainian government is capable of deciding whether it was invaded or not. RGloucester 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from calling into question my good faith: the exchange on the talk page was obviously deadlocked, so soliciting the opinion of editors accustomed to this topic and its best practices (despite your stated disdain for this WikiProject) was the obvious and logical next step.
To be frank, I'm not sure your inflammatory rhetoric about Russia's actions are very relevant or helpful. There are multiple POVs regarding the Russian aid convoy: it has been variously labelled a "provocation," a "violation of Ukraine's sovereignty," etc. by Kiev and its allies (then again, Kiev is accustomed to issuing all sorts of alarmist reports that quickly prove baseless). The Russians view it as a humanitarian mission. The UN "regrets that the issue of humanitarian aid is being politicized" by both sides. All of these POVs can and should be captured. The point I'm making—the point you refuse to engage with, unfortunately—is that none of these statements are consistent with Russia being a belligerent party under international law (your sheer outrage doesn't make it so), and it's clearly not accurate or informative to list it as such when the overwhelming precedent is to differentiate belligerents from their patrons or supporters. Albrecht (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing was "deadlocked". You did not even wait for others to comment there, nor did you take the time to read the talk page archives. Regardless, I'm not "outraged" at all. To be frank, I don't really care what Russia does or doesn't do. Regardless, I think that a country is capable of deciding whether it was "invaded" or not, don't you think? Regardless of what "Russians" may or may not think, this action was a violation of international law, a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, a violation of the agreement with the ICRC and the Ukrainian government, and a clear provocative act. There is no question about it. We don't enforce a false balance here. We don't go by original research interpretations of "international law" here, to decide who is a belligerent and who isn't. We go by reliable sources. RGloucester 04:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
My dear RGloucester, given your penchant for combative statements and cavalier attitudes above, it does no good to put on a a mask of serene impartiality suddenly and proclaim unconditional loyalty to WP:RS: no one will be impressed by such talk.
I agree wholeheartedly that we don't engage in original research to decide who is a belligerent and who isn't—such as interpreting a violation of territorial sovereignty as an invasion (a U.S. spy plane recently illegally violated Swedish airspace; does a state of war therefore exist between Sweden and the United States?). I would also add that we don't ignore overwhelming established precedent in how outside parties to a civil conflict are represented in an Infobox, viz., as "Supporters".
Moreover, some of your facts about the situation do not stand up to careful scrutiny (reports out of Ukraine are extremely muddled and convoluted; all the more reason for caution and avoiding extreme statements in the article): the ICRC never stated that Russia had "violated" its agreement; rather the ICRC itself reneged on its pledge to escort the convoy as Kiev would not guarantee its safety. The latest ICRC release states it is distributing the Russian aid in Lugansk and doesn't contain a whisper of recrimination against Russia. Methinks, my friend, you protest way, way too much. Albrecht (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, please don't disregard the wide range of informed commentary, including this Kiev-based Ukrainian sociologist, which questions the extent to which the Kremlin is really in control of events in the region at all:

Q. How far was the presence of the volunteers an initiative driven by the Putin administration?
A. The degree of Russian state interference is not very clear to me. Ukrainian state propaganda insists the whole movement is directed from Russia, but this is a misreading of the situation. Of course, some of the Russian volunteers could be state agents; but the majority are probably just volunteers—and there are many Russians willing to fight in Ukraine to help the Russian nationalist cause. People in the rest of Ukraine tend to see the rebellion in the east as a Russian intervention or a ‘terrorist action’, in line with the government’s announcement in mid-April that it was starting an ‘anti-terrorist operation’. But in the Donbass, according to a poll in May, 56 per cent call it a people’s revolt; for them, it is something with local roots and a local base of support, despite the participation of Russian volunteers. Either way, I don’t think their presence changes the nature of the conflict. Tens of thousands of international volunteers fought in the Spanish Civil War, and Germany and Italy sent regular troops, but this didn’t alter the fact that the conflict was an internal one, between Republicans and Francoists. If you look at the separatist fighters who have been killed by Ukrainian government forces, there are certainly a number of Russians, but a significant proportion are Ukrainians. This really is a civil war.

Perhaps the proper move is to reevaluate Russia's presence in the Infobox altogether, and simply detail the allegations and counter-allegations in the body of the article. Albrecht (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll not continue this conversation here any further. It is quite clear that you have no interest in reasonable discussion, and regardless, this is not the place for discussions of content. If you have something to discuss, do it at the article talk page. RGloucester 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I hate to intrude, but this seems like rather a non-issue and is certainly not unique to the article in question. Why not changed "Supported by" to "Alleged Support" and then include a footnote explaining the controversy? References of all sorts should generally be avoided in the infobox anyway where possible, and it currently looks rather a mess. A note would allow this to be fully explained and look neater. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll take you up on that suggestion. RGloucester , are you prepared to work constructively with me and others to implement Brigade Piron's proposal? Albrecht (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said, I won't discuss content here. Please take it to the talk page if you have something to say. RGloucester 17:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with no associated task force

G'day all, before the backlog drive starts, it would be good to get Category:Military history articles with no associated task force down to zero. That way it won't get out of control during the drive (it isn't one of the areas we work on). I've got it down to a manageable 40 or so over the weekend, so if anyone else feels like doing five minutes of gnoming, some help would be appreciated. It will help us all during the drive if you add the B-Class checklist when you add taskforces. If you can't see a taskforce that fits, you can put |no=yes, which means there is no relevant taskforce. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did a few but still 30+ to go if someone else is looking to assist. Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently cleared. Any other sections need tidying before drive? --Molestash (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
A growing gap in the "Periods" task forces is the absence of one covering the Post Cold War period - basically from the fall of the Wall/dissolution of the Warsaw Pact until the present. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some other gaps as well (ie where do Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and a few others fit?). I take your point, there certainly is a gap in the "Periods" group of taskforces. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Remember that the task forces were created to allow a group of editors interested in the same topic to coordinate their work and they are not intended to cover all of milhist. Since no such group exists for post-Cold War issues, I see no need for another pointless task force. We can deal with that if people start talking about participating in such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment for 30 SW

As mentioned above, I have gone ahead and opened a request for comment on 30 SW's edits on this project, as they have added a lot of material, but it has come with a lot of problems associated with it. Please comment there if you are interested and have a background in modern American military history, as I would like to seek input from users on what should be done, since they are clearly knowledgeable in many aspects of this field, but are adding a lot of errors as they go along. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mexican Federalist War

I created a stubby article called battle of Morales (1813) because a couple of the subjects of biographies I am working on fought in the skirmish. This led me to realise that there was another battle with the same name fought in 1840. So following upon that I have created a campaign box:

template:Campaignbox Mexican Federalist War

and created stubs for all the battles in that war. I would appreciate it if someone could add the necessary talk page templates as I am not certain what they ought to contain. -- PBS (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

Alexander Gellos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A new editor called user:Alexander Gellos has since may 18 2014 made 250 edits all of them unexplained to battle articles. I have left a message on User talk:Alexander Gellos asking the user to added explanations for edits in the edit history.

Some of the edits have added fairly large amount of unsourced text to articles (see this example), some have removed large amounts of sourced text from articles. In some articles those edits have been reverted (see here) but there are other edits that have been made which have not (see here). Whether this is because other editors agree with the edits or because no one is watching the pages is not clear. I think it would he helpful if the community could review the edits and see if they are beneficial to the project. -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted some edits which seemed particularly unhelpful to me. Someone with more subject matter expertise than I have needs to looks at Battle of Arcole and the associated changes and renames.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


30 SW (talk · contribs) recently rebuilt Fairfax Field (also up for rename [20] at WP:RMTR), by merging from Fairfax Airport and splitting to Air Force Plant NC, Fairfax Air Force Base, USAAF Modification Centers, "etc". I have no idea what "etc" means, that was the only information left at the page concerning the destination. The destinations that are mentioned could do with some cleanup as they are carrying redlinked categories. -- (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

2472d AF Reserve Flying Center is probably the "etc".GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The missing attributions on these splits is rather poor practice. I've only added attribution templates to the ones that are actually listed in that edit summary. Should I add one for 2472d? -- (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The citations for the existence of "Fairfax Air Force Base" are a Duke University change of address and two newspaper articles. In context, neither meets the criteria for renaming from "Fairfax Field". A search at Air Force History Index] shows the name "Fairfax Field" in use as late as 1954. Cornett, Lloyd H; Johnson, Mildred W (1980). A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization, 1946 - 1980 (PDF). Peterson AFB, CO: Office of History, Aerospace Defense Center.  lists no units at a "Fairfax AFB" ( Central Air Defense Force and 19th Weather Squadron are shown as located at Kansas City) and the AFHRA web page shows the 442d Fighter Wing at "Fairfax Field" until 1950. In short, there was no such installation as Fairfax Air Force Base. --Lineagegeek (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, considering that they created Clear Springs Air Force Base out of nowhere due to a one-line reference in some obscure article, I guess I'll have no choice but to start an RFC/U to address this behavior. I ended up wasting a month filing an EFOIA as well to figure this out, which ended once they told me that they themselves had no proof that the field existed under that name (also, a cursory look at the field from the air shows a distinct lack of infrastructure that would characterize it as a base. Tdrss and I also have also discussed this user before with the Clear Springs issue, and we have come to the consensus that something should probably be done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Kevin Rutherford and Lineagegeek. The primary USAF sources at AFHRA do not list a Fairfax "Air Force Base" - this seems to be another case of overzealous reporters (in the secondary sources) wanting to make the location sound official by appending Air Force Base. This is a common historic error with either Air Fields, Air Bases (both within CONUS and overseas). Unless 30 SW (talk · contribs) can start identifying General Orders or Special Order numbers for researchers to verify, they should stop using secondary sources as gospel. TDRSS (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Could someone, for the edification of myself mostly, explain the difference between a location called "[name] Field" and "[Name] Air Force Base". I presume also that, though possibly ambiguous, one could refer to somewhere in general terms as "[Name] air force base" (with careful attention to lower case). GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "[name] Field" is the original name for military field or older name for a civil airport. "[Name] Air Force Base" with caps is the official USAF base name. At least that's the way it seems to me. Others correct where that's off. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
For the US air arm, prior to WW II most Air Corps fields were dedicated (named after a person) in the form (Person name) Field. With the vast expansion in WWII, most installations were named after locations in the form (Location name) Army Air Field or (Location name) Army Air Base, although there are exceptions, mostly in cases where a civilian field name was retained after the AAF took over. On 13 January 1948, bases within the Continental US that were under USAF control were renamed (Person or Location name) Air Force Base. This was done by Department of the Air Force General Order No. 2. Notice that Fairfax is not on page 2 of this document, where it should be expected. (This renaming did not occur in 1947 when the USAF became independent, as some articles imply)
See Scott's USAF Installations Page for much more discussion of this.--Lineagegeek (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

I've been going back and forth with Look2See1. They keep adding categories to Operation Shingle, which is now a redirect. This seems to be incorrect and they won't give me a clear explanation. Please resolve, as I've had quite enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I am aware of for putting categories on a redirect page is WP:RCAT#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category, which does not seem to apply here, particularly when the Battle of Anzio contains the same categories. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:RCAT#Alternative names for articles might be relevant. "The category system is often used like an alphabetical index. It is sometimes helpful for redirects from common alternative names to appear in the index list." (Hohum @) 17:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Under MilHist?

Checking to see if William of Wrotham would be considered within ya'lls scope - much of his notability is due to his naval administrative work for King John. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He loosely is in the scope, but it still counts as being in here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fortified cities and Category:Walled towns

FYI Category:Walled towns and Category:Fortified cities have been requested to be merged together -- (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A-Class articles close to the line

Hi all, a few A-Class Reviews are sitting on two supports and could use another reviewer, or even just earlier reviewers returning to check progress, to get over the line (disclaimer, one's mine!):

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German cruiser Prinz Eugen is in the same position and I'm in the process of reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Historical register and dictionary of the US Army

"Found" (assuming no one found it before) while working on Draft: Regiment of Riflemen (United States). There's a lot of interesting stuff about units and people and it's downloadable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Heitman, Francis B. (1903). "Historical register and dictionary of the United States Army". War Department. 

Two days until the kickoff of the September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive!!!

The Great Backlog Drive Banner 1.jpg

G'day Milhisters, just a reminder that the 1 September-15 October 2014 backlog reduction drive starts in two days! Sign up here! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC) (for the Milhist coordinators)

2014 Crimean crisis

This article is a disaster area. I'm busy with War in Donbass, among other things, and simply haven't the time nor the ability to try and make it somewhat comprehensible. That's why I'd like to request that any interested editors with a knack for writing articles on military history take a look at it and try and bring it up to a reasonable standard. Honestly, 2014 Crimean crisis is an absolute shame on Wikipedia. It is entirely incomprehensible, and barely has any prose. What it does have is broken English. Please help the encyclopaedia in this vital area! RGloucester 21:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Input sought on British Empire in World War II

Hi all,

A user has proposed that the current article terminology ("British Empire") be moved to "British Commonwealth". All input is welcome! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Early Swedish state flag/war ensign

Ever since this edit to flag of Sweden in 2007, it's been accepted as established fact that the Swedish state and war ensign was a double-tailed flag until 1663. It was even used for {{flagicon}} for anything relating to Sweden c. 1562-1663 until I questioned it recently. As far as I can tell, there seems to be no evidence of any "official" standardized flags as early as the 16th century. Since this particular statement has been accepted for over seven years, I'm asking for more input on the matter at talk:flag of Sweden#Double tail needs support.

Peter Isotalo 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Help needed at Cardiff Castle....

If anyone could drop by at the Cardiff Castle article, I'd appreciate it. Despite the castle's own website noting that it is "owned and managed by Cardiff Council"[21]I'm having real trouble convincing another editor that this is true! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Marathon

Battle of Marathon, 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.--Epìdosis (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional eyes

Can I please get additional eyes to look at the article Philippine resistance against Japan, while I was in-active a significant amount has been added regarding the Moro and Communist part of the resistance to the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, and there are several examples of cite bombing and given what I can verify about the sizes of the different organizations it could be argued that the new additions to the article give those elements undue weight, even if well researched. Therefore, assistance is requested.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A large part of the Moro content was duplicated at the article: Japanese occupation of the Philippines.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
If the content becomes undue within that article, why not split the content into a separate page that specifically deals with the topic of Moro involvement? Something like Moro resistance during World War II? --benlisquareTCE 10:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be for that, but this content is in two locations. Should the article Philippine resistance against Japan be a sub-article of Japanese occupation of the Philippines, and this new article be a sub-article of the Philippine resistance article? Can I boldly create this article without consensus to split the content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead, I don't see why this should be a contentious issue or anything. If you're really cautious, try leaving a comment on the talk pages, and then doing it after 7 days. --benlisquareTCE 05:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Henry Wheeler (signalman)

We've pieced together some of Henry Wheeler (signalman)'s military service (HMS Impregnable, WWII, DD+1, Rotterdam, Norderney), but if anyone of you is good at sleuthing, and can find more, it would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Further to the discussion at in the archive, feel free to opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Wheeler (signalman). Ferma (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion please - Tiger tank on Eastern Front

Not my area of knowledge, or access to resources, so could I ask for an input?

An editor has added a piece to a section of combat history of the Tiger tank article (section now known as Tiger_I#On_Eastern_and_Western_Fronts - was "Combat examples"). The added material says that Red tanks - by closing with Tigers - negated the Tiger's range advantage and the losses at Battle of Prokhorovka were more or less equal. The material was at first a little too close to the wording in the original source for my liking so I had a bit of an edit working from the source given. And I just now had a read of the Battle of Prokhorovka article - and from my first reading it doesn't seem to tally with the material in the Tiger article. (eg the battle article gives estimates of up to hundreds of Soviet vehicles destroyed and the Tigers generally recovered and repaired). The source gives its own sources, but without specific pages, even if I did have access to the works. I don't want to just remove the section on the grounds of "because the Good Article says otherwise" because there is a source.

To get to the point, could the encounter described be a particular point in the battle rather than the battle as a whole. And if so is there more detail available on the Tigers in the battle to build it up or more sourcing to back it up? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd lean toward discarding the section - for one, the source itself isn't a WP:RS as far as I can tell, and the sources its author used aren't great - Guderian's and especially Mellenthin's memoirs are highly biased and self-serving, and none of the rest are newer than 15 years old (and actually, some of them are older than they appear - Middeldorf's book was initially published in 1956, for instance). The Prokhorovka article is meanwhile sourced to reliable, academic historians, many of whom published their books in the last few years. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

C class requests

I've asked for a few stub and start class articles to be reviewed for C class lately and wonder if this makes sense to everyone. They're clearly unsatisfactory for B class but have also been standing over for quite a while when worthy of a C. I can keep doing this or leave them until there's enough material in them to merit a B. Any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith, as someone closely involved with the monthly article-writing contest over the years, I think we require assessment by an outside party for C-Class (that's what we say on the MilHist assessment page anyway) and if that's the case then of course you should be able to put them up at the assessment request page and not necessarily wait till they get to B-Class standard. After all the majority of MilHisters seemed to want C-Class to bridge the gap between Start and B, so C may as well be treated the same way as a B-Class assessment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Ian, it seems a good idea to me but then I'm not the person doing the assessing. I got a loan of GOH 1914 I earlier in the year and expanded quite a few articles with it but haven't had time to find other sources or translate the online version. I wouldn't want to put people to the trouble of assessing an article twice if they'd rather not.Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
According to assessment guidelines, C-class is down to individual review. Independent assessment seems to be reserved for B-class and then "by convention". If this has been altered, even "by convention", the assessment page should be revised. Monstrelet (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Artillery identification

I've recently been on a trip to Guernsey, Channel Islands, and while there I came across two artillery pieces on display near the Victoria Tower. Here's a picture of one of the guns on Flickr (not my photo). Now, the plaque next to the Guernsey guns identify them as "German field guns", with "...a calibre of 13.5 cms" from the First World War. The only guns that seem to fit the description is the 13.5 cm K 09, but our (admittedly poor) article on that gun claim that there's "...only one remaining in existence", in New Zealand. So what do you think, are the guns on Guernsey 13.5 cm K 09s? If they are, then our article on that gun type needs updating, and I can upload one or more of my photos with a correct ID. Manxruler (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's it alright, just different wheels and with gunshield. Here is a pic with the gunshield and same wheels. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Peacemaker67. Then I'll see if I can find sources to update the article a little (fixing the "only one remaining" bit and such), and upload a pic or two. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And the 13.5 cm K 09 and Krupp 13.5 cm FK 1909 should definitely be merged, as far as I can see. Manxruler (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it to me too. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Could you take care of that? I don't know how such things are done, and I suspect it requires admin status. Manxruler (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to be an admin (I'm not, BTW). Just have a look at WP:PROMERGE and follow the bouncing ball. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Learned a couple of new things today, then. Thanks for the tip. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

New articles on Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation

Gday. A few new articles have been created by splitting content off Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, being Combat operations in 1963 during the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation and Combat operations in 1965 during the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation. I notice also that Combat operations in 1966 during the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation has also now been redlinked in the parent article so assume this will be created soon. These articles are still very much in their infancy and appear to need a bit of work if anyone is interested. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

AFD on Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt

An AFD on Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt, who developed the Artillery Miniature Range, is posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt. Project members are invited to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New category

Category:Afghanistan-Iraq War Memorials 7&6=thirteen () 15:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Peasant War Nav Box

I would like to create a military navigation box which will include these.Should I include them all or create a couple of separate navigation boxes?For example:Peasant Wars in Medieval Europe,Early Modern Peasant Wars e.t.c. Catlemur (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Gday I meant to comment on this a while back but got side tracked. For everyone else this follows from a discussion on my talk page after Catlemur asked for my opinion about this. Pls see here for my cmts - User_talk:Anotherclown#Campaign_Box. I suggested Catlemur bring his question here in the hope someone else might be able to give a more informed answer. Is anyone able to help? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that unless there is a reliable source that groups them together, you run the risk of engaging in original research. If a book or something similar breaks them up into groups, then it would probably be okay to do that, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops, missed this originally. The concept of "peasant wars" as a distinct grouping dates back to the 1960s, I think, when it was a popular frame of reference for Marxist-inspired thinkers looking at relevant agrarian societies. In terms of the current literature, the term "peasant revolts" is the rather more common term, I'd suggest, and that certainly does usually break down into themes on "medieval peasant revolts" and "early modern revolts" (with some overlap in the 16th century...) Catlemur: a Google Books search on a set of terms like "violence", "peasant", "revolt" and "medieval/early modern" would give you a good sense of what normally gets included in this area: there's a fair bit of literature on it, but its not overwhelming in size. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Campaign box and an image on the left

I have a problem with the positioning of an image to the left of a page and a campaign box. See:

  1. Siege of Maastricht — without the Campaignbox
  2. Siege of Maastricht — with the Campaignbox

The image has been placed just below the "Siege" section heading, to appear on the left. In (1) it appears where expected, but when the Campaignbox is added (2) the image below the start of the Campaignbox. Is this a known bug?

-- PBS (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen that particular scenario, but it's one of a number of potential problems that can occur when floating elements are stacked along both margins. The easiest way to fix it is to nest the campaign box directly in the main infobox:
{{Infobox military conflict
|campaignbox={{Campaignbox Franco-Dutch War}}
Kirill [talk] 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks that fix worked. -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that when infoboxes can't be nested for whatever reason, placing them inside {{stack begin}} and {{stack end}} will often fix the problem of misaligned images opposite them. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Ingria in World War II"

Ingria in World War II seems a very odd page to me. So far as I know Ingria has never been a country (let alone during World War II), but it appears in the "History of World War II by region and country" template as if it were. I don't believe it was even a formal subdivision of the USSR at the time of the war. The article itself never makes clear what Ingria is and seems to focus more on the war in general than on that region; that's not even getting into the fact that it's totally unreferenced. Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. it's unsourced, full of unbalanced POV, and poorly done. It adds little but confusion. It ought to be deleted. Rjensen (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Found this odd one as well: "Carpathian Ruthenia during World War II", apparently created by the same chap, "£"—a sockpuppet of a banned user, Bloomfield—back in March 2006 (!), about a week after the Ingria article (see here and here). While this isn't in itself reason to delete it does not fill me with confidence. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIL conflict in War on Terror article?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War on Terror#ISIL conflict. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move for Operation Polo

I hope this is the right place. If not, apologies. Publicising request to move: Operation Polo to Indian integration of Hyderabad. See Talk:Operation_Polo#Requested_move_2. Any suggestions for other places to publicize this are also welcome. Kingsindian (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Review needed

I've done some work on our 1908 Pattern Webbing article, which was previously a one-line stub. I would be grateful if somebody could cast an eye over it for me. If there's another procedure that I should be using for this type of request, please advise. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A definite improvement! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC) (NB: is Equipment usually capitalised in the literature? (e.g. "the leather Slade-Wallace Equipment") It looked a bit odd, but it may be a standard convention.) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. As for capitalisation, the official British Army designations for pieces of equipment seem to be generally treated as proper nouns, but in the case of "Slade-Wallace", this seems to be an unofficial name and so I'll change that next time I'm on the page. Regards, Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)