Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 144

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

→

Archive 150

Limiting A-class nominations

I've been browsing the A-class nominations page recently and conducting a few reviews. At the nomination for German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz I observed that the nominator, Iazyges, had five other articles in the nomination pool and I suggested that they refrain from nominating any more so as to not overwhelm them. Iazyges responded and said that they would wait before nominating another set of articles. This prompted coordinator AustralianRupert to write [emphasis added]:

I would also recommend caution here. There is a finite capacity for reviewers within our ACR process, and nominating a large number of the same type of article at the same time can result in overloading the system. This can negatively impact upon our throughput as it will make it difficult to achieve a quorum and inevitably reviews will go stale (which wastes our reviewers' time), while other nominators may feel that the process is being diverted to a single line-of-effort. Of course, there are no formal limits, but I would recommend that probably no more than two or three of the same type of article should appear at ACR at any one time. Just my opinion, though.

AR was talking about article type, but I think this can be applied to nomination numbers. Should we enact a formal limit on the number of nominations a user can make? Its not often that we experience this sort of problem (heck at this rate I'm producing one A-class a year) but a rule would prevent such inundation. This is in no way meant to discourage Iazyges or others from improving content, but it might be best for the project. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My personal limit is three at any one time and I was not best pleased when Iazyges nominated two destroyer articles when I was planning on my own battleships. So I'd have no problem limiting people to three, with or without co-noms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking three would be a suitable limit -Indy beetle (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can back the "three at a time" limit, nominating all of them at once was definitely inadvisable. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Let's consider this proposal. I've written 100 A class articles in the last ten years. That's 10 per year on average ≈ 0.0274 per diem. The last ten I submitted took 30, 60, 60, 60, 60, 90, 90, 50, 30 and 30 days to pass through A class review. That's 560 days total = 56 days on average. Multiply these ≈ 1.533. Distribution is binomial, so we can use Poisson's approximation:

$P(k{\text{ events in interval}})=e^{-\mu }{\frac {\mu ^{k}}{k!}}$

Sum P(k) from k=0 to k=3 ≈ 0.216 + 0.043 + 0.004 + 0 = 0.263. So there is a 73.7% chance that I will come up against this limit in a given year. Given the excessive review times, our throughput depends on allowing nominators to have multiple articles in the pool at one time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally try to restrict myself to two or at most three at the same time, but they tend to be different sorts of articles. Restricting by type is a little unfair to our specialist content creators. Frankly, I also think it is dependent on how active you are as a reviewer at A-Class. If you are very active, I think others tend to give you more scope to nominate as you are pulling your weight. I certainly see it that way. Perhaps this limiting nominations approach is a bit of over-kill. I trust that this and the review page discussion have emphasised to Iazyges that nominating a bunch all at once isn't really the way ACR works best, and that they'll dribble them through one at a time in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, to clarify, I'm not keen on formal limits, either. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I rarely write fast enough to have more than one or two articles at ACR at any one time, but I think it's only sensible and polite to wait until the first is making progress before I nominate a second, especially if they're closely related—not least because feedback on the first will be relevant to the next one. I agree that a formal limit probably isn't necessary but nominators should try to space nominations out and make sure they're only nominating as many articles as they can keep track of at once. I've put a few reviews 'on hold' in the past by untranscluding them until comments have been addressed on other reviews by the same nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a holding pen of sorts? -which could fill up with as many ACNs as editors like, with only the most recent ten nineteen (?) being out for review? Any too similar in subject could be returned to the pen and await the passage of the previous nine. At first, that would ensure a gap between similar noms, but in the long run would probably deter editors from nominating too many too soon, as there would be no point (just for them to sit in a HP). Just a thought. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a formal limit or anything of the like - I personally don't generally put more than 2 at a time, and usually I'll only put the second once the first is well along. Other editors can handle keeping up with multiple reviews at the same time, I prefer not to (and since the point of ACR for me is a feeder for FAC, I don't see much point in doing two or three times the number of ACRs than I can feed into FAC). In cases like this, we can use it as a teaching moment - Iazyges now knows not to put so many articles in at once, and we're no worse off. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

From memory, there have only been a few occasions since the formal ACR process was introduced where somebody nominated so many articles at the same time that we struggled to cope with them. As such, I don't think that we need a formal limit on the number of simultaneous nominations like there is at FAC. However, I think it would be a good idea to add a sentence to the instructions for nominators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review suggesting that people not have more than 3 simultaneous nominations. In the unusual cases where this is exceeded and is causing issues, the coordinators should discuss the matter with the nominator and suggest that they temporarily withdraw some of the nominations. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that no matter the reasons, there's no grounds for limiting this process. If somebody has the time, ressources and energy to improve multiple articles, why not take the (probably shorter) time to review it and check if there are other improvements to be made? Even then, the worst that can happen is that some A-class reviews will have to wait, which I understand can be a bit discouraging but I think it isn't something we should regulate this strictly (we're Wikipedia, not the government, and proof that stuff shouldn't always be too regulated is in the inefficiency of the latter...). Although, yes, maybe a short sentence instructing nominators (just to be cautious) not to overuse it might be a good idea. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that makes enough sense. How about making the following addition to the instructions: "Users are strongly encouraged not to nominate more than three articles for A-Class review at one time." -Indy beetle (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd support that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Read all and Hawkeye makes a good case. Having said that, I could live with a general advice, though perhaps "encoraged" rather than "strongly encouraged". Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've nominated more than three ACRs at the same time anyway, so no issue with the advice being added, though I tend to agree with Cinderella's suggestion of simply saying "encouraged". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for 177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

An Eagle's Eye View

Does anyone have a copy of An Eagle's Eye View: The Combat History of Army Helicopter Tail # 67-17658 by Terry Willman. Apparently the helicopter that was involved in the 2018 Sapphire Aviation Bell UH-1H Iroquois crash was formerly 67-17658. The book should be a good source to expand the "Aircraft" section of the article. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Avenue Range Station massacre needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Avenue Range Station massacre; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Edward the Elder needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Edward the Elder; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Good topic comments

Howdy. a topic is in need of additional comments, it has been languishing for months. I am not qualified to say if that topic is comprehensive or not. Any help would be appreciated. Kees08 (Talk) 23:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response, it has enough responses now. Feel free to review it still if you would like! Kees08 (Talk) 22:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Tank units

The Hugh Sawrey has a redlink for Aust Tank Attack Regiment (AIF). The only article I can find that might be what was intended is 2/2nd Anti-Tank Regiment (Australia) and its description of a unit raised in Brisbane would fit with Sawrey coming from South-East Queensland. However, his military file at the National Archives has been digitised [1] and on page 7, the RAAF list his previous service as "1st Anti-Tank Regiment (militia)" and later on page 33 "1st Anti-Tank Regt 2nd Battery". So can someone who knows more about military units than me (probably everyone reading this!), please tell me what to link (or redlink) to. Thanks Kerry (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. There were at least three Tank Attack Regiments in WWII, 2/1st, 2/2nd, and 2/3rd. They were anti-tank units of the Royal Australian Artillery. The appropriate redlink would depend on what one he served in. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, pretty sure it would be the 1st Anti Tank Regiment (Australia), which would have been a Militia formation, based on the entry in the service record. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

From randomly looking at the service record, on scan 160 there's a letter signed in June 1941 as coming from from the commanding officer of the 1st Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery describing Sawrey's drawing skills. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Initially, the prefix "2/" was not used when there was no corresponding unit in the First AIF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I will go with 1st Anti Tank Regiment (Australia) then. Kerry (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Name of a British honour for foreign civilians having helped British soldiers

Also asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals/Archive 6#Name of a British honour for foreign civilians having helped British soldiers.

Hello,

I have seen in several French-language sources the mention of a Médaille de la reconnaissance britannique or anglaise (roughly translates as Medal of British recognition/gratitude/acknowledgment, nothing to do with scouting), awarded to foreign (esp. French and Belgian) civilians who risked their life while giving assistance to British soldiers isolated behind enemy lines.

This book (bottom of page and top of next page) gives the name of several WWI recipients, with circumstances leading to the award (I can translate abstracts if needed). Senator and Mayor of Poitiers fr:Jacques Masteau, according to his Senate website biography, was also "Médaillé de la Reconnaissance anglaise", although probably for WWII actions.

A picture of the medal is visible here, taken from a Belgian newspaper article stating that it was created by George V in 1922. It seems to be similar in purpose to the Medal of French Gratitude (French: "Médaille de la Reconnaissance française") created in 1917. This search returns the name of several other recipients.

I couldn't find which actual award this refers to. Any idea ? Place Clichy (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: it looks like it's the Allied Subjects' Medal, not a common decoration. Nthep (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep: It very much looks like it ! Very good find, and in a matter of minutes. The Wikipedia community will never cease to amaze me ! Place Clichy (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep: Sorry to bother you again. By "not common", do you mean that it is rare, or that it has an uncommon status ? Place Clichy (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

uncommon as not many awards made, less than 700 in total. Nthep (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

French Marines in Canada, 1683-1715

User:Creuzbourg has changed a number of links from the article on the Compagnies Franches de la Marine to the specific article French Marines in Canada, 1683-1715. I am not certain that this is helpful. Any opinions? Rmhermen (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

While I might have made some mistakes, my intentions have been to avoid linking anything but what is in the scope of the linked article, i.e. the period 1683-1715, and the Marines in Canada (not new France in general); later periods, Placentia, Acadia, Île-Royale, general articles have been excluded. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand the common name is the French: Troupes de la marine. So the title should be: Troupes de la marine, 1683–1715. That said, I'm not sure why this has been separated out into its own article when the article Troupes de la marine could have been updated with relevant content from this new article. BC  _{talk to me} 00:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really. The common name in Canada is Compagnies Franches de la Marine as these were assigned to the colonies (and were only known as Troupes de la marine from seven years, 1683-1690). User:Creuzbourg's time and area self-limited article is not I think the best link in an article. Rmhermen (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the article. I think it fits fine in Louis-Armand de Lom d'Arce de Lahontan, Baron de Lahontan and Battle of Quebec (1690), but not in French and Indian Wars.Military of New France is debatable; the listings separate Compagnies Franches de la Marine of Canada, of Acadia, of Plaisance, and of Ile Royale. This article is the only one specifically devoted to these troops in Canada, albeit the scope of the article has a limited chronological coverage. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Aces who fought in both World Wars

Hello, all,

I specialize in writing about WWI flying aces. There is a significant group who rose to command positions in various air forces of The Big Deuce. I can write some pretty good coverage on these aces up to about 1920. After that, I am out of my depth, and can only offer sporadic info. I am seeking editor(s) who will complete those articles. Perhaps we can set up a referral system, so I can speed these half-done articles to someone who can complete them.

Volunteers? Suggestions? How about posting them to my Talk page?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi George, I'm sure we have some people interested in WWII USAAF (or naval aviator) commanders. Please do keep us updated with the project. My suggestion would be to create the articles in mainspace (assuming the subjects are notable) and just add in the details you have about their later careers, even if it's not much more than a list of roles/ranks/commands held. Then you can advertise the article here and ask for help digging up more info. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The articles are already in existence; all I have to do is pass them along. To start, how about the U.S. Navy's first flying ace, David Sinton Ingalls? He became a Rear Admiral in The Big Deuce.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Gantz Cassady was one of the founders of the Office of Strategic Services in WW II.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Charles Gossage Grey was also prominent in the OSS.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Gorman DeFreest Larner helped found the Air National Guard in the 1920s, and served as a colonel in WW II.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edwin Charles Parsons had a colorful career that saw him become a Rear Admiral during the Second World War.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Edmund Easterbrook rose to Brigadier General in the Second War.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

James Alfred Keating served as a colonel in WW II.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Frederic Ives Lord not only fought in WW II, but in three other wars.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So there's your first batch. Care for more?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Herman Goring.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Strzhizhevsky was a flying ace in the Tsarist air force, and served with the Yugoslav military until 1940.

Josef Bashko was an Ilya Muromets bomber pilot with the Tsarist air force and later the Red Army, and was a general with the Latvian air force until 194353zodiac (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I got more names, no worries. And not just for the Americans, but for all WWI air forces. But are there the editors to work on them? Has anyone begun work on any of the original list, for instance?Georgejdorner (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Drafts

Greetings chaps (that's how we greet at MilHist, yeah?),

Could someone verify Draft:Operation Pollux and Draft:Battle of Nghĩa Lộ (1952) are real things, preferably someone familiar with the Vietnam war? I am not knowledgeable in that field and do not have sources. Speaking of drafts, it would not hurt to have a Milhist gent or two check AfC every once in awhile. I use this tool to group things that may interest me. Make sure you check out the actual AfC criteria if you are interested. Cheers ol' boy! Kees08 (Talk) 05:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Both are real. regards Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of female members of this project. Please use language which respects the fact that they have expertise to share. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Both were battles fought in the First Indochina War. Operation Pollux is so well known I am surprised it has not been written already.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Try, "Hello, all," for an opening. Totally non-offensive.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

All conversations here are for anyone, regardless of who you say hello to, or the method you apply in so doing. By the way, if an editor doesn't have the resolve to get pass a harmless greeting, how committed were they really? SpartaN (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Directing a question to a single gender is highly offensive, especially in the way it was done here. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, think you'll find terms like chaps, guys and dudes being reclaimed as gender neutral these days but you are right to say it shouldn't be assumed if you don't know an audience. I don't think we usually have a form of greeting at all. Agree with Georgejdorner, though, that "Hello/hi/g'day all/everyone" is more appropriate and neutral. Monstrelet (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the German Army, WWI and infoboxes

In the context of WWI, should the different constituents of the German Imperial Army (namely, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg and Prussia) be listed separately in infoboxes? 01:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion at Talk:Fifth Battle of Ypres has come to an impasse long ago and further steps do not seem to have produced any definitive consensus. A prior request for discussion (albeit not an RfC) does not seem to have gotten any response. Given the potential of the topic, I think it is warranted to have a proper discussion about it, irrelevant of precise article content or prior disputes. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

It's easy to get lost in the minutiae of turn of the century German politics so it's largely a question of whether or not it serves a purpose for the reader. Some constituent nations of the German Empire fielded their own armies, yes, but they were functionally subsumed by the Imperial German State upon the outbreak of war, losing what little operational or political autonomy they started with, a system not entirely dissimilar to the National Guard in the United States. Because they lacked any military or political autonomy, and were composite forces of the larger German Army, I'm not sure it serves the reader to delineate them by parent Kingdom as there was no functional difference at that level of analysis. Individual Regiments are the more appropriate place for that information, or in the body of the text in the rare instances were it played any military significance. Additionally, as the war worn on, the cultural homogeneity of many units declined to the point were they were functionally no longer actually part of their "home" nations' population. The ultimate question is this: what does the reader gain by having it so delineated and what understanding would they lose were it to go away? Also for consideration is whether or not it is a workable convention across the whole of the project. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That is what my understanding is of the situation, mostly. It doesn't serve the reader much more that sources usually ignore that distinction altogether and just stick with "German", if it isn't for orders of battle or similar endeavours. There is evidence proposed (and rather compelling) that it wasn't as homogeneous as in WWII, however I feel that if that difference need be mentioned anywhere it should be on the page about the German Army. My counter-argument to that is that, as you say, the different constituents mostly lacked autonomy (except maybe for administrative purposes) and were freely mixed together - the example of the 52nd Infantry Division or that of divisions of different origins being indiscriminately (i.e. without any meaningful distinction) used to execute the orders of the overall German command staff. The additional fact is that the German Empire was considered by contemporaries as one entity (most, if not all, WWI non-military sources refer to Germans using only that name). The fact of it being a convention (both here on WP and in reliable sources) seems to indicate that there's no considerable gain in taking the time to look for precise orders of battle to see if units from some of the constituents did not participate in battle X (which again is not a particularly pertinent distinction in the vast majority of cases). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My passing observation is that the analogy to the US National Guard is pertinent. One wouldn't list the units by state for the constituent states of the US. Don't do it just because you can. It should be meaningful. It appears to fail this test. Were the nations of the German Empire independent states or constituent states in the same or similar sense as the US? It does not appear to be the case. In the case of the British Dominions, these largely retained their national identities. As observed by LargelyRecyclable, this was not the case and certainly not by 5th Ypres. Having said that, World War I does not individually list the constituent dominions and colonies of the British Empire - or for that matter, of the German Empire. On the otherhand, I have seen expanding sections in info boxes. See Second Boer War, where "Australia" expands to the States of Australia - noting that, at the time (start), Australia was not a nation but a collection of independent states that were separate colonies. In short, while there may be specific cases to warrant listing the German states separately in the infobox, in general, I don't see a reasonable reason for doing so. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Where this came about was that Australians and Canadians expected to see the name of their country listed against some of their most famous battles. And too, there was a misconception in some places that the Dominion forces were part of the British Army, which they were not, and which we needed to correct. The German Empire's states were indeed originally fully independent entities, with their own armies, but they evolved into states like those of the US over time. The story of the Dominions is the reverse: they evolved from colonies into fully separate states over time. Americans had trouble with this concept, being wedded to the notion that independence is a sudden break, when it is for many countries more of an evolutionary process. French accounts of the Battle of Amiens refer to the Australians, Americans, British and Canadians as les Anglais, the tribal differences between them being academic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No they didn't, see Sheldon (2017) and Lucas & Schmieschek (2015). The German Empire had a federal structure and contained four national armies and several national contingents with their own chains of command and supply. In time of war they were subject to the authority of the Kaiser. The German federal state did not evolve and there was never a unified homogenous German army until Hitler established the Wehrmacht and Heer in the 30s. The example of the Dominions is a bit of a red herring since they were not sovereign states until well after the Great War. If the Dominions were separate because they were raised outside Britain and their commanders had the right of appeal, the Bavarians and Saxons etc were more separate.

The Royal Saxon Army...was the national army of the Kingdom of Saxony one of the four states of the German Reich to retain its own armed forces.

—  Lucas & Schmieschek p. 8 (2015)

Contrary to what is generally believed an 'Imperial German Army' never existed. The navy was certainly imperial but the army was not, rather it contained several contingents. It is true that it was dominated by Prussia, but there were also substantial contributions from the kingdoms of Bavaria, Wurttemberg and Saxony, with smaller groupings from other parts of the Reich....This meant that the different contingents enjoyed a degree of independence from Prussia. Though in time of war all of these, even Bavaria, gave their allegiance to the Kaiser, in many ways, including the provision of manpower and adjustments to the order of battle, each contingent behaved autonomously.

— Sheldon 2017, p. 34

....Freiherr von Soden....did not have to rely on the Prussians to assist. Instead, acting on his own initiative and pursuing the matter up the Wurttemberg chain of command, he was able, quite legitimately to send a request directly to the Ministry of War in Stuttgart for the raising of a new artillery regiment.

— Sheldon 2017, pp. 34–35

• Could the NZ Division bypass the War Office like this? As for the opinions of other editors, where they are descriptions of RS I don't mind a bit and never have. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Sheldon, pp. 34-35, was the request granted or is that the furthest it went? As for Sheldon p. 34, I'm going to be very bold and say that concluding from the fact the army had several contingents that it wasn't imperial is incorrect (that is what the quote says). It is generally accepted that all contingents of the army were, in the grand scheme of things, subordinate to High Command, which was (yes, as most other things, dominated by Prussia) undoubtedly German and not local (i.e. at the start of the war, all units mobilized according to the plan of Schlieffen (and the subsequent modifications of Motlke). This is again different from the contingents from Canada, Australia, etc... which weren't mobilized according to a British plan but locally - and they weren't as freely mixed together as the German contingents (i.e. per Nicholson, Canadian Divisions were raised separately from British ones and Canada and other Commonwealth nations had strong desires to have their forces fight as one entity, unlike the German states which obviously didn't bother that much with mixing troops from Prussia or Bavaria together). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've read fairly widely on the fighting on the Western Front of World War I, and have never once seen the constituent states of the German Empire treated as separate belligerents in battles like the article's infobox is currently implying. At most, books note the origin of units and/or soldiers, but even this isn't common and there's no suggestion that the governments of the states had any influence whatsoever over how the units were deployed or operated. As such, there's no reason to confuse and mislead readers by listing them as belligerents in this battle. The use of the term German Empire in the infobox is of course inclusive of its member states. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That is what I have seen on my own account, too. Getting back to my comment above, French colonial troops, despite being drawn from different regions (which are today separate countries, unlike the German states), are still usually only listed as "French troops" or "French colonial troops", and the predominant word here is "French". As for "raised independently", that doesn't imply much. Canadian divisions (unquestionably independent) still had to get approval from the British War Office (Nicholson, 1962), and Canada had some autonomy since 1867, unlike the German states which don't seem to have had much... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that analogies with other armies are germane; the internal organisation of Imperial military forces was federal. Even when the national contingents came under the command of the Emperor in wartime, they retained their national infrastructure. When Soden asked for artillery reinforcements from Stuttgart, he got them. The Wurttemberg government authorised the raising of new artillery units and sent them to XIV Res Corps. Keith-264 (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree I might have been a bit excessive with the French example, however if we go back to Canada: divisions part of British chain of command - actually require British authorization for creation - mostly British officers (until 1916) - other factors, we see that they actually had much less independence than the Germans, yet are always listed separately. Therefore, the actual degree of independence does not matter much - scholarly convention is the only thing we must follow. Per countless examples, that convention is unanimously to say "German" (or variants thereof, as syntactically appropriate) unless identifying a specific unit (ex. the XIII Saxon Corps or the 1st Bavarian Division or ...). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added my comments, and don't see any major issues that can't be fixed, except for the fact that a few of the sources lack author information. I'm not sure where we stand on this in terms of the A-Class criteria. Could someone with more experience weigh in on this please? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhodesian Bush War

Hi guys. As you may know I am not as active on here anymore due to time constraints. In short, someone keeps changing Rhodesian Bush War’s infobox away from “military stalemate”, despite the cited source saying that verbatim, in favour of describing it as a Rhodesian military defeat and Zimbabwean victory (impossible in any case as the two never existed concurrently), ignoring requests for supporting sources, and saying anyone who disagrees needs to look up “retreat” in a dictionary. Anyway, if someone with more time could take a look in and watch the article for a while, I’d appreciate it. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For a second there I was racking my brains trying to remember when President Bush went to war against Rhodesia. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Can I refer all parties to Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. Consequently, (and as I read things) the conflicting opinions as to what the result should show fall contrary to the infobox documentation in many ways and particularly the level of detail. An appropriate notation in this case might be "See Resolution". Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made an appropriate edit to the page and indicated reference to the info box Doc in the discussion on the article talk page. Hope this resolves the matter. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, yes, I think that is a good solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Gravestone as a primary source

G'day all, at Mato Dukovac, a single source gives his date of death as September 1990, and that is how it is currently given in the article. However, a photograph of his gravestone has recently been added to the article which clearly shows his date of death as 6 June 1990. We've been unable to find any secondary source that is definitive (noting that we don't have access to online Canadian newspapers (he died in Toronto). 23 editor and I have discussed this and think we should get a third opinion before using the gravestone as a primary source and making changes. I was thinking maybe something along the lines of stating "his headstone gives his date of death as 6 June 1990 but another source gives it as September 1990."? I know it seems a small thing, but we'd like other opinions. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me and, since the pic appears in the article, the discrepancy should be reconciled rater than ignored. I did some searches to see if I could come up with an obituary but with no luck. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We have always allowed the use of gravestones as primary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both. That'll do me. I'd never come up against this type of thing before. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Birth date is also inconsistent. Who's Who in the NDH says 23 October ("X") 1918, while gravestone states 23 September. Lead in current article uses Oct and infobox and body uses Sept. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, fixing that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

New cat: Category:Indigenous Australians in the military

Northern Territory Special Reconnaissance Unit

I stumbled across some cool articles about Aboriginal coastal defense patrols in World War II, and noted that there was no uniting cat that captured Aboriginal participation in the Australian military, so I created this one and its subcat Category:Indigenous Australian military personnel. Hope others may find this interesting, or be able to build on it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Matthew. I've added a few more articles to these categories. Hopefully others can too. Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll hunt around for some relevant articles, too, but I think AC may have tagged all the ones I can think of. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand Maori parallel cat?

Thanks @Anotherclown: and @AustralianRupert:! Do y'all think it would also be valid to create corresponding cats for Maori involvement in the New Zealand military? Something to capture units like Māori Battalion and any bios of Maori servicepersons of note. I'm not clear on what to call such a cat, Indigenous New Zealanders in the military? Or is that too vague given that 99%+ of indigenous NZers are Maori? Even touchier question: is there any larger category which should unite both a "Indigenous Australians in the military", "Maori in the military", along with articles about First Nations Canadians in the military and American Indians in the military? To one degree it would make sense, but to another it seems really lumping different "systems" of indigenous-ness under one blanket. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, at the risk of displaying my cultural ignorance (apologies all, uppercut self administered), I will have defer to a local. @Zawed: may be able to help re your query about Maori involvement. @Nikkimaria and Diannaa: might be able to help regarding the Canadian First Nations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, could be worthwhile having a cat for Māori. I prefer "Māori" to indigenous, as the latter term is not typically used in NZ but there may also need to be consistency with naming protocols for similar cats. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool, created Category:Māori in the military. Thanks @Zawed:! MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Created Category:American Indian military history

Also created another one for the US; should the Canadian one be called "Canadian First Nations military history" or something else? MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Indigenous military personnel exists - if an additional category is needed, suggest using "Indigenous". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Army of Sambre and Meuse needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Army of Sambre and Meuse; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the article on "United States special operations forces" be moved?

I'm trying to puzzle out whether the article United States special operations forces uses proper capitalization in its title. Some news articles that I've found use all lower-case for the term "special operations forces", some news articles use all upper-case for the term, and still other news articles write the term as "Special Operations forces", using upper-case for "Special Operations" and lower-case for "forces". I opened a discussion about this on the article's talk page a few days ago, but haven't received any responses. Does anyone know what the proper capitalization is?

I'm not very knowledgeable about military topics, but as I understand, "special operations forces" are the troops, whereas United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is the unit that they serve in. It appears that in at least some situations with the U.S. military, both the unit and the forces are capitalized - e.g. United States Marine Corp (unit) and Marines (troops) are both capitalized , as are United States Army Special Forces (a sub-unit of USSOCOM) and Special Forces (the troops that serve in United States Army Special Forces - not to be confused with special operations forces, haha). It's also worth noting that in both of these cases, Wikipedia only has both a single article for the unit and the troops, which begs the question whether the article United States special operations forces ought to be merged with United States Special Operations Command. Again, I'm not very knowledgeable about military topics, so I wouldn't handle the merge myself - but it seems redundant to have separate articles on the topic. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? --Jpcase (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not certain about the move bit. There certainly seems to be a high degree of common ground between the two articles but whether be merged or more clearly delineated as to the content of each is the question. As for caps, I think "United States special operations forces" is correct - since this does not appear to be a particular unit but a generic description of units. I do note some inconsistency in caps for "special operations force" in United States Special Operations Command, with a couple of capped instances. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation and the military is a bit of a minefield (pardon the pun). There is a tendency for those within to over capitalise, and for it to get a bit emotional. Wikipedia's house style seems to lean towards a less is more approach in most situations, so I would argue go with lower case where it isn't a proper noun unless there is some specific guideline. That seems consistent with the approach Cinderella is advocating, I think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the article perhaps be at Special operations forces of the United States so that it can also include non-current units? That might help to clarify the naming issue as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: @AustralianRupert: Thanks for the input! So essentially, you're saying that because special operations forces isn't so much a unit, as it is a collection of units, it shouldn't be capitalized? That kind of makes sense. It bears noting though, that (more often than not) the New York Times [2] and The Washington Post [3] both write the term as "Special Operations forces". There are a few results where they've lower-cased or upper-cased everything, but usually, they seem to go with upper-case for "Special Operations" and lower-case for "forces". Time magazine's cover story on special ops from a month or so ago [4] also writes the term this way. Do you have any guess as to why three such high profile publications would all use this form of capitalization if, in fact, everything is supposed to be lowercase? Capitalizing everything would be a simple enough mistake, but capitalizing two out of three words seems like a very specific decision that must have some reason behind it. --Jpcase (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, to the first, yes. Our house style tends to follow The Chicago Manual of Style, which tends to minimise the use of caps. Each publishing house generally has its own style. Newspaper (magazine) styles tend to more capitalisation. There is the sometime practice of capitalising shortened forms of a proper name, once the proper name has first been established eg - "The 53rd Regiment was formed in ... The Regiment fought at the battle of ..." My copy of Fowler's Modern English touches on this. "Special Operations forces" may therefore be "Special Operations Command forces" but this is only speculation and not consistent with our style. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• To answer the question posed in the section heading, no, that page should not be moved. Aside from that, I really don't see what there is to discuss here. "United States special operations forces" is basically a list of all spec-op qualified forces in the US military. "United States" is, of course, capitalized while "special operations forces" is not, as it not a proper or official name of anything. This page should not be confused with "United States Special Operations Command", which a specific component of the US military, and thus listed on the "United States special operations forces" page, and is capitalized as a proper name. Leave the two pages be, there is no need to move, merge or rename either. - ^theWOLFchild 00:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Christmas_Island#Japanese_invasion

This article says that the island was retaken from the Japanese by HMS Rother. But the linked ship was scrapped 30 years earlier. There is a hatlink saying look at HMS Erne but there is no indication at that article that any ship named Erne was ever named Rother. So I think we have two errors - which WWII ship was at Christmas Island and what should the hatlink refer to? Rmhermen (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the hatnote, which serves no purpose. The first step at Christmas Island is to place a Template:dubious and open a talk page discussion. I have done that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The answer is pretty simple: The HMS Rother. Just not the HMS Rother that was launched in 1904 and out of service by 1919 but the HMS Rother that was launched in 1941. That one that has no wikipedia-article yet. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Link fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Should anything be done at HMS Rother? A hatnote would not be appropriate, since the other Rother doesn't have an article. Some kind of note that there was another ship with the same name might have saved some confusion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably the best solution (short of creating an article on the other Rother) is creating a redirect for it to the River-class frigate page, and adding a hatnote for the redirect to the HMS Rother page, which I have now done. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

First engagement of neutral United States in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor

Yeah, that's what I thought too. Really clunky title. Dropping a note here to see if the article First engagement of neutral United States in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor is acceptable in its current format and what if anything needs doing. Up until October 2011, the article was named First American shots fired in World War II. Between October 2011 and September 2014 it was known as First American engagement in World War II. Article created in January 2005‎. It looked very different back then. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is in terrible shape, simply put, and that title is not helping. It needs to be cut down, and it sounds like a grammatically incorrect run on sentence. Might be worthy of deletion. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a way to find the longest titles on WP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

For your pleasure, or despair, just look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Article with longest title ...GELongstreet (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The title is clumsy and something else should be used. With that said, as for the article, it seems to be a WP:CFORK. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rename Yeomanry -> Yeomanry Cavalry

There's a conversation about renaming the article Yeomanry to Yeomanry Cavalry over at Talk:Yeomanry#Requested_move_30_January_2018 that may be of interest to this project. Factotem (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is higher, Navy Cross or Distinguished Service Cross

John W. Overton was awarded both posthumously in 1918. Currently the citations for both are in the page and I'd like to remove at least one. It seems sensible to leave the one of higher rank, but I don't know which that may be. Since he was a Marine, perhaps the Navy Cross should remain. But since the award was given in 1918, perhaps there was an ordering of them at that time. Any thoughts? Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I'm pretty sure that the Navy Cross and Distinguished Service Cross are equivalent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I know (sort of), but wonder if one is more equivalent than the other. If truly equivalent, is there any reason to prefer including the text of one citation (and which). On the other hand, perhaps both texts should be cut out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

They're exactly equivalent. He got both because he was a Marine (thus the Navy Cross) and the Marines were under Army command (and thus the DSC). I'd be inclined to delete the citation, myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

How odd that he was awarded both for the same action. Personally I like including citations of high awards, but usually integrate them into the relevant section of the career using a quote template rather than in separate sections like that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Before the HEY, the article consisted only of an uncited statement that he held a world record in the indoor mile and the text of the two citations, so I am hesitant to cut them both. I've gone ahead and cut the Navy Cross citation and reformatted similar to how Peacemaker67 described. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Marine Corps MoH recipients in World War I were awarded both the Army and Navy Medals of Honor for the same action. I'm sure this dual award of the DSC and Navy Cross is in the same vein, but does not settle the question of which ranks higher. Regardless, if the deleted citation provides additional information, that information should also be in the article somewhere. RobDuch (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I know of the Marines (having once suffered an enlistment with them), the Navy Cross is the medal that should be saved. The medals may be equivalent, but no self-respecting Marine would want to wear a bleeping Army medal.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and switched to the Navy Cross citation. Thanks everyone, the article has been accepted at DYK and should be on the front page in a few days. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What I've noticed in various bios of officers who have been awarded equivalent medals from different services such as the Navy Cross & the Army's Distinguished Service Cross, is that on their ribbon boards they place the ribbon from their own service's medal first. Same with the service-specific Distinguished Service Medals, they place their own service's medal first, (with the exception of the Defense DSM, which comes before them all). I don't know if that comes from personal preference or some kind of heraldry guideline. - ^theWOLFchild 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• As noted above, U.S. Marines who served under Army command during WWI received duplicate awards for their actions. A Marine in that situation was receiving two equivalent medals for the same act of bravery. Think of it as a bureaucratic screwup—just not a deleterious one.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is an order of precedence for medals for situations like this. If a service member has 2 like awards, such as a Medal of Honor for 2 services or a Navy cross and a distinguished service cross then the one that corresponds to the service they are in takes seniority. So a Marine or Navy member would have the Navy Cross before the Army Distinguished service cross. If they were in Army it would be the other way around with the ADSC in the lead before the Navy Cross. If you look here (and have access, I'm not sure if this is accessible to you) [ http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/uniforms/uniformregulations/chapter5/Pages/5301.aspx Navy award regulations] 5304.1(a) states "In all cases of relative priority Navy awards shall take precedence." This is also stated in the equivalent manuals for the other services. 138.163.128.42 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well there it is. Thanks for the link. - ^theWOLFchild 21:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Highest-scoring" submarine captain

Is "highest-scoring" and "a higher score than" standard language when describing submarine captains? I stumbled across Gianfranco Gazzana-Priaroggia and found that sport-like language really jarring, but it's not my area at all. The quota seems to be one point per 100 cubic feet of a ship sunk. Mortee (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's ... unhelpful. Why not just use tonnage sunk? (Question to the room, not you specifically, Mortee.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Tonnage would seem to be one standard since monthly convoy losses for the Atlantic (WW2) are frequently quoted as such, though the number sunk might be a second benchmark. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any reference to a point tally in the article, just a reference to GRT sunk. I know little about submarines but I thought that was a standard measure?Monstrelet (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Monstrelet This sort of language is used for aviation and submarine aces - in sources that are intended for a popular audience.Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Monstrelet, I was addressing the question more generally than just the particular article and hence my reference to tally. I looked at Ace (military) and found nothing to "quantify" an "Ace" in any scenario beyond an air ace. "Most successful" and "more successful than ..." where the criteria is stated, would be more neutral. As Icewhiz states, such terms might more often appear "in sources that are intended for a popular audience." However, our sources are not confined to those that are "purely" academic - if we were so confined, many articles would need to be stricken. Many academic authors rely on creating a "good story" to get works published outside the limited scope of academic journals and theses. It is the "normal" language for air aces and by extension, normal for other "aces". While using more neutral language might be more better, having said that, such language is pretty universal for air aces and such distinctions might be too subtle for other instances. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella157 I was actually referring back to the original post by Mortee, which mentioned a points system . I think you and I are actually in agreement Monstrelet (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

100 cubic feet is the same as one gross register ton or net register ton, which are the most common measures for ships other than naval vessels. It is not a separate measure of size (volume). This article has some useful information. Kablammo (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I think I caused confusion by converting from GRT to cubic feet—my fault. It sounds like counting GRT is standard, and reporting it as a "score" is common but more for popular writing rather than an encyclopedia, so better (but not crucial) to rephrase, is that right? So for this article it'd be something like "He was responsible for sinking 120,243 GRT (Bruttoregistertonnen, or BRT). With a higher score more tonnage sunk than Britain's Malcolm David Wanklyn in HMS Upholder, or ..." and in general wording along those lines would be preferable? Thanks everyone for helping me understand all this. Mortee (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I came across a source once, which I think that nrt was used for ships sunk by subs, but I am not certain. It would be good to find out. Kablammo (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC) But see the table in German submarine Deutschland, which used grt. Kablammo (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be a bit leery assuming it's grt & not standard or displacement, especially if it includes warships. That said, "score" isn't uncommon; tonnage is the most common metric, but ships sunk isn't unheard of. (Blair lists the top U.S. skippers both ways, frex.) Listing top skippers by tonnage can lead to oddities, when others sank large numbers of very small ships... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC) (Post scriptum: that neither standard nor displacement tonnage have articles is a surprise...)

I've never heard of either standard or displacement tonnage. Are these terms actually in use? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A purist would say that we shouldn't use tonnage to refer to Displacement (ship). But such usage is common. Standard displacement is a term used in the Washington Naval Treaty. And Hull_(watercraft)#Metrics states how displacement is determined. Kablammo (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I know "standard displacement" is a common term. I was asking about "standard tonnage". Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought displacement was used for warships and gross tonnage for merchant ships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Kablammo (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

An example of how misunderstanding of terms can lead to erroneous information is Siege of Malta (World War II)#Axis shipping losses which treats all "tons" as equivalent, both displacement of naval vessels and tonnage of merchant ships sunk. See Talk:Siege of Malta (World War II)#Axis shipping_losses-- tons and tonnage. Kablammo (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Mystery of the redlinks of the memorial for the Rats of Tobruk at Tobruk Cemetery

In the article Ithaca Creek State School we have a paragraph:

A WWII Memorial (erected after 1954), commemorating the Rats of Tobruk, who during WWII defended Tobruk in North Africa against the Axis powers between April and December 1941, stands to the northwest of the front (west) lawn of the school. Constructed as a small replica of a monument built in 1941 by Australian Divisional Engineers in the Tobruk Cemetery, Libya, the memorial is of a stepped, Art-Deco design and stood on a stepped plinth. Metal crosses feature at the highest tier of the memorial, with the Rats of Tobruk Association's crest above a plaque on the lowest tier.

There is no mention of any memorial at Tobruk Cemetery in The Rats of Tobruk article (despite there being a section on memorials). I was presuming that Tobruk War Cemetery on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website is the cemetery in question, which says "Tobruk War Cemetery incorporates the burial ground used during the siege and the memorial erected there at the time by the Australians has been replaced by a permanent memorial of similar design." We know what two of the replicas look like [5] and [6] which match these two photos [7] and [8] on the Australian War Memorial website (whether the AWM photos are of the original memorial or the permanent memorial of similar design that replaced it is unclear but I'd assume they were the original). However, these photos don't match with any memorial shown on the CWGC website (above), so I am rather puzzled as to which cemetery, which memorial, which division of engineers, etc. Kerry (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The 9th Division (Australia) were nick-named the "Rats of Tobruk" for their role in the siege of the town, so presumably the original was built by some of the division's engineers during the siege (the red link is in inappropriate: the division had several engineer units, and not a single group of engineers). Presumably it was built in what's now the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery in the town, and was destroyed either randomly or when the Axis re-occupied the place during the 1942 Battle of Gazala. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the Rats of Tobruk Memorial in Canberra (also a replica of the one in Tobruk) includes the only known surviving part of the original. See also [9]. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The 1983 replica here in Canberra notes that the original was destroyed. The 9th Division Engineers were the 2/3rd, 2/4th, 2/7th and 2/13th Field Companies, and the 2/24th Field Park Company. We do have an article on the The Rats of Tobruk, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, the subsequent destruction of the "permament memorial" has explained the inconsistency in the various information sources. All we need to crack is when and why it was subsequently destroyed. Kerry (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Kerry, please note that Tobruk was in Axis hands from 21 June [10] to 13 November 1942 and it seems likely to me that it was destroyed during that occupation. I found this image of the memorial from a German source with the caption "After the capture of Tobruk by the German troops: a British soldier standing in front of the war memorial in Tobruk, 01.06.1942-30.06.1942". BTW, we don't have an article as far as I can tell about the rather embarrassing fall of Tobruk in June 1942. A project for somebody on a rainy day. Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Does this article meet NSOLDIER?

I am not sure if Marisol Heredia meet notability guidelines. I think there was a post office named after her, but I don't have much experience with how these articles are evaluated at AfD. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be enough to merge it into the article on the town where the post office is located. —Ed!^(talk) 08:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Marines vs. marines (and Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, etc.)

Pls see this discussion. This falls within our "domain". I appreciate that ex|members of the USMC will have very strong opinions on this. This is not a case of Seaman Green, Private (Marine) Grey, Corporal Brown or Airman Oakover. It is about the capitalisation of "marine" in a generic sense as it applies to the USMC - "The M|marines stormed the beach" or "M|marines have many employment streams". Should it only apply to the USMC or apply to the Royal Marines also (and other nationality marines)? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Small m.Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Strikeout for former runways?

Do we have any sort of guideline that says we should use strikeouts (like this) for facilities, like runways, that no longer exist? That seems exceedingly unhelpful to me. This came up at Naval Station Argentia. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that seems very strange and nonsensical. One wouldn't take a defunct military unit, and cross out all of its info because it no longer exists. By that logic, you could take an article like 177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO, a defunct unit from a defunct military, from a defunct country, and cross out most of its infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I imagine this might have been done in the mistaken belief that the IATA airport codes are used for emergency purposes, and that any appearance of such codes on the internet should be crossed out where a runway is no longer operational, to avoid a pilot attempting to land there in an emergency. This is not a valid reason for such strange markup, but one can see the logic.

As regards military history, I imagine anyone engaged in command or short-term planning of an air supremacy campaign might well use strikeouts of runway facilities that have been eliminated, in their own notes. Not in an encyclopedia. MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

44th

If any one knows if any other articles 44th regiment (disambiguation).Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Just headed out, but here's a few:

• 44th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment
• 44th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment
• 44th Ohio Infantry
• 44th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
• 44th Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment
• 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa)
• 44th (The Leicestershire Regiment) Searchlight Regiment, Royal Artillery
• 44th Merwara Infantry
• 44th Georgia Volunteer Infantry

Possibly some others too, will check again when I am back - Dumelow (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a couple more, added a see also section and split the list by nation to make it more readable. There's probably some work to be done in this area. I notice we don't have a 30th Regiment disambiguation page for example and there's loads of brigade pages missing - Dumelow (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers needed at Battle of Halmyros

G'day all, an additional review is needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Halmyros if you have some spare time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

new article

Hello.
I just created William K. James. A second look is request on the article. Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Temporary WW2 airfields

We have several articles on temporary airfields used in WW2. Some examples: RAF El Daba, RAF St Jean, Ponte Galeria Airfield and Sainte-Barbe du Tlélat Airfield. In all cases, these airfields were constructed during WW2 and closed usually before the war was ever over - so nearly all were is use for less than four years. Are any of these really notable? Would it be crazy to start nominating them for deletion? (PS, please ping me in any replies) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• For the records, there are really a lof of those articles. You´ll probably find most of them linked in Advanced Landing Ground. ...GELongstreet (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Yes, it would be crazy to do this without conducting a very through WP:BEFORE check for sources. There are a range of specialist books which describe WWII-era airfields (I think I've seen a couple of different series covering all the airfields in the UK, for instance), and histories of air campaigns and units often provide significant coverage of airfields. In many cases temporary World War II airfields were transformed into permanent airports. Not all are notable, but many are. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  FWIW, if the airport was transformed to a permanent airport, I wouldn't consider it temporary. I'm only discussing those that were closed before the end of the war and abandoned. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Oiyarbepsy: I don't see that the brevity of use would be a deciding factor in Notability. Either the airfield has been extensively covered in secondary sources (history books, etc) or it hasn't, just standard measure of Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll just have to review them individually as I see them, I guess. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

FAR for Armed Forces of the DRC

I have nominated Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A-review link again, this time actually requesting

A while back I mentioned it would be nice to have a link on the top of the article (visible if a gadgets option is checked) for A-reviews similar to that for fAC. Someone said there ws a link on the talk page in a collapsible box; I dropped the thread without requesting the link atop the article.

I changed my mind. Would it be worthwhile to request it? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Campaignbox scope

I have proposed changes to the scope of Template:Campaignbox Eastern Front (World War I) on the template's talk page. I'm not that familiar with the usual standards for campaignboxes; editors interested in the topic or knowledgeable in how campaignbox scope usually is determined may want to weigh in. Huon (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Soldier Notability Criteria Problems for black US Civil War soldiers

Notability Criteria (WP:SOLDIER) are problematic for black soldiers from the US Civil War. I'm hitting this wall as I work on profiling a few soldiers from the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry.

The highest rank a black soldier could be promoted to during the Civil War in the US was Sergeant Major. So, already we have a problem: all black Civil War soldiers are immediately disqualified from the following notability criteria:

2. Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or

3. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or

5. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents); or

After working my way through over 200 soldiers from the MA 54th in just Companies D & G, what becomes notable is: any rank above Private, a photograph (William Tecumseh Barks), an actual grave marker (Benjamin Grimmidge), a death date, a line or two of actual biography. Unlike white soldiers from the era, an overwhelming number of these soldiers don't even have marked graves.

I want to start the conversation on what Notability Criteria would look like for this special case. Thoughts? -kim. (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask the contrary question, why should anyone who served in the US Colored Troops be notable? Barring extensive coverage in secondary sources, not even regimental commanders are notable by our criteria; just like people in regular units of the US or Confederate Armies. Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

They could be if they did something exceptional or unusual, or simply have gained extensive coverage on reliable sources for any other reason. It's not Wikipedias place to quesiton why someone has recived coverage, to comment on whether someone is "worthy" or not. Wikipedia also shouldn't bend to anyone's will and give special treatment to black soldiers simply because they were black at a time when interest in them was little to none.★Trekker (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm by no means an African American history scholar, but so far in my research, black coverage, including soldier's names and actions, seem to more often occur in personal correspondence and diaries and there's still a wealth of that to be digitized for posterity. As an example, the only named mention I've found of Sergeant Andrew Deforest of Company E was in a private letter from Sergeant Major Lewis Henry Douglass to Helen Amelia Loguen. In the particular case of black Civil War soldiers, the coverage problem is complicated because of the complications arisen from slavery and prejudice, then and even now. tl;dr: It may not be a problem of interest, but of coverage. This is less about special treatment and more about recognizing impactful context. -kim. (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a coverage in reliable sources issue. Or rather, there is a coverage in reliable sources issue, but the issue does not prevent us from greatly increasing the number of articles about African-Americans in the 19th and early 20th century without trying to change wikipedia guidelines. To take the example you just gave, Andrew August Deforest moved to Buffalo after the war where he was a saloonkeeper. He was, I think, a democrat and was involved in local political organization but did not hold any major positions in the party or in local government. He died in late August 1913.[11] I don't think it would be very easy to write an article that showed him to be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but if he were of particular interest to you, I could try to help. To figure this sort of thing out, you can look at genealogy sites and newspaper archiving sites to get an outline about an individual's career, homes, and marriage and death dates. Once you know the basics, you can look for newspaper articles from the individual's region, focusing on key dates for the individual. You can also look for local history books and records of local or state level African-American conventions. You'll notice that there are a few steps in the process that require original research, but if done properly, especially if there is a relatively complete obituary, the end product can be written in such a way that it is not OR, because any reasonable reading of the sources leaves the reader clear that they all refer to the same individual. Resources at WP:TWL are really useful for this, as through that many editors are eligible for free access to resources including newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

SOLDIER just creates a presumption of notability, they still may be notable per GNG/ANYBIO (and in fact, post 1960s hagiography of African American soldiers has elevated some of little prior note to GNG - for the civil war and in other wars (e.g. the fairly late coming coverage of Tuskegee Airmen in WWII). Wikipedia's place is not to right great wrongs - if these soldiers are not notable, then they are simple not.Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree it's hagiography, but that aside, it may be what needs to happen: deeper research into what very few texts exist that actually reference black Civil War era soldiers by name, their notable deeds and the slow elevation, through research, to GNG. -kim. (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess every single skirmish that took place during the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War had been extensively covered. Now is the time to write about the non notable officers of the aforementioned wars.--Catlemur (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, black soldiers (even including those elevated to the highest rank of Sergeant Major) are rarely mentioned by name in this extensive coverage. There's a problem of who was writing that coverage, what they valued and a lifetime of unconscious biases living in the era of slavery. Captain Luis Fenollosa Emilio, for all of his abolitionist ideals, rarely ever mentioned black soldiers by name even when they were doing something he considered notable in his book History of the Fifty-Fourth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, 1863-1865. -kim. (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

SNGs like WP:SOLDIER are meant to make it easy to identify articles that are suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A few black CW vets, like Andrew Jackson Smith (Medal of Honor) and Andre Cailloux, pass WP:SOLDIER. But, there are a large number of black civil war veterans whose activities after the war were covered in depth, just like white civil war veterans (see: Category:African Americans in the Civil War). I agree that SNGs can drive systematic bias in various ways, and would be curious if there were ways to reduce that, but I don't think race based criteria are likely to gain consensus. I want to point from experience out that it is quite possible (and enjoyable) to write articles about black Americans who served in the military (or served soldiers as slaves) who were then the subject of multiple in depth reliable-sourced-based texts. In that vein, William Tecumseh Barks was a policeman, poet, and journalist in Pittsburgh after the war, has been written about widely, and an article on him could be appropriate on that basis. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, SNGs like SOLDIER were never intended to be treated as "X criteria is automatically notable", despite the fact that they are commonly interpreted that way. They're just a collection of assumptions - flag officers usually have enough written on them to warrant articles, for example. If the sources are there, go ahead and write an article. If they aren't, the subject isn't notable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Following up on Barks, that page was speedy deleted earlier today, but I've recreated it based on the description above. Feel free to look it over, his case for notability isn't the strongest ever, but there is certainly a good deal of reliable sourcing about him in my opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I cite SOLDIER a lot in AfDs, but I think we need to apply some judgment. For example, if the highest rank a Black man could hold was sergeant major then Sergeant Major John Doe meets soldier (kind of). Documenting the decision process early on the article talk page would go a long way toward avoiding conflict.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can possibly say that. That also means that every subedar-major or risaldar-major of the British Indian Army would qualify. And every sergeant of the British African forces. I think we have to look at the army as a whole, not at one part of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

By the same token, we could say that it was virtually impossible in the past (and can still be difficult) for a man from a working-class background to rise to commissioned rank, so all sergeant-majors should be seen as notable in order to correct low representation from another group. It's just not feasible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Smmurphy! The week has begun and I may not have time to follow up quickly, but perhaps converting it to a stub and shifting it to notable black American from notable black soldier is the way to go. Will follow up when I have time. -kim. (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Just to give a point to think on. It can be argued that this is not a new thing; that historians throughout history have discriminated against even bothering to mention or be aware of more junior officers. Julius Caesar, I think, takes the biscuit, managing in all of his many, and very detailed, histories, to mention exactly one centurion (warrant officer equivalent perhaps) and one ordinary legionary, and mentioning them only in a very brief sentence or two. I will check, but I do not think this got them up to GNG despite the circumstances. Some ancient Greek historians were more forthcoming, centuries earlier, because of the tradition of individual heroism of course. It was only with mid 19th century British -- but not U.S. -- revival of such values that "universal awards for valor" made it nearly as possible for an ordinary soldier to achieve notability as a general officer. The Americans caught up quickly, but not quickly enough for the Civil War. MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is too promotional to post this, but in a related matter, today I created a new page about Union Navy vet and Buffalo Soldier, Henry V. Plummer (and one for his son, H. Vinton Plummer). If anyone is interested in black soldiers from the era, you might enjoy the page (which is still in progress). Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we ought to be careful here. We can't affirmative action our way to a comprehensive encyclopedia, we have to go off what the sources say. WP:GNG should always be the fundamental benchmark for inclusion. Even if advancement in the ranks was limited for black soldiers, we can't assume that a sergeant major was stuck there because he wasn't allowed to be promoted; it's quite possible that even if the option were possible he did nothing worth the merit of a promotion. Undercoverage in sources is not our job to rectify. But do note that if the subject does interest you, the soldiers of colonial Africa are in an even worse desert of coverage. America benefited from an active black intelligentsia in some places and some measure of freedom of the press, which many African colonies did not have until after World War II. My editing domain is the Congo, and aside from having no black officers until independence in 1960 (and a mere 3-10 adjutants, the highest rank), the country was home to no black-run publications until 1957. Within the past 5 years there's been an effort by European countries to honor their African and Asian World War vets, but this process is only in its infancy. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There were actually 50-60 black company-grade officers in the Civil War, and one major (Martin Delany of the 104th USCT). They are on p. 110 of "United States Colored Troops, 1863-1867" by William A. Gladstone. The vast majority (due to complex and unusual circumstances, stemming from their unit ancestry as Confederate units of free blacks) were in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Louisiana Native Guards, eventually redesignated the 73rd, 74th, and 75th USCT. The 54th and 55th Massachusetts had three lieutenants each. RobDuch (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-enactments

Where do we stand on re-enactment articles? For example English Civil War Society, Eglinton Tournament of 1839 or even Historical reenactment? I haven't come across many before but arguably they would fall under "Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose". I note there is a WikiProject Reenactment which is very small (121 articles) and very dead - Dumelow (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

World War II reenactment did come up for discussion here but apart from that ... Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Military reenactments are definitely in-scope Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a specific task force that reenactments fall under? Or are there enough articles to create one? Cdtuba (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been through and tagged any relevant articles from WikiProject Reenactment which I think are in scope. I took a fairly liberal view (I included a lot of Society for Creative Anachronism and renaissance fair articles because they are loosely historical) but excluded anything that looked to be purely-civilian. I'll list some cats that I want to go through and strike them off once I have checked them (if anyone else wants to do some, feel free!). A lot of the living museum articles are out of scope, I have included them because there is a smattering of military-related articles (eg forts) which are in scope. Only the main category contents need checking, I have expanded the sub-cats:

• Category:Historical reenactment
• Category:Classical reenactment
• Category:Medieval reenactment
• Category:Viking reenactment
• Category:Modern reenactment
• Category:American Civil War reenactment
• Category:Renaissance reenactment
• Category:Renaissance fairs
• Category:Military reenactment
• Category:Historical reenactment by war
• Category:Historical reenactment events
• Category:Living museums
• Category:Living museums in Australia
• Category:Living museums in Canada
• Category:Living museums in the United States
• Category:Living museums in Alabama
• Category:Living museums in Arizona
• Category:Living museums in Arkansas
• Category:Living museums in California
• Category:Living museums in Colorado
• Category:Living museums in Connecticut
• Category:Living museums in Florida
• Category:Living museums in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Living museums in Hawaii
• Category:Living museums in Illinois
• Category:Living museums in Indiana
• Category:Living museums in Montana
• Category:Living museums in Minnesota
• Category:Living museums in Michigan
• Category:Living museums in Massachusetts
• Category:Living museums in Maryland
• Category:Living museums in Maine
• Category:Living museums in Kentucky
• Category:Living museums in Kansas
• Category:Living museums in Iowa
• Category:Living museums in West Virginia
• Category:Living museums in Washington (state)
• Category:Living museums in Virginia
• Category:Living museums in Texas
• Category:Living museums in Tennessee
• Category:Living museums in South Carolina
• Category:Living museums in Pennsylvania
• Category:Living museums in Oregon
• Category:Living museums in Ohio
• Category:Living museums in North Dakota
• Category:Living museums in North Carolina
• Category:Living museums in New York (state)
• Category:Living museums in New Mexico
• Category:Living museums in New Jersey
• Category:Living museums in New Hampshire
• Category:Living museums in Nebraska
• Category:Historical reality television series
• Category:Living museums in the United Kingdom
• Category:Living museums in England

- Dumelow (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2018‎

I think IO have now tagged all the in-scope articles in the above cats. I didn't have time to do much more than just add the tag so there'll be a whole bunch of articles sitting in Category:Unassessed military history articles and Category:Military history articles with no associated task force. I'll try to reduce the backlog if I get a chance - Dumelow (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Really out of date material on modern military units

As a slightly random note, quite a bit of material on modern military units is seriously out of date. Many of these articles were created during the rapid expansion of Wikipedia in the mid-2000s, and have been only lightly maintained since then. I found this out the hard way recently when what I thought would be a straightforward update of the Australian Defence Force article (which was developed to FA status in 2007) ahead of a main page appearance turned into a major project. As such, I'd suggest that members of this project keep an eye out for outdated material whenever they move through articles on modern military units. Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It would also help if we could use more future-proof language. Not "The 57th Artillery is currently based at Fort Bragg." Instead, "In 1985 the 57th Artillery was assigned to Fort Bragg" or "As of 2004 the 57th Artillery was based at Fort Bragg." The word "currently" is almost always wrong on WP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an editor of these articles but a sometime reader and I find frequent minor issues. E.g. weapons "currently in service" at a date some time in the past, intended replacements or introduction of weapons by a date now passed (did it happen?). Part of the problem appears to be a tendency to report current news items rather than research in more considered sources.Monstrelet (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have seen some editors remove the date from remarks such as "As of 2004 the 57th Artillery was based at Fort Bragg." and rephrase it to imply it's the current status. Realistically, it's very difficult to keep all of the articles updated. RobDuch (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I urge the use of the {{As of}} template. This causes articles to be added to Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements, which allows us to keep track of potentially out of date material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing "As of" in this case would be wrong. Please revert if you see this. See WP:PRECISELANG. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Dearth of coverage of Thai units in Vietnam War?

Queen's Cobras M79 grenadier in Phuoc Tho in 1967

For year now I've had "Queen's Cobras" on my list of redlinks to create stubs for, so today I made stubs for the Royal Thai Volunteer Regiment (Queen's Cobras) that arrived in Vietnam in 1967, and the Royal Thai Army Expeditionary Division (Black Panthers) who replaced them and remained until 1971. I'd invite anyone to help expand these stubs, and to help expand coverage of Thailand's role. I named and wikilinked those two units in Vietnam_War#Thailand, but overall I've been pretty surprised we don't have much coverage of the issue. Is there maybe justification to eventually create Thailand in the Vietnam War, by analog to New Zealand in the Vietnam War? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand as well. MPS1992 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You might find some info here Communist insurgency in Thailand.--Catlemur (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As you have noted, there is a dearth of information on Thailand's role in the Vietnam War. The only source I know of, which does contain useful information, is the U.S. Army's Vietnam Studies Allied Participation in Vietnam, here: [12] regards Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I have started a draft for the topic, Draft:Thailand in the Vietnam War, and am notifying WPThailand as suggested. Anyone here feel free to also make any additions to the draft, and I'll publish it as soon as I can get a few basic cited facts established. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You may want to check Unity (military operation), as it covers Thai mercenaries committed to the Laotian Civil War. As I recall, the Thai mercenaries in Laos suffered greater casualties than the Thai regulars in South Vietnam.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mexican–American_War#Mexican_War

Opinions welcome. I twice turned Mexican War into a redirect and added a hatnote pointing to List of wars involving Mexico at the top of Mexican–American War, but these moves are apparently controversial. It is essentially a question of primary meaning. Srnec (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Henry Johnson (World War I soldier)

Would appreciate it if anyone with subject matter knowledge of Henry Johnson (World War I soldier) would just eyeball the article and see if the 2018 edits look legit. IP 205.155.236.89 is a block evasion of indef blocked YahwehSaves per WP:ANI. That editor's agenda is usually concentrated on medals and service history. — Maile (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Quebec Agreement needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Quebec Agreement; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Erin needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Erin; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Use of navboxes on military related pages

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL recommends that navboxes be bidirectional (i.e. have the link of the page within them). To give some context RAF Lakenheath was edited by me to include the USAF navbox, since it is a USAF base, but was then reverted because it did not follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. As a community I am hoping to achieve a consensus on whether a strict adherence to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is more useful to military articles, or if adding the USAF infobox allows individuals a greater degree of information.Garuda28 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that, while it is wise to usually follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, it is not always the best course of action. Take for example NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen. It has the NATO navbox, even though there is no direct link to it, but I feel that it gives more relivent information. Also take any number of RAF stations. By this strict interpretation, none of them should have the RAF navbox linked to them, since it is not a direct link, however I feel that it provides more information and does not lead to an overkill usage of infoboxes.

From a technical reading of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." I believe that the critical words is "should normally." If I were to create a navbox of RAF stations, yes it should include a link to the RAF station, however I think that it should also have the RAF navbox, as it is the top level navbox for this topic, and can give the reader a vast amount of information. Garuda28 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A high level navbox is not needed if there is a lower level Navbox. You can get from navbox on USAAF in Europe to article about USAAF in Europe and thence to the higher organization of USAAF.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I was the one removing the navboxes per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as these high level boxes just cause clutter and dont really help navigation between like type articles. The nav box is not to give the "reader a vast amount of information" so I dont see any reason why Mil Hist should be exempt from this. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Urmuz

I am baffled as to why Urmuz has a Military History tag. Could anyone enlighten me? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WW1 service.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Is simply ever having been in the military enough to get the tag?

Not sure there is a rule. But I suppose it depends on how you define militarily history.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've actually been thinking of asking about Stu Hart and Al Oeming's articles on here from time to time, but figured maybe it wasn't appropriate.★Trekker (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mere military service seems a low bar. In this case an 11,500 word article has 88 on his undistinguished military career; most of them debating whether he actually saw any action. Some sort of line may be useful, or there could be a lot of candidates for tagging. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So should the tag be removed from Urmuz you think?★Trekker (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I am going to boldly remove the tag. Feel free to revert. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Per our wikiproject mainpage: "Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability". A lot of early-20th century European figures will have served in either of the world wars, examples such as this where the subject attained only junior rank and did not receive any gallantry medals should be excluded from scope in my opinion - Dumelow (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense.★Trekker (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Corvette move discussion in progress

I move discussion which may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject is currently taking place at Talk:Corvette (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 February 2018 . -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yunarmiya

I created a stub for Yunarmiya after watching a Danish documentary discussing it, and finding nothing on Wikipedia. Please if anyone knowledgeable in the subject will add to it I'd be grateful :) TH (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the same as Young Army Cadets National Movement? Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It would appear you're right, I've changed my stub to a redirect. Thanks! TH (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

And I've added "sometimes transliterated as Yunarmiya" to the lead and changed the italics so that it's the foreign language bit which is italicised. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars FAC

If this is not the done thing then I apologise, but Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Royal_Gloucestershire_Hussars/archive1 has just dropped into the older noms section over at FAC, and could do with another couple of reviews, if anyone has the time and inclination. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Factotem Good news, i have time and i'd like to have a review between a half hour and a hour i'll be done so i see you on the talk page. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: should the word "tank" be included in the titles of articles about the tank models

Comments requested from other editors at Talk:Type 4 Chi-To#RfC about the names of relevant articles. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

one sentence

Hi. I want one sentence to add in an article. Could someone edit appropriately to be added in the article? Thanks a lot.

• His assignments included the 4527th Combat Crew Training Squadron, Tactical Air Command, Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona; 10th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Headquarters, U.S. Air Forces in Europe, Hahn Air Base, Germany; 510th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Pacific Air Forces, Cu Chi and Bien Hoa, South Vietnam; instructor pilot, 425th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, Williams AFB, Arizona; 71st Tactical Air Support Group and 702nd Tactical Air Support Squadron, Fort Hood, Texas; 357th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 333rd Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, and 333rd Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, all at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; 510th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand; 358th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, 355th Tactical Fighter Wing and 354th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; chief, Officer Command Assignments Division, Headquarters Tactical Air Command, Langley AFB, Virginia; commander, 425th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Williams AFB, Arizona; assistant deputy commander for operations, 405th Tactical Training Wing, Luke AFB, Arizona; assistant deputy commander, then commander, 833rd Combat Support Group, Holloman AFB, New Mexico; vice commander, then commander, 343rd Tactical Fighter Wing, Alaskan Air Command (AAC), Eielson AFB, Alaska; deputy commander, Air Force Combat Operations Staff, deputy director, operations, directorate for plans and operations, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force; deputy director, Office of Military Support, Headquarters U.S. Army; temporary duty, deputy commander, Joint Task Force Middle East, United States Central Command, Middle East; assistant deputy under secretary of the Air Force (international affairs); and chief, Joint U.S. Military Mission for Aid to Turkey, Ankara, Turkey.

Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Which article? And what are the sources? Kablammo (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kablammo: Philip W. Nuber. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Category naming

I'm thinking of gathering articles about actual courts-martial (e.g. 1917 French Army mutinies, Court martial of Breaker Morant, Court-martial of Terry Lakin, etc.) into a subcategory underneath Category:Court-martial, but I'm not quite sure what to call it:

• Courts-martial
• Historical courts-martial
• Courts-martial in history
• Court-martial cases
• Something else

Suggestions? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Court-martial cases IMO FWIIW Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I like Historical courts-martial. Historical isn't quite the same as notable, but... Are you thinking of it as a category of categories?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, it'll be a regular subcategory. A few of the articles are in the main court-martial category already, but I think that should be for the mechanics/law aspects only. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Concur that a subcat for specific cases would be useful. I don't have a strong case but C157's suggestion of "Court-martial cases" seems reasonable. I less-like the use of the term "historical" because there may be general/mechanical articles that only apply to historical examples too. "Cases" seems the best bet to me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Court-martial cases it is then. Clarityfiend (talk)

Template problem

There's an odd problem with {{WPMILHIST|biography=no|South-Asian=y|WWII=y|class=B|A-Class=fail}} at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943. It displays start class, rather than B class. I tried adding GA to see what would happen, and it does display GA. But when I add B or C, it displays start. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It is because the project uses the b class checklist system which automates b class (and c class) assessment based on a series of checks. You need to tell the template you have reviewed against the five b class requirements. If you add the following code to the template:

|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n

And mark them all as "y" it will show as b class. Hope that helps - Dumelow (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dumelow: thank you. That's an impressive template; you obviously take your assessments seriously, which is great. I was able to mark all as yes, except for accuracy, which hasn't been checked. So it now displays a C, and that's fine. It just seemed odd to call a 10,000-word article "start" class. Thanks again. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• As per the coordinators of MILHIST A-review, who say that article is not within MILHIST scope, I wish to remove the MILHIST from those wikiprojects on that page. But it has a MILHIST A-review in its milestones. Does an A-revieew in Milestones automagically keep the article in MILHIST? Can we get MILHIST off that page? Is it required to link to an A-review which concluded an article was not within MILHIST scope? I prefer to delete everything, for that reason. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Can you point to where a coordinator said it isn't within the scope of MILHIST? It happened during and (in part) because of World War II. For an example of sources treating it as military history: Dando 2012: "Andrew D. Lohman and Wiley C. Thompson, both of whom teach at the United States Military Academy at West Point and have a great professional interest in military history, wrote the entry titled “Bengal Famine: 1943–1944." SarahSV ^(talk) 03:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Of course it's within the scope of MILHIST; in fact, by most accounts, WWII fucking caused it. But who am I to argue with the Wikiproject's coordinator etc.?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• It belongs in MILHIST, whether various coordinators believe it or not. Either way I go, it's bad, so might as well do the correct thing. I put it back in the WP. reluctantly. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts in Western Europe or not?

Greetings everone i have a question to you all and the project. Are there conflicts in Western Europe? I'll explain before WW2 in Catalonia, Spain and in the both regions Brittany and Corsica, France, some people wants independent so they started to make some separatists parties. However in Catalonia the people there attacked the (centrale) govermnent in an insurrectional movement trying to become independent from Spain. After WW2 and the start of the Cold War, many Eastern European resistances groups were still fighting against the communist govermnents in whole Western Europe was it peaceful except in Spain. Most of the rebel groups there were leftists except ETA was the only rebel group who was separatists in 1959. Now my point in the years 60s, 70s and 80s in most of the countries in Western Europe did get separatists and/or communist rebel groups, some of them were even fascists who did (or still even do) fight against the Western European goverments on an urban guerrilla warfare way. Those groups are/were armed and did killed people however the casualties are really low so i am asking are those situations really conflicts. I mean, have these situations the characteristics for consideration as conflicts. If yes then i'd like to make some pages about the rebel groups if not please explain me why not.

Here below are the rebel groups:

If there are more rebel groups that aren't listed then please put them here in this list of rebel groups. Only rebel groups who haven't a conflict are in the list so, IRA, ETA and N17 are not included however if the conflict ended and the rebel group(s) is/was (are/were) still active then it should listed here too i am curious of they are conflicts or not. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is worth looking over the articles and sources for some of the groups you list, to get an idea of how serious or significant they really were. For an example, the article on the Angry Brigade that you list above, has its founder admitting that most of those involved would be better described as the "Slightly Cross Brigade". This, together with the casualty statistics -- "one person was slightly injured" in the group's entire campaign -- should make you question your determination to label them as a "rebel group". MPS1992 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You have to think a rebel group is an organisation who is fighting against the government(s). However in this days the government(s) can choose or it is a rebel group or not even if the organisation injured just one person or even didn't make a casualtie what is possible. Some rebel groups just don't even want to kill people but they are still rebels because the government(s) say that, and like I said before there are not a lot of casualties. Plus they are armed and want to overthrew the government or establish an independent state. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. In that case you might want to restrict your list to only the organizations where the government described them as a rebel group. You are likely to find that your list will then be very greatly shorter.

I am armed with a heavy metal toaster and I would like a change of government in my country, but that does not make me a rebel group even if my flatmate agrees with me and we talk about it over coffee twice a week. MPS1992 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course not if you and organisation called Heavy Metal Toaster attacks pro-government buildings, pro-governments people and pro-governments organisations then yes you and your organisation are described as rebels. If you don't attack the government then you are not, even you are armed and you want a change of government. However if the government claimed that you and your organisation are rebels then you still are an exemple of a rebel who didn't killed a single person or wasn't even violent but is described as a rebel by a government called, Carles Puigdemont by the Spanish government, and The Angry Brigade is a rebel group thanks to the series of bomb attacks in England between 1970 and 1972. CPA-5 (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but the Angry Brigade has never been described as a rebel group by the government. (Also they mainly did not target the government in power, similar to the English People's Liberation Army which seems mainly to be known for sending a bomb to a disarmament pressure group.)

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were not a rebel group even though they blew up a government building and killed many people.

I don't think your list serves any useful purpose for improving Wikipedia, but by some of the standards you're using, you may wish to be aware of groups mentioned in this section about Welsh nationalism. Again though, I would not describe a person or persons as a "rebel group" just because they set a few holiday homes on fire. Your question is "are those situations really conflicts", and the answer is no. MPS1992 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok let we see i have some points for your last message first i agree that the Welsh nationalism#Violent nationalism is not a conflict which i never did put in this list. Second i did removed some organisations are there more groups who you think they're not rebels? Cause i think this is beter now. CPA-5 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Any whose Wikipedia articles do not describe them as rebels are not rebels. And any where the government does not describe them as rebels, and reliable sources do not describe them as rebels, are not rebels. MPS1992 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of organisations you think are not "rebels" in this list? CPA-5 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You had two questions, and I think I've answered both of them. My remaining question is how this relates to improving Wikipedia's coverage of military history. MPS1992 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought the organisations in this list are urban guerrilla (which is a method for fighting against the govermnent). They were/are armed, carring attacks on the govermnent(s), want a change in the govermnent(s) on a violent way, are recognised as terrorists by the govermnent(s) and killing people who works with the goverment(s). I think that those situations are count as conflicts. CPA-5 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of option to thank other users

I've noticed that the option to thank other users for their edits has been removed. What was the reason for this? RobDuch (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a bug Factotem (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Machine gun nest

There is a proposal to deleted the redirect Machine gun nest at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 21#Machine gun nest. I have also started a discussion at Talk:Defensive fighting position#Machine gun nest. SpinningSpark 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797)

I have asked a question at Talk:Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797)#Nelson's promotion to rear-admiral. Input from naval historians would be welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen needs one more reviewer

Hello all, the A-Class review for German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen only needs one more reviewer, if anyone has the time. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Military district (Germany)

We had an enquiry over at the Humanities Reference Desk about this article: "I was wondering whether the supposed German terminology used here (especially the terms Wehrersatzbezirk Hauptquartier, Bereich Hauptsitze and Unterregion Hauptsitze) is really correct". A thorough Google search for each of those terms only brings up English language websites which could have been based on our article. There were no books or anything in German which I could find, which seems suspicious. Can anybody with more expertise help please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Glenn needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for John Glenn; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting drafts on small/early Indian uprisings against the British

• Draft:Bhyuan, Ho and Juang Rebellion
• Draft:Ho Rebellion

Ran across two interesting drafts, covering Indian tribal (Adivasi) uprisings against British occupation in the 1800s. The submitter really needs to clean up their context, but some cursory Googling shows some bits and pieces which appear to overall confirm that these events happened, though some of them are just referred to in prose with no WP:COMMONNAME clearly stated. Pointing out here in case anyone else wants to pitch in. Feel free to edit the draft directly, or to leave and sign a comment at the top. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

English Translations from Spanish Wiki

Hello, I have researched many different Spanish battles, especially battles pertaining to Venezuelan independence. There are many articles in es.wikipedia.org that could be translated into English, I could work with some of the smaller articles but most of the sources and cites are from old Spanish articles and books written in an older Spanish dialect and I have a hard time with the translations. Also, some of the battles that are on the list such as The Battle of Barquisimeto, are listed on the Spanish wiki page as Batalla de Tierrita Blanca. Feel free to contact me if there are other questions JPTonca (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Dhan Singh Thapa

This article has been in GAN since 26 November. I have recently copy edited it for GOCE and it seems a fine short article. If someone could spare the time to assess it I am sure that it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I send invitations to new members for the project?

Hi, I have been working on recommending new members for the project for a while, and have sent some lists to Peacemaker67 who helped invite those recommended editors. I wonder if you mind me sending invitations directly for WPMILHIST to save time and efforts of yours? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I don't have any dramas with this. We have template that can be used for this: {{subst:Wikipedia:MILHIST/I|~~~~}}. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest

This is a note to inform you that an NPOV discussion is in progress concerning Nathan Bedford Forrest and that any informed (and ideally so far uninvolved) editors are invited to participate to help reach consensus. The discussion is at Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#NPOV discussion and it has been posted at NPOV noticeboard. Thank you. FrankP (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

RfD notification: Rations and Iron ration

Hello. I've nominated Rations and Iron ration for discussion at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 26 would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Horn Brigade

Can someone please review Draft:Horn Brigade and verify that this is not any of the brigades already listed in Iron Brigade (disambiguation)?

Also, I think that the primary for Iron Brigade should be the disambiguation, but that is a different issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the draft and the disambiguation page, and it's clear that the Horn Brigade is not any of the three Union (and one Confederate) Iron Brigades currently in the disambiguation page. RobDuch (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts about an image at Commons FPC?

c:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AA gun firing during Continuation War.jpg

There's an interesting image nominated for Featured Picture on FPC (pinging Manelolo, who nominated it).

Hoping to get some additional opinions on the image, and whether the messy exposure could be due to the shockwave of the weapon and/or some other explanation other than photographer error. To me, that's an important point regarding whether or not it's featured, as there are other clearer documentary-style images but an image taken at the same time the gun fired, "showing" the shockwave would make it quite interesting. I admit ignorance on the subject. Manelolo clearly knows more than I do, but I'm hoping to get some additional opinions (here, not at the FPC, although by all means vote if you're so inclined). Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian ship Yantar

The Russian intelligence ship Yantar article has been moved by MaeseLeon to Russian research vessel Yantar. Almost all references to her being an intelligence ship have been stripped out. This information was cited to a number of reliable sources. This topic is out of my comfort zone so I'm raising this for discussion.

Should the article be restored to its original title and the version before MaeseLeon edited it? Mjroots (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Only one duplicate reference to her being an intelligence ship was removed because it was totally repetitive. No source was removed. No accusation against her was removed, no matter how far-fetched (the 'Activities' section reads as if being anywhere and non-Western makes you a spy ---but I didn't touch it.) The rest of the article remains as it was, but making clear that she is officially an oceanographic research vessel which is alleged to be a spy ship in some Western countries (and this is stated in the very first sentence, keeping the quotations as they were.) MaeseLeon (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources from around the world seem to be quite clear that this is an intelligence ship, and as such we need to describe her as such. Jane's (a gold standard source on this kind of topic given that it publishes the authoritative Jane's Fighting Ships) calls her an "intelligence ship" [13]. The BBC calls her a "spy ship" [14] and states that she is "officially an oceanographic research vessel, but actually bristling with surveillance equipment, and the mother ship for manned and unmanned deep-sea submersibles". Popular Mechanics also notes that while the vessel is officially a oceanographic research ship, "outside observers believe the Yantar is actually a spy ship using mini-submersibles to conduct cloak and dagger work on the bottom of the sea" [15]. The Times calls her a research ship, but states that one of the ship's main roles is to cut cables [16]. The South African website DefenceWeb calls the vessel an "intelligence ship" and also notes that she is "described as an oceanographic research vessel, but is believed to be an espionage ship". [17] The New York Times [18], US ABC News [19] and The National Interest [20] and Australian news.com.au [21] all also call the vessel a "spy ship". From my Googling, the only media sources which call the ship only a research vessel or similar are Russian propaganda outlets RT, Sputnik and TASS which are definitely not reliable sources. The article should be moved back to its original name. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes the bulk of the reliable sources seem to support the article's previous name (i.e. "intelligence ship") so it should be moved back to that per WP:COMMONNAME. At any rate I'd have thought a discussion before making such a potentially controversial move would have been a better approach rather than the bold move which seems to have occurred in this case. Anotherclown (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. We usually stick to the official moniker for US and other Western ships that act as spy ships - placing that detail in the lede, not the title. e.g. USS Pueblo (AGER-2).Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is the main reason why I changed it. Otherwise it would be an obvious case of double standards ---either we define the Yantar as a research ship as officially defined (making clear that her enemies say she's a spy ship) or we change every ship and aircraft which has ever been defined as a spy craft by their opponents. MaeseLeon (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That seems right. The terms are not mutually exclusive - and indeed some of the alleged uses, eg as a cable cutter, are not really spying, but sabotage- one doesn't get much intelligence from a severed cable. There is nothing here to suggest that Yantar does not conduct marine research, so clearly a multi-purpose vessel. My judgment would be Research for the title, and the rest in the Lead. Davidships (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

But only Russian propaganda uses this term. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we shouldn't. As for the claims that only "enemies" of Russia use the term: what utter nonsense. While Russian propagandists and their mates might want to claim that everything is relative, there's a strong weight of sources here, including from Jane's. The comparison with US ships is not useful, given that they're simply called by their name given that they have a prefix. If Russia had a similar naming style for its ships, we'd use that. An alternative might be to just leave the intelligence/research out like we do for the French spy ship French ship Dupuy de Lôme (A759) and Italian ship Elettra (A5340), but that seems like a cop out to me given the weight of sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If for "cop out" we could read "basis for compromise" I would willingly support that. Given the nature of the subject, which is not shied away from in the article nor, consequently, the Lead, we avoid any hint of POV. From my reading of sources as above and elsewhere (and despite the common use of "believed to be") there would be every reason to conclude that both descriptions are accurate. Davidships (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm reading "cop out" as "pandering to political correctness". Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, never mind. I was hoping that, in the interests of reaching consensus, and respecting the spirit of WP:POVNAMING, we could settle for Russian ship Yantar, Russian naval ship Yantar or similar. Davidships (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian ship Yantar is at least neutral and correct. I would support a move to that title. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A previous intelligence vessel is at Russian ship Liman so it would be consistent with that - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Air Operations During the Korean War

Hello. You might remember me. I have started the above-mentioned article, but I need some help; it is starting to feel overwhelming. Could anybody help me please? Cheers, American474 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Upload your draft to the site; I looked at your contributions back to late 2016, and couldn't find your draft. Put it in, for example, User:Jak474/Air Operations during the Korean War and others can look at it at least, and possibly help out.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I totally second that. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

All right, done! American474 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Battle of Umberkhind covered in Indian-language sources, or delete?

Please see discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Is_Battle_of_Umberkhind_covered_in_Indian-language_sources,_or_delete?. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I found a couple of English-language sources that pre-date Wikipedia and also some photos of a plaque and memorial at the site that seem to verify the existence of the battle at least. I have replied at the link you gave - Dumelow (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Awards clarification needed

I'm working on two articles about Hawaii women who were Red Cross nurses in World War I and awarded two medals I'm unclear on . Listing the source here, which anyone can access. "Medal of the City of Le Havre by the Mayor and the Order of Elizabeth by the Queen of the Belgians" Awards for can be found on p. 176 for Ethel Moseley Damon and p. 701 for Mabel Isabel Wilcox.

Judd, Henry P.; Hilleary, Perry Edward (1954). Men and women of Hawaii, 1954; a biographical encyclopedia of persons of notable achievement, an historical account of the peoples who have distinguished themselves through personal success and through public service. Honolulu, HI: Honolulu Business Consultants – via HathiTrust.

The only Order of Elizabeth I find on Wikipedia seems to be Austrian. And I don't find anything on Wikipedia for the Le Havre medal. Should I redlink, or not link at all? Also, when I finish these articles, because of their WWI service, should I include WPMH project banner on the talk page? Advice? — Maile (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I´d suppose it was the Queen Elisabeth Medal. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah ... and so it probably is. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

La médaille d'honneur de la ville du Havre still seems to be being awarded. Not sure how notable this is outside Le Havre though. Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Which task force supports Combat Engineer tactics, equipment and organisations? And Folding Boat Equipment

Hi,

I have created an article on Folding Boat Equipment, looking for help and resources. Is there a task force or part of WikiProject Military History which supports Combat Engineer tactics, equipment and organisations?

I'm also looking if anyone can provide me with a copy of the British pre-World War II pamphlet Military Engineering Volume III Part II Folding Boat Equipment (both Mark II or III versions of the pamphlet.)

AshLin (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Ash, I'd say Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military science, technology, and theory task force would cover it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert AshLin (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Tuareg rebellion battle articles

Che1999galleani has recently created about 15 articles related to battles in Mali in 2012. These need copy-editing, and some need improved sourcing. Is anyone here interested in improving these articles? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good article candidates listed on this page

Is there a reason why good article candidates links differently on this page to the other categories? Click the link in other categories and you are presented with the opportunity to visit the article, but GA is laid out differently. Even GA review is laid out to the common format. Not a life and death issue but curious. Monstrelet (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The links in the template are intended to point to the page where the review in question is actually taking place. The quirk with GA candidates is that the page doesn't have to be created by the person who lists the article (as is the case with all of the other review processes); the page actually gets created by the person who does the review. As a result, the GA candidate listing in the template uses the same link format as the talk page GA candidacy notice in order to allow visitors coming from the template to appropriately create the page.

(It would, in theory, be possible to have the template check whether the review page has already been created and change the link accordingly; unfortunately, having that many template checks for page existence runs a high risk of exceeding the MediaWiki parser's template expansion limit.) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Better goals

Instead of pushing the sticks forward each time we reach a goal, we could establish specific monthly and annual goals to shoot for. An idea for a monthly goal would be 'add citations to X number of uncited articles' (word it better) or for annual, 'Create X featured articles'. Thoughts on making the goals time specific? Would anyone actually work towards them besides me? Kees08 (Talk) 23:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I liked "add citations to X number of uncited articles". — MapSGV (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The obvious question here is: how do you track such goals? The aspirational goals given on the project page are automatically updated via the project banner in article talks pages, which picks up the class, when a reviewer updates it as A-class, GA or FA, then tallies up the total in the project goal stats. Once you start getting into more technical goals, like adding citations to X number of articles, they'd need to be monitored manually, which could be cumbersome given the vast amount of articles the project manages. I'm sure there are some goals that are trackable, but more in reverse, by which I mean: those articles which have been tagged with "Unreferenced" and similar issues are listed in categories, such as Category:Military_history_articles_needing_attention_to_referencing_and_citation and the goal would need to be reduce them. Note, the example category is 67,000 entries long, so it's a huge task to reduce such a category towards zero, and there are several other potential target areas within Category:Military_history_articles_needing_attention to consider as "goals", but again they're more about overall elimination rather than "X per month". Needless to say: it's a grind and not always easy to get or keep people motivated in doing for long. The project has the odd drive aimed at reducing these hefty backlogs, however, which the coords normally promote every so often. — Marcus^(talk) 11:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a place for short-term more achievable goals. I see the current project goals as more long-term "headline" targets, once they are achieved we just roll them on again anyway. If we had one or two monthly targets that were frequently rotated it could help to spark enthusiasm for completing them (they would also, indirectly help to achieve the main long-term goals). I think there is a way to use the current reporting systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment to achieve this. For example a target could be "reduce Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists to zero", "reduce Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials to fewer than 500 articles" or "increase Category:B-Class military history articles to more than 12,800". I don't like having to record each improvement I make on a list (in any case we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest for that) so automated reporting of goals is better for me. I would be happy to support a trial run of something like this - Dumelow (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a competitions person but it seems to me if you wanted to reduce inadequate citation with automated results, choose number of C-class raised to B-class. Although C-class can be deficient in any of the five B-class elements, they are frequently short on citations. Monstrelet (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if MilHist participates, but WP Spaceflight has a cleanup listing, which is updated once a week. It will say how many articles have specific problems. Kees08 (Talk) 07:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Any of the coordinators have any interest with this? Kees08 (Talk) 00:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Is United States naval gunfire support debate salvageable?

Hey folks, an editor has posted over on WT:SHIPS about this. See the beginning of a talk page discussion here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of decisive

I get the impression that WP:MILHIST is trying to deprecate the use of modifiers (especially "decisive"), because it is hard to establish whether the term can be correctly applied in a specific case and that it causes edit wars all over the place. I noticed this via a dispute that has been running for months at Battle of Flodden. I understand that position but I cannot see how it has a broad scale consensus, as it is very poorly implemented and it is not remotely clear to the community-at-large. I have some concerns, which unless addressed clearly demonstrate further friction will be caused in future.

1. The infobox documentation is not the right place for a content instruction, as that channel is meant for technical information. It should be included in a style guideline, which can be quoted in event of a dispute, can explain the rationale fully, and is readily visible to the community-at-large.
2. That guideline should address all use of modifiers, not just the use/non-use in an infobox. If decisive is to be avoided in the infobox, it should also be avoided in the lead section. It can much more easily be avoided in a paragraph, as just describing the effects (army destroyed, nation defeated) clearly expresses the decisiveness by itself.
3. The continued use of the term on existing articles. The following featured articles use the term: Battle of Midway, Battle of the Nile, Battle of Quebec (1775), Siege of Constantinople (717–718). I note much more serious issues on some FAs (like the apparent contradiction of a strategic victory for A and a tactical victory for B). If it is to be deprecated it should be done consistently on all articles. And certainly not used on our "best" work!
4. That use of the term on FAs partially appears to be because the term is accepted in some cases. Which? How are they defined? If the project can't define concrete guidance on that matter, it should not attempt to do so. Without a clear bright line you will continue to generate trouble.

I am aware that this issue has come up several times on this page and elsewhere. If the project wants to put the issue to bed, I suggest a full RFC is held about if the term should be used at all, in what circumstances it may be used, and if existing uses should be deprecated. The result of that RFC should be used to create as a sub-section of WP:MOSMIL or a standalone guideline, explaining the outcome, and if necessary articles should be adjusted.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I can see your point that the matter is a bit of a fudge. Battle of France has also had several exhaustive debates, which have led to the suppression of the term decisive (I was one of the people in favour of the change). The term has a technical Clausewitzian meaning of a battle that has political effects (such as surrender or peace negotiations) and has a hyperbolic meaning of "big"; both senses occur the RS. I think that the term doesn't sit well with modern wars of exhaustion and can become confused when RS use it in a tactical or operational sense, which is oxymoronic. Keith-264 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really care on the point, but want to see conflict around the term eliminated. A good debate centrally, with a good result developed from it, should reduce the arguments in long run. Your last comment might be pertinent: Its possible that use of the term decisive for the pre-modern era is more acceptable. That might be something that can be used to address my 4th point going forwards. --Nilfanion (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll concede that I use the term if the battle in question had some major, war altering effect, however I do agree that the use of the term decisive is a decisive issue, and that people tend to resort to human nature and overindulge the use of the term for every little (getting out of bed at 6:30AM when you usually sleep until 10:00 isn't a decisive victory, neither is getting to work on radar enforced streets without getting pulled over for speeding). I like the RFC idea, but if we were going to do that I'd like to see it expanded a little to include other modifiers like "Tactical", "Strategic", "Pyrrhic", etc, and to include a mandate that any use of the terms must have/be both well cited in secondary sources and to include an explanation in the article itself as to why the battle was an "X vicotry" or "X defeat" (for example, the battle of midway and stalingrad are usually cited as decisive victories for the allies because they mark the high point of axis aggression, the battle of jutland is/has been cited a tactical victory and a strategic victory for the two belligerents do to the use of weapons and tactics, etc). I am all for adding a section in the MILMOS for this because I too agree that constantly tredging over this territory is getting very, very old. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I find all my comments pertinent. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Having recently initiated a discussion here on the use of the term in respect of Battle of Agincourt, I agree it could do with sorting out. The basic arguments have already been referenced (e.g. does decisive mean an clear tactical win or does it have some wider strategic meaning? Should it be as viewed at the time or with the perspective of history? ). Personally, I'd support stripping back to three summaries for info boxes : A victory, B victory and inconclusive. If it really is too complex (e.g. Jutland) put "See discussion in text". Monstrelet (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be about more than just the infobox, a an article doesn't have to have an infobox (although it invariably does). Its the use of the term that's the issue, not the use of the term specifically in an infobox. And I agree all the other modifiers are potentially problematic, its just decisive that the one that is divisive enough to cause edit warring.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the template documentation is not the right place and carries very little authority when it comes to settling these disputes, and that a statement in the MoS will be a hugely positive step forward in eliminating conflict. I disagree that we should be trying to eliminate it from the narrative, including the lead. Narratives have room to accommodate nuance, along the lines of "...it was a decisive military operation, but did not settle the wider issue of..." (just a random, made up example). The infobox does not have the scope to reflect such nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" where the result was inconclusive. That's really all we need to know at that stage of the article. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ther have been a number of edits since I started writing this (and edit conflicts) but I think my response still prety much stands.

The use of modifiers is deprecated in the infobox. The rationale is that the infobox is an "at a glance" summary and not a place for nuance. If nuance is appropriate, the infobox advises directing the reader to a section where this is discussed, such as the Aftermath. Any statements made in the infobox and lead must be supported within the body of the article and appropriately sourced. As the infobox is such a brief summary, editors may be tempted (in good faith) to use terms which might, on one hand, be consistent with summary style but which may ultimately prove contentious - because of a lack of nuance or because the sources are not so unequivocal. The infobox doc has deprecated detailed descriptions for some time - mainly because intricacy is inconsistent with the purpose of the infobox. More recently, it has deprecated "decisive" as a modifier. A substantive reason was that "decisive" is an anachronism for post-19th century battles and may rely on how the term is assessed - a matter of nuance. The discussion was notified at Milhist and a consensus sought and acted upon after an appropriate time. The guidance at the infobox doc is appropriate to the use of the infobox. The advice there is not automatically retrospective but will be corrected with time. Most recently, this was applied after a discussion at Battle of the Coral Sea.

MilHist does not deprecate the use of modifiers more generally where these can be attributed to a specific author or represents a consensus in the published sources. There may be discussion and disagreement on the use of such terms in specific instances. Often, it might be a case of qualifying how such an assessment was made (ie, giving context to the modifiers used). "Constructive" discussion to reach a consensus is encouraged. For many, "decisive" may appear synonymous with "resounding" but the former has a subtle distinction, in that it implies a decision being reached between the warring parties (usually directly but sometimes indirectly). Historiographicly, there is also the connection to The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. Pre-20th-century, individual battles might resolve a war but in the post-19th-century era, the scope and nature of warfare has made such a concept an anachronism.

To summarise, I think that you may have mis-percieved the stance of Milhist. However, if you still thing that the MOSMIL might be improved (IAW my above comments) I would consider this objectively, along with other comments by the community. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The infobox documentation (which is meant to be purely technical, stating what the parameters are) is not an appropriate place to provide concrete guidance on any content, particularly when its a cause of multiple disputes. That belongs on a guidance page, in this case the relevant part of the MOS. And if they are actually deprecated in the infoboxes, and there is a clear consensus for it, then actually go ahead deprecate them. Remove them from articles. Don't just bumble along, because if hundreds of articles are seen to have them still included, people will still carry on in good faith adding it to others - irrespective of the project's "core" group.

What I am not really seeing is evidence of a broad community consensus here. What I'm seeing is project exhaustion, and a rough local consensus to get rid of it. To get that, you'd need a RFC notified to the full community, not a discussion only advertised at this page.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:27, 3

March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that the infobox doc is purely technical and not limited such that it cannot provide guidance on appropriate filling of the parameters used within the box. Citing the guidance in the infobox doc has resolved disputes arising wrt the infobox. If you think that all infoboxes should be made to conform, you are welcome to take up this task. However, I am still not certain if your concerns are limited to infoboxes or wider? I suggest that an RFC at MOSMIL on guidance for the infobox is unlikely to gain significantly broader comment than it already has (ie outside the project). WRT Battle of Flodden, This is a matter that could be resolved by citing the infobox doc in the fist instance. Alternatively, as the revert comments indicate, it is a matter of citing sources to support the use of "decisive" in the infobox (though contrary to the guidance). You have not fully disclosed your motives (or atleast, your involvement wrt Flodden) in raising this matter here - it is an undisclosed interest. I note that nowhere in that article is the word "decisive" mentioned (outside the infobox). Your position to use it in the infobox is based on your assessment of what this means and might reasonably fall to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, since the body of the article does not mention the word to qualify why it might be perceived as such - particularly as the word (per above) has specific conotations. I am also making a comment at Talk:Battle of Flodden per the infobox guidance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Flodden is attracted my interest of course - and my actions were based on typical good faith reading of guidance. My main concern is with the infoboxes, and the edit warring around them (I don't really care about what the decision is).

But my main point, and the bit I'm struggling to understand with your position is why you are reluctant to transfer the guidance from the infobox doc into MOSMIL? That is a guidance page, and as such is marked as part of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. The documentation of a template is not, so its not apparent that anything said on that page has any weight whatsoever. Its a LOT more effective to say in a content discussion "per MOS" than to say "per template documentation". Its also a lot harder to find. That also provides a more verbose explanation, as the guidance paragraph can say "why". Then the infobox doc can say "don't use them, see MOS for why".

If this is a settled matter, then a lot of my concerns are moot and there's no need to get further involvement. However, please get rid of decisive from articles then.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And to add to Nilfanion's very good points, the template documentation offers guidance, but carries no more authority than an essay when it comes to settling disputes. If this issue is ever going to be settled, then it really does need to be clarified in the MoS, otherwise it's going to be fought over repeatedly in a series of local consensus disputes. Given the enthusiasm with which these arguments are pursued, and the fact that MILMOS is officially a subset of the MoS, I suspect that it would need the wider involvement of the people at MoS. That would also satisfy concerns about basing strictures on a broad consensus. Factotem (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Nilfanion, you mistake my "reluctance", in that your issues and concerns were unclear (that they specifically applied to the infoboxes). If you have no position, save to make the guidance clearer, be BOLD and edit MOSMIL, to incorporate the guidance in the infobox doc. Notify your actions here (or wider). This would appear to satisfy your concerns as you have clarified them. As to "getting rid of decisive from articles", you are (for my part) welcome to propose a process and contribute to same (per my above). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As should be obvious I'm no expert on this matter, so I'm really not the person who should prepare that guidance. I don't consider the text in the infobox doc adequate, as it doesn't give enough detail for an outsider. A change to MOS should be notified before implementation, its not a question of being BOLD. I think this thread has addressed the secondary concerns (such as the word in narrative).

As for removal of the word from articles, I'm going to go and think if there's a way of detecting its use somehow, or if a brute force checking all articles is necessary. Best approach is likely a bot run which I am happy to seek approval for and carry out, if there are no objections.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made an edit IAW what I suggested.[22] Feel free to notify this more broadly.

Sup to this, The infobox guidance is very clear: Victory X, Victory Y or other (eg See Aftermath section). There is no requirement to notify before implementation (this is the whole premise of WP:BOLD), thought this discussion serves as a notification. Per "the word in narrative", this is a matter of the sources (per my above), and perhaps, that the narrative qualifies how the word is used (the context, given that "decisive" may have different meanings at face value). The guidance on this exists and is unlikely to be better or less painful. Think on the matter of removing any extraneous "fillings" from the parameter (not just "deciive"), but it requires an assessment of each article? As I indicated, the natural process of review (with time), while imperfect, is probably both the most economical and most accurate. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

While I have already commented on the info box issue, I think I'll sound a note of caution on attempts to remove the word decisive from body text. The term is not just used in the phrase "a decisive victory". It might equally well be used in another common meaning relating to decision making "General X was decisive/indecisive". "Col. A's arguments proved decisive and the attack was postponed". I cannot see how a bot will distinguish grammatical usage.Monstrelet (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing "decisive" (except, given its frequent use in sources, it's just going to get added back, MOS or no); unclarity of use justifies removal. Removing any descriptives is a mistake: a Japanese win at Coral Sea, frex, may've been a tactical loss, but still a strategic (or grand strategic) win, for the U.S. Indeed, a loss in some cases is still a grand strategic win. That shouldn't be ignored. Strip from the infobox? Maybe. Strip entire? No. And there are cases where "Pyrrhic" is clearly warranted, too. (Tet comes to mind, tho that's more "tactical loss", even "strategic loss", but "grand strategic win".) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I was neither supporting nor suggesting that descriptors (and specifically "decisive") should be stripped from main text. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

We are, I think, responding to a suggestion by Nilfanion above, rather than yourself. However, it may be a misunderstanding and Nilfanion may only be intending to run a bot over info boxes. Monstrelet (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'm considering a bot run over the boxes only. There's over a thousand use of "Decisive" in infoboxes (~8% of all uses), and there are other "invalid" terms used as well. Those could easily be stripped out. With regards to the main text, I think any guideline should be about the whole not just the infobox. That guideline is not to forbid, but to clarify usage: Basically saying that care should be taken, the terms should be used in a manner that matches reliable sources, and given sufficient context from the surrounding text. (That last point invalidates use in a box).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll support that. Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should agree text for MOSMIL before running any kind of bot through the infoboxes. Given the number of debates around this issue I believe User:Nilfanion is right to be cautious rather than bold. We can be reasonably certain that a bot which strips out "decisive" and "tactical" and "pyrrhic" is going to upset a lot of editors who don't visit this page very often. In making a sweeping change we'd need to be able to point them to something authoritative. Certain users, including some contributing to this discussion, have confused the relative importance of infobox template guidelines in the past. If we see a need - and I think we all agree that there is one - to create a proper policy then let's do that, even if it is simply an expansion and clarification of what the template already says.

Jumping ahead a bit, in writing a MOS policy for the infobox we ought to recognise that if we strictly apply WP:NPOV then a large number of articles ought to default to "See Aftermath", perhaps even an event like Agincourt which is widely perceived as a victory in England without any understanding of the consequences (or lack of). So, we might also want to think about whether to include some guidance on how to structure that section of an article, including tackling popular perceptions (particularly around contentious terms like pyrrhic) upfront and some of the other points contributors here have picked up in previous discussions (particularly Factotem's points on nuance and Keith264 on "pop-historians"). Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's anything more we can or should add to guidance on article narrative that's not already covered by guidelines and policies such as WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD, but Wiki-Ed speaks absolute sense in their first para, and I would support the need for an authoratative policy, or at least guideline, based on broad consensus before any culling of qualifiers in the infobox is attempted. Factotem (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Picking up Wiki-Ed's point on the result element of the info box, we should perhaps be clear what this category refers to. Is it the immediate result, or the battle in its campaign or strategic context? Army A might utterly destroy army B on the field and therefore reliable sources might say a decisive tactical victory was scored, while other equally reliable sources, or even the same ones, might note the battle had no strategic impact. If we say the result is purely the tactical result, it is relatively straightforward to assign victory and defeat (though not in all cases) but everything becomes more complicated if we take a battle in a wider context. On a secondary point, I'm not too familiar with the MOS and maybe I've missed this but my understanding is the info box summarises the text. Many editors seem to feel it can be edited independently and can contain information which differs from or contradicts the text. Do we need to strengthen this understanding of the relationship of text to infobox in MOS while we are looking at it? Monstrelet (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Factotem per main text. A bot to deprecate "decisive victory" to "victory" is a simple issue. Other modifiers are more problematic, since the main text might distinguish between "see Aftermath" or "Victory" being the more appropriate response. Having said that, the bot might flag same for attention on the talk page and as a category? Per MOSMIL and the template doc, my edit to MOSMIL gives voice to the doc advice (both to this template and more generally). It also flags this specific issue. On other modifiers (that excluded all but "decisive"), there was an extensive discussion. Excluding "decisive" was also well discussed and notified. Milhist goes out of its way to involve editors that become involved in the purview of the project. My point is that I see no need to recreate the wheel. Limiting the responses in the infobox limits most of the arguements that arise. The fall-back position in any dispute is to "see Aftermath". Per Wiki-Ed and Agincourt, the current template doc advice specifically limits the "result" to the immediate outcome of the battle. Previous discussion had already limited the result to exclude such descriptors as "pyrrhic" or "tactical victory but strategic loss" - consigning these to "see Aftermath".

To conclude (and excluding the finer detail of a Bot): this is probably the most appropriate forum to resolve this issue even if it is deemed to notify this more widely; my edits at MOSMIL give force to the infobox advice; and, (noting the comments by Facotem) these changes address concerns with the infobox in particular and, more generally, existing advice already covers concerns in main text. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment (in your 2nd para). The correct place for the guidance is in MOSMIL itself. The cross-referencing is not adequate: It is not apparent to the casual editor, and does not allow direct quotation of the guideline. Furthermore, the text on the template's documentation doesn't say why its a bad thing. As this thread shows general approval for an improvement to the guidelines, I have created an RFC on a draft proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#Guidance on results.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I would observe that it is not uncommon for legislation of a government to give voice (and legislative force) to a document independent of the legislative process (the law) - such as various national standards (eg: Standards Australia, International Organization for Standardization or British Standards. Given this, I see no reason not to emulate such a process and question that the correct place for the guidance must be "in MOSMIL itself". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The authority of template documentation is specifically established by policy to be no more than that of an essay. That policy also states that "...participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". Any attempt to argue that MILMOS, a guideline, gives the template documentation the authority of a guideline will be defeated by that policy. Factotem (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your link but this is not the same as a superior guideline giving specific voice to an inferior "guidance" as if it were part of the original. Template docs do not usually have more weight than an essay - unless this weight is specifically given to it by a superior guideline? Standards (such as I listed) do not have weight in statutory law (generally) and in common law, are considered "guidance". However, and Act may give statutory weight to a standard (as if it were specifically part of the Act). This was my point (and the analogy I wished to make). The link does not address the case (and analogy to here) of a "standard" being given statutory weight and force in law. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Challenges on Hans-Ulrich Rudel WikiProject assessment

Article in question is Hans-Ulrich Rudel The text of the article has been reestablished to its GA level content, with some minor tweaks. @K.e.coffman: has deleted most of the WWII content before. I've reverted it, and finally ended up restoring it to the GA version I had saved. It seems to me to be balanced: indeed, Rudel's post-war career dominates the article, but his importance in the post-war Nazi movement would not be as important without his war-time "successes". I've tagged the discussion page with @WP:MILHIST coordinators: and requested page protection while we sort this out. auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Input requested on new article: Child soldiers in the American Civil War

Saw this draft come up at AFC, and was surprise that (as best as I can tell), we don't have a specific article on this already. The sumbitter started the title with "Young boys" but I changed it to "Child soldiers" since that appears a more common title on WP, though I'm not married to it.

I would invite any thoughts on this new article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of book titles

Where is the policy that states only the first letter and proper names should be capitalized in book titles? I noticed this in the references for Child soldiers in the American Civil War and have seen it in other places as well. RobDuch (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Short answer: There is no such policy.

Longer answer: MOS:CT recommends using title case for English-language works. However, as it notes, there is an exception for established citation styles that use a different convention. An established consistent citation style should not be changed without prior consensus on article talk. Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters allows for either title or sentence case. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Military district (Germany)

Can anymody provide further assistance with this issue. Thanks a lot in advance!--Boczi (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

100th Anniversary of the Canadian Navy

Project members are invited to help improve 100th Anniversary of the Canadian Navy. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Another Believer, I had a stab at expanding and citing it - Dumelow (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's impressive work Dumelow Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Nick-D. I have nominated it for DYK, suggestions for better hooks welcome! - Dumelow (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, great work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The Berry Plan

I've created an article about the Berry Plan, a Vietnam War era program to add trained physicians and surgeons to the US Armed Forces. Would love some outside opinions and eyes from anyone interested or knowledgeable about this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tetricus I needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Tetricus I; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Planning edits to Egyptian-Ottoman War (1831-1833)

Hi guys, new to wikipedia here and working on an assignment given to me by one of my professors. I've made significant updates to (basically rewritten from scratch) the article on the First Egyptian-Ottoman War. I've turned in a copy of my edits to my professor, but I'd appreciate somebody from the wikipedia community looking over my draft (found here: User:Kentuckyjohnson/sandbox/Ottoman-Egyptian War (1831-1833)) before I publish it on the mainspace. Let me know if I should make any additional edits! Kentuckyjohnson (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kentuckyjohnson: You should add the ISBN and page or chapter numbers to your references. The end of each paragraph must be referenced for the article to reach B class. I would also recommend keeping the Greek War of Independence wikilink so people know what uprising you are talking about.--Catlemur (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I've made those updates, and will now submit the article update. Thanks for your help! Kentuckyjohnson (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories for UN peackeeping units

I cannot find any categories that would list units involved in UN peacekeeping, nor any related parent articles. We have some articles on units that participate in peackeeping, ex. Korean Sangnoksu Unit, Dongmyeong Unit ‎, Hanbit Unit, but it is surprising we don't have anything about the parent structure, not even a category. As far as I can tell, the best category we have right now is the Category:Peacekeeping missions and operations involving the United Nations, where some (most? all?) of such units are listed in, but clearly, this category is for missions and operations, a concept different from units. I'd create one but I am not sure how to call it? Category:Peacekeeping units of the United Nations? (But are those technically UN units, or units lent to UN...). Errr. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As the units aren't always actually UN units, but units of member nations, perhaps Category:Military units involved in UN peacekeeping missions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rupert. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert and Peacemaker67: Category created. Can you add more categories to place it within the mil unit category tree? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I've added a few but there would be many more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Militia Act of 1903#Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Militia Act of 1903#Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section. . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Article creation request

Could somebody move the content in Draft:Frederic William Hill to article namespace? - and also create a redirect, F. W. Hill? Thanks, 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work, you need to have inline citations for a start. I am also not sure it passes notability (without knowing what is being sourced to what hard to tell).Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Passes WP:GNG as having received significant awards (Order of the Bath, etc) + Brigadier-General rank. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Significant awards is not enough, to pass solder he has to have been awarded the highest (or second highest) awards (not sure about the order of the bath, not sure we have a strict policy on knighthoods). Brigadier is harder, MIll says general, but not all brigadiers are generals (depends on there army). What is the policy here?Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To be notable, needs to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMILITARY (or both, but not necessarily both - passing only one of the two is sufficient). Brigadier-General = command of a brigade (the title given by Archives Canada, i.e. the primary and official source, is "Brigadier-General", not just "Brigadier"). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression the normal procedure is to submit a completed draft. Is there a reason you're arguing with members of this WikiProject that the subject is notable? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Because somebody suggested it might not be. @Slatersteven: Brigadier_general#Canada also tells that "Brigadier-General" is indeed a General rank in Canada. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC) And the draft is "completed" (I just added inline cites, per comment above) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I submitted it for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I short-circuited AfC because it's backlogged and thus, obviously, this is faster (does anybody have page-move rights?) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• That needs the title to be in bold and page numbers added to the footnotes. Also, if there are no specific page ranges, then combine the footnote and its references instead. -Finlayson (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: I used sfn becuse the resulting wikicode is easier to read. Nevertheless, fixed.198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

40th anniversary of Saur Revolution

The 40th anniversary of the Saur Revolution is on April 27, and after finding the article close to passing B-class assessment (with a little work on referencing), I believe it's a realistic (perhaps slightly ambitious) goal to get the article to GA-class in time for the anniversary. Would anyone care to help with this? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Going for GA on Shivaji (17th C. Indian king). Anyone want to scope out the military bits and offer insight?

The article Shivaji is the 49th most-popular article in all of WikiProject India, with almost 11k views/day. I've been cleaning it up extensively for a GA review, and I feel the Military section could use some work.

I'm not necessarily looking for an India expert, almost the contrary actually. Just looking for someone fresh who knows MilHist and can check out the content and say what a MilHist reader would find lacking. Optional but really helpful, if anyone is curious enough about the figure, they could do a big of GoogleBook sleuthing and say "with my outsider's eyes, what jumps out to me about this guy's military role is XYZ and you need to mention it more." That sort of thing.

Anyone interested, let me know, and I'd be glad for your insight on Talk:Shivaji. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Starting a new article

I'm not sure that this is the right place for this, if not please forgive my error. I'm starting a new article and I'm inviting anyone with an interest to get involved. There are issues not so much with the technical part of the article but rather could should 1: The article is created at all. 2: If this should be merged with another article. 3: Your opinions on where this fits in the overall Milhist context. This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_states_navy_anti_aircraft_developments_in_ww2#System_of_systems

Regards

Tirronan (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

211th Aviation Regiment (United States)

This article shows a 2nd Battalion in the unit structure but no 1st Battalion. However, the 1st Battaliion does apparently exist [23]. I'm reluctant to add this myself as this is not my area of competence. I came across this at a discussion at Air pirate (disambiguation) where the entry for 1-211 Attack-Reconnaissance Battalion was removed on the grounds that the linked article does not discuss them. It would be nice if we could find a source confirming they are known as the air pirates but I couldn't find one. The closest I could get was this Youtube video which shows lots of pirate related patches. SpinningSpark 16:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a 1st Battalion and they are called the "Air Pirates." They're an Apache squadron. Is this what you were looking for? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes thanks, that'll do it. Just wanted to confirm that I wasn't getting two different 211th units conflated. SpinningSpark 23:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

de-facto notable ranks

Hello.
Could someone please tell me according to WP:MILPEOPLE, what ranks of modern US military (1940, and onwards) are de-facto notable? Like, "major general" and so on. I mean, the exact name of the rank. Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"Flag officers" and "General officers" means Brigadier Generals and higher for the army, commodores and rear admirals on up for Navy. However, some of the logistics officers with the lowest of these ranks may not be notable since MILPEOPLE does not override WP:GNG. Kges1901 (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has not seen it, the lists to be looking upwards in -- and exact names of the ranks -- are at Template:United States uniformed services comparative ranks. MPS1992 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why logistics officers should be less notable than other officers of the same rank! In general we assume all officers of these ranks are notable, no matter what their role. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Any SNG (like MILPEOPLE) overrides GNG. A subject has to meet one or the other, not both. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: There's no love for Personnel Other than Grunts. Infantry officers are always notable. Maintenance officers, not so much. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the sort of idiotically macho institutional bias which has absolutely no place on Wikipedia (I've always wondered how long it would take infantrymen to end their logic-impaired posing after their food, water, clothing, ammunition, fuel, medical care, communications and pay were cut off!). I speak as a former member of the Royal Logistic Corps! Anyone who has risen to general officer rank (or equivalent) is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I made those comments half in-jest. Sorry for any offense (or offence, as may be). Certainly MILPEOPLE covers all flag officers/ general officers. I think the belief about GNG is that staff officers are less likely to be the subject of newspaper articles and books, compared with combat officers who usually predominate in command positions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that an SNG is a presumption of notability, as it says that those who meet one of the criteria will "almost always" have sufficient coverage. But this leaves it open that there might be exceptions to this - this is more likely to affect non-combat arms officers. Either way we cannot really generalize on some of these issues and the notability of these individuals should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Kges1901 (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. SOLDIER juest creates a presumption of notability. Obscure and non-frontline officers (this applies to fields other than supply) are less likely to be notable than frontline officers. Convince the NYT and book authors to write more about the heroics of supply officers - and this might change.Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

One thing to consider is other sources for an individual. For example, all officers' promotions in the UK are published in the London Gazette, which is accepted as an WP:RS as a government gazette. This is one of the reasons that SNG and MILPEOPLE diverges from sufficient sources - military does tend to love bureaucracy, and the papertrail can help with supporting the career of an individual, but likewise can result in enough RS for an individual who would otherwise not be considered notable (e.g. not meeting any of the criteria for MILPEOPLE). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite so. I created/improved three articles recently on British WWII logistics officers: Miles Graham, Randle Feilden and Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge. The Gazette is a handy reference, but it's a bugger to search unless you know exactly what you are looking for. Nick Smart's Biographical Dictionary of British Generals of the Second World War provides bios of all the British WWII generals. It helps if they are peers or baronets, as this brings Burke's Peerage into play. It's also worth checking whether they have an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. (I'm not sure about the ODNB, but our Australian equivalent, like Wikipedia, regards general officers as intrinsically notable, and has bios of all of them that are sufficiently dead.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

USAF Mission, vision, and functions - edit conflict

There is an editor attempting to blank the entire mission section at United States Air Force stating it violates Wikipedia guidelines on primary sources and promotional information. All of your input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:United States Air Force#Mission, vision, and functions. Garuda28 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Garuda28 I have commented on the article's talk page, and encourage more experienced article reviewers to add to that. From what I see, without verifying of discounting anything in the arguments, are you and another enthusiastic fairly new editor who want to send this through GA. I can't comment on the motivations of the other editor who is deleting, except to say that both sides seem to believe the other in the wrong. They need guidance. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I had a go at this?Tirronan (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please! The more the marryier. I’m hoping that this will also get some good feedback to improve the article in a constructive manner.Garuda28 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've read the article and made comments consider the second review and follow the suggestions made closely.Tirronan (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review needing one more reviewer

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Quebec Agreement needs another reviewer if you have a chance. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

185th Armor Regiment or 185th Infantry Regiment?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:185th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Out of date . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Joining

In order to join do you need to add a template and add your name to the list or just add the template--Michael Campbell (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Just go to the members tab and click add your name! Welcome!Garuda28 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Gah! I went and checked and my name is there number.738 I've been here too long LOL.Tirronan (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tirronan: That just makes you long-serving! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ray Melikian#Silver Star

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ray Melikian#Silver Star . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed

My question is centered on how this WikiProject developed a consensus on the start and end date of WWII. How did this WikiProject resolve the issue? I was hoping to employ the same approach with the WikiProject Civil Rights Movement.

Regarding the start date, there have been a huge number of discussions of it at Talk:World War II. I don't think that the broader Wikiproject has played any role. I can't recall much controversy over the end date. Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've browsed thru a few discussions. Do you think it would be better to post this question there? Mitchumch (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You'd probably get the most informed opinions there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I'll repost there. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"French War of 1775"

This is a minor issue. I'm working on a bio of missionary Ephraim Weston Clark (1799 – 1878) of Vermont/New Hampshire, who said his maternal grandfather was "a captain in the French War of 1775". I'm wondering if he might be referring to the 1775 Invasion of Quebec. p 82 source. Does anybody here have enough knowledge of the American Revolution to know this? — Maile (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the Revolutionary War but I found a little info: Ephraim Weston was a captain in New Hampshire in 1775 (presumably in the militia). Our articles state that New Hampshire militia men formed part of the invasion and fought at the Siege of Fort St. Jean, so it would certainly be plausible. It would seem strange to refer to it as the French War though and there don't appear to be any other sources that do the same - Dumelow (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I went and looked at the list of French involved wars and I don't find a listing for 1775. 1769 and nothing until the start of the American Revolutionary War.Tirronan (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Wording changes over the centuries, sometimes. But I'm guessing that "the French War" might have been a local term because of the French population in Quebec. — Maile (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating new page on Russian Intelligence during the Napoleonic Invasion of Russia

Hello all,

I am working on the use of spies during the Great Patriotic War of 1812, I would appreciate any insight any user can give me, thank you

TeresaZidek (talk)TeresaZidek —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@TeresaZidek: Some sources in Russian 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello, can somebody add some more information to the page describing Ed Heinemann? I need some more information for a school project that I am doing. Cheers, American474 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jak474: I find your request repugnant. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jak474: As I often want to say on talk pages, how about you do it yourself? RobDuch (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I would, but I am 13, and I don't have much experience with this kind of thing, and my dad knows more about Kelly Johnson than Ed Heinemann.American474 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jak474: Ok, so this is simple. Google "Ed Heinemann." Look at the books and news items that discuss him. Our article gives you some stuff to start from but the Google search shows me this book, this book, this website about him, this article in The LA Times, as well as this document from Los Angeles Air Force Base that discusses him. Those are all really easy finds. This book, if you can get it through an inter-library loan, is about him, specifically. There are also plenty of items about the A-4 Skyraider like this than mention Heinemann. These are the sources I'd use to improve the article. Depending on the nature of your assignment, I think this is plenty of data to work with. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• (e/c) See what you can find yourself; see google books, Amazon and other sites with online books. That should be a big part of a class project, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And any self respecting teacher is going to give you better marks for widening your research beyond a wikipedia page. Assessing your ability to research and evaluate sources should be part of what the project is for.Monstrelet (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile

I found this in Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles, and from what I can determine it was a project that never went anywhere, but I'm not succeeding in finding out its fate. If someone who knows where to look for this betteer could help it would be appreciated. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

See Loitering munition (plug - self promotion) for the general class - there were a number of projects back then - both in the US and in the UK (where this was offered - [24] - Fire Shadow was concurrent I think. Lockheed was also involved in XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System which was cancelled. I don't think SMACM got off the ground - it is similar in concept to AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow and the evolving Israeli Delilah (missile). Lockheed had the previous Low Cost Autonomous Attack System. This overview [25] does list SMACM as an example. Looking at their current loitering munition lineup it seems like they are pushing other products are the present (some may be paper designs, or a renamed evolution of SMACM).Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I worked at Texas Instruments during the 80's and early 90's and they were involved in a couple of projects like this. They are not that notable in my opinion. That particular program terminated in 2009 best I can tell.Tirronan (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Saw action"

The term "saw action" is miltary jargon, which seems to be useful, but its usage needs to be wisely governed, because it also seems that its largely applied in a biased way toward English-speaking culture objects, and not for example, Japanese-speaking culture: search for "saw action" among articles drew up only one example in a sample of fifteen-hundred, Take Ichi convoy, and another from Arabic, Mohammad Reza Akbari, but thats outside of topic. Those cases need to be managed as well. If the term "action" is just substitute form for the formal term "combat," perhaps because "combat" is overused, then there needs to be some guideline. If it isn't inappropriate when applied to inanimate objects like warships, it still seems inaccurate when applied to people; so the reasoning seems to be 'warships may see "action," but people see "combat." -Inowen (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We follow the language in the sources. Action is also potentially wider than combat.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be jargonish but I think that it is reasonably understood in the broader En language, even it the finer distinctions are not. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a bit of a euphemism for combat duties, whether by warships, people or aircraft. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. It came up on Neil Armstrong. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not the best grammar, but a common phase that is used, as noted. Kierzek (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a cliche; best avoided in favour of descriptive terms.Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree, better description can be used; but, I don't believe its use should always be "avoided". A footnote; Zaloga has used the wording "combat service", when describing tank action. Kierzek (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't know that I'd agree with that. "Action" is a synonym for battle - see all of the "Action of [date]" articles (like Action of 22 August 1917, Action of 19 August 1916, etc.). I'd say it's perfectly acceptable to use. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In the History of the Great War, there are affairs (Affair of Wadi Majid) actions (Action of Agagia) and battles in ascending order of size, rather than synonyms. Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There are those who would say that there are no true synonyms, but in the sense that they refer to a clash of combatants, they are synonymous. In any event, lay readers won't be making that distinction. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Can people comment on the ethnic bias issue? How American and British soldiers "see action" but Japanese and Arab soldiers for example, according to how the term is used (and promoted by the editors here) don't "see action." It needs to be that the same term is applied to militaries project-wide. So if there is a problem with the idea that the Japanese might have "seen action" in World War II, or German V2 rockets may have "seen action" in Europe, or that Russians might have "seen action" during the Cold War, then a more neutral term is needed. -Inowen (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A good portion of this is probably due to what the available sources state. It'd be original research to be more specific without adequate sources to support that. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The V2 was unmanned, and the term would not be applied to it (IMO). And the Cold War was not a combat. So both these examples are not relevant. I cannot comment on what you perceive as being an ethnic bias since there are many factors potentially at play such as the context of each specific article (which is not a random factor) and the size of and potential bias in selecting sets for comparison just to name two. You have named two articles which, if more widespread, would tend to skew results by selecting samples with an inappropriate context. The question is a bit like trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

These are the arguments: 1) that "original sources," and not usage trends here, are the cause of a biased and widespread usage of jargon 2) that "it would be original research" to do anything other than what the sources say, even if the sources use unusable jargon and that jargon is causing neutral point of view problems. 3) that the pseudo-examples given (V2, Cold War) "are irrelevant" for specific technical reasons and therefore the whole case against a systemic bias in editing is flawed. This would be a good case for Arbcom, because it seems editors here are defending a problematic violation of the neutral point of view by with another high level policy (no original research), and that doing differently from the current would violate no-original research policy. There is also a systemic bias problem in the promotion of some kind of British - American unity, when one only of them is a monarchy and the other stands for democracy and freedom.-Inowen (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a conversation on the use of the phrase "saw action", not an analysis of the "Special Relationship". Britmax (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Perhaps a comparative analysis might help? If there are articles about British military forces that don't use the term then racist bias can't be easily imputed; only a lack of resistance to cliche. If the RS use a term which has since become deprecated, it can be mentioned in the text or in a note. We don't copy the word "enemy" from RS but use a neutral term like "opponent". Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

An excellent point, well made. Britmax (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen, please do not misrepresent what I have stated and why I have made such statements. To see action/combat generally applies to an individual or unit. In military terms, a ship is not a hull or an inanimate object. It is a fighting unit - the same as a battalion or regiment etc. Having said that, the lines might be a little blurred but one would not see action in the Cold War nor would the V2 see action. Suggesting same should apply does no credit to your position. Per my previous statement, "see action" might be jargonish; however, it is broadly understood even if the subtle distinctions cf "saw combat" are not. To call it "jargon" is a statement not established in fact but an opinion. To quote jargon: "Jargon is a type of language that is used in a particular context and may not be well understood outside that context." "Saw action" is broadly understood as a synonym for "saw combat" (or similar) and does not meet this definition that is made in the quote. "Killed in action" is a formal military term. It describes a death resulting from an enemy action, as opposed to other courses and is not limited to an combat engagement (an attack in the sense of a battle) with an enemy but can be attribute to bombing, shelling or such, away from the front line.

I do not subscribe to the RS arguement except as it defines the name of an engagement (ie calling it a campaign, a battle, an engagement or a contact). To that extent, it would be wrong to do other than what the sources say.

I did not say that the whole case against systemic bias was flawed. Rather, I made a number of observations to the extent that you have not established same. A broad search does not establish if "saw action" would be appropriate in the context of each sample in the sample set. You have not considered the linguistic ties of individual editors and how these ties affect the vocabulary used (in general as opposed to referring to one side or another in a conflict). You have also suggested examples of usage that are quite inappropriate and which do no credit to the case you appear to be making. There are many reasonable reasons why the term is not used in certain cases. My point was that you have not reasonably eliminated these. To give an example. One may claim that there is an under-representation of the pro-noun "she" in MilHist biographies and that this represents a gender bias. A simplistic analysis does not consider that women have be essentially excluded from the military. Any claim of bias must weigh this historical reality before it is can gain any credence.

You claim this is an NPOV issue and a matter of bias. To make such a claim, you should establish how the term promotes one view but denigrates another. You have not done so. This really appears to be somewhere between a molehill and a soapbox. That you state: "There is also a systemic bias problem in the promotion of some kind of British - American unity, when one only of them is a monarchy and the other stands for democracy and freedom." This suggests that you have a POV issue. However, if you see this as a personal crusade for political correctness that should be bought to Arbcom then, knock your socks off and go tilting at windmills - as nothing I have to say will change your mind. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough but this is the place to air views, right, wrong, good or bad; I think we should try top keep an open mind and treat questions like this as an opportunity to benefit from a fresh pair of eyes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As someone who is struggling to see the ethnic bias in the phrase "saw action" and unclear whether said bias also exists in the phrase "saw combat", can anyone point the group to published opinion on the matter? And, contrary to opinion expressed above, I've certainly seen references to weapons having "seen action", not just people and units. It seems a common mlitary cliche. But I've never seen the idea it is only applied to monarchist Brits and freedom-lovin' yanks. As Keith has said, its good to explore things but only if there is a case to explore. If we are being called upon to self-censor, there must be a rationale, otherwise we will be rightly accused of collective POV. Monstrelet (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree (per: the distinction can be blurred). I can imagine it being used in respect to a crew served AFV or tank and some other cases but IMO it is just out of place for the V2. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I was rather surprised too but ready to find out why. While we're about it, can we ban "...in the X role." and "designated"? They're excruciatingly banal. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the OP claiming that the phrase saw action is applied in a biased way generally in English language writings or that it is applied in a biased way only on Wikipedia? If the former that is easily refuted. A gbooks search for Japanese "saw action" shows mostly relevant results on the first page. For example "He [ Isoroku Yamamoto ] saw action and was wounded during the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05)..." SpinningSpark 18:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: The latter. Its just not showing up in Wikipedia searches in non-Anglophone articles. -Inowen (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Might just be editor selectio bias, in particular due to editors who do not speak English natively editing some of those articles much more than anglophone articles.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about this as well. I just made an example search for German results with "oberst saw action" and got plenty of German units and personnel whose articles include the phrase. I also get several results if I write "japanese army saw action", mostly for units; and often saw combat as well. An English-language phrase on the English-speaking wikipedia, an extremely common one in that context and some editors use it and some others don´t because in the end it depends on who writes the stuff. Still can´t see the problem. ...GELongstreet (talk)

You would just one editor who insists on using or not using this - most other editors would not care. Seems we are doing quite a bit of research and discussion on this phrasing quirk (which has little impact either way)... Articles in milhist between periods and nations vary quite a bit in style and form in different groupings - probably both due to sources and due to editors.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@GELongstreet: There is a difference between searching for saw action and "saw action" the latter searches for the full expression. Your suggested searches oberst saw action and japanese army saw action are too general and not going to work. Searching for "oberst saw action" and "japanese army saw action" is too specific and will come up with nothing also. Searching oberst "saw action" and japanese army "saw action" are more accurate for what you are trying to find. -Inowen (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I´m not trying to find anything. You claimed to perceive a bias as you didn´t find the expression within articles about non-British or non-American subjects - I made very simple searches that brought plenty of articles with those subjects and that expression which means maybe you should improve the way you search stuff; and I still don´t get the bias over an expression thing. And I didn´t search with the quotation marks, I just added them here on the talk (why should I ever use them in searches?). Why are those searches too general? I made them simply for this argument and they brought the results I was looking for, aye? ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

How does a term that doesn't appear to have any loaded meaning present a meaning bias? It seems odd to start flogging a horse that isn't even there. (Hohum ^@) 22:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You know I once got taken to task over a comment I made with the expression "going south". Now that is a polite southern phrase for going to hell. I was roundly informed that I was insulting "Southern People". Now that set me back a bit because I consider myself a Southern Gentleman and came to the conclusion that it was just another person trying to teach me his/her superior moral position. If we drop "saw action" as in was involved with, to what on the forward edge of battle? To me at least it is about as non-denominational as being at least somewhat involved in the war fighting in some capacity. Needless to say it never struck me as gender based, race based, religion based. or anything else than actually fought, at least to some degree. Met a couple of women MP's from the US Army in Afganistan who got in more than a few firefights. I guess I'm questioning if this guy or group is just trying to pick a fight?Tirronan (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, most of the alternatives I've seen seem forced & awkward. A really good way to describe being in combat without resorting to informality or jargon appears pretty hard to find. Castiel ^{dance with me} 07:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Needs a guideline

@Hohum: It seems to have a loaded meaning. But say that they are right and "saw action" is just military jargon for "saw combat." Fine, then apply it consistently accross all military articles, and if that cant be easily done then form a reviewable site-wide guideline for its consistent usage. So then with that implemented, well have articles with statements like:

"Mitsuo Fuchida saw action on December 7, when he led an attack.."

All of a sudden it doesnt seem to work, but maybe thats my opinion. Either way, form a guideline. Maybe it doesn't work because Japan was delivering a surprise attack, but even on another article about later in the war, it might not work because of the reason that Japan was originally the aggressor. So then put that in the guideline, that "saw action" applies to defenders and not aggressors. It then opens up the logic with how the term is used, whether its biased in one way or another, as the search results clearly show, currently.-Inowen (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC) PS: Military college, meet Ethnic studies. -Inowen (talk)

Yeah, when you put it that way it reminds me of that famous question How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And this makes just about as much sense.Tirronan (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Tirronan, that was my line (see above). @Inowen, "Mitsuo Fuchida saw action on December 7, when he led an attack.." is tautology since to lead an attack is action. The use of the term doesn't apply to defenders v aggressors or any of the above distinctions. There is no "loaded meaning". There is not necessarily a racist behind every tree. That it is probably a phrase of American origin may be of some explanation - that it is applied by American writers writing about Americans, just as any editor might write about their own country. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen, I have looked at the linked search results and completely miss what point you are making. It contains lots of vehicles and ships (including an Italian tank), a chinese fort, a Filipino sportsman and a black South African unit. It is just the sort of thing I'd expect to see when a commonplace phrase is used to describe military activity. As pointed out your example regarding Mitsui Fuchida is poor grammar, not bias. As previously asked, please point to an external source which explains why these terms are racist or discriminatory. People here aren't automatically hostile to this but we need a case. Perhaps attempting a draft guideline would help you explain your thinking? If you can't, I suggest you follow the advice and admit the horse is no longer operative. Monstrelet (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen "It seems to have a loaded meaning." If so, what? - and provide proof. Not your opinion. Not a google search of a term. (Hohum ^@) 20:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hohum, et al: Do the search on Wikipedia for "saw action" and then scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the number 500 so that you can see more search results at a time. Scroll from top down and look for usage of the term on non-English-speaking culture historical, biographical, and object articles. Do this three times and you will find only two, by a quick count, non-English-culture usages in fifteen hundred. Keep going until your account invalidates my own count, or else supports it. -Inowen (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen Surely that shouldn't be surprising, though. It's a colloquialism, so is more likely to be used by natively English-speaking editors than non-natively English-speaking editors. I would describe this more as an artefact of the systemic bias in English-speakers writing about topics in the English-speaking world. It is a cause for concern, but it is not the cause of the cause for concern. Perhaps we should be looking more at launching a task force or other project to try and encourage editors to take on subjects that aren't well-enough represented, or copy-edit the pages that do exist on those subjects? Is there already something in the incubator that we could assist with? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In the first 20 results, I get Natal Native Contingent, 11th U-boat Flotilla, Army Group B, 4th Division (German Empire) and L3/33. Again, what is the problem? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Monstrelet pointed out much the same! The search result does not support your claim. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I did the first 500 as requested. I decided to exclude all commonwealth and colonial units and personnel along with British and US. It's eye-boggling and I may have made a few slips but I found 99 "non-English cultural" uses in descriptions of vehicles, ships and formations. I also found 24 individuals. Of the individuals, it should be noted that the term is very commonly applied to sporting stars, not just military personnel. Hats off to @Inowen for working through 1500 entries as it is boring work but I cannot see how he/she missed so many. Really, I'm coming to the point of saying we have investigated this vague allegation and found evidence lacking. Time to dismiss the case?Monstrelet (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

'This Orse is not pinin'! 'E's passed on! E's no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't arnessed 'im to the carraige 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the oof! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-ORSE!! (IMHO) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the dancing angel, enough is enough.Tirronan (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have just conducted the same kind of search for "o'clock", and confirm that there are very few "non-English-culture" references. Clearly the term is biased and needs guidelines for use. (Hohum ^@) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment, This seems partially relevant to the restricting of the "V" device and the newly created "C" device within the United States decorations system. One is more stringent than the other, but are similar, yet unique. Just thought I would throw that insight into the mix.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Second Battle of El Alamein

@KevinNinja: Rq admin scrutiny of the article and talk page re KevinNinja 3RR and edit warring. Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. KevinNinja (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Some eyes at Lari massacre please

Could someone from the project please check out Lari massacre and whatever Adapad is up to there? I don't know the modalities of these topics and can't quite assess whether they are carrying out good-faith infobox updating, or adding tendentious terrorism accusations. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is this a separate article? It's only two paragraphs. The description at Mau Mau Uprising is much longer. It seems to me this article should be deleted or merged. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

M50 Ontos weapons caliber discussion

A discussion regarding how we should refer to the caliber of the Ontos recoilless rifles has been started here. Please join in. - Samf4u (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

MOS:DATEFORMAT

I have been away for sometime, and it appears in my absence, some of the articles that fall within the scope of this wikiproject whose dates were formatted in day month year, as is often common within the United States military, have been changed for instance in this edit, and this edit both by Keizaal (talk · contribs). Have things changed since I have been gone? Is WP:MILFORMAT no longer being enforced?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast nothing has changed. Every once in a while, some good-faith editor who doesn't know about the military format for dates, believes they are doing the correct thing by changing it to MDY. It's an ongoing issue, but you just need to revert and leave the policy link in the edit summary. Maybe a talk page note, just in case. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)