Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 65

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

Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66

Firearms in Popular Culture Sections (or lack thereof)

As we should all be aware, "In Popular Culture" sections in articles are- generally- to be avoided (WP:MILHIST#POP). Now, my understanding is that (and I'm reposting part of a comment I made on the talk page for the Winchester Model 1887/1901 article and the Outreach page here) the Pop Culture guidelines were introduced to stop Anime fans from including every. single. piece of obscure anime in which someone had a Mauser Broomhandle, or people adding lists with things like "A character in Randomfilm can be seen holding a Tokarev TT-33 in the scene when Something Interesting happens". It wasn't intended to create a situation in which we all pretend that firearms don't appear in movies or in popular culture, which is what we're veering dangerously close to at the moment, IMHO. It is (rightly) a given that any given WWII film is going to feature people with M1 Garands, Mauser K98s, or Lee-Enfield rifles, or that people in Westerns will be brandishing Winchester rifles and Colt revolvers, and that this doesn't need to be mentioned. But when people are deleting references to Arnold Schwarzenegger's Winchester Model 1901 Shotgun in Terminator 2 because it's "not notable", or factual references to the Lee-Enfield rifle being mis-used in films (for example, the Turkish soldiers in Lawrence of Arabia and the German soldiers in The Blue Max are shown with Lee-Enfield rifles, despite th e fact the Turks or the Germans did not use the rifle in WWI) being removed as being "trivia" I start to get very frustrated. I'm thinking that it might be a good idea clarify the "In Popular Culture" requirements in a more specific way, so we can acknowledge the significance of firearms in movies without crossing the line into trivia. --Commander Zulu 12:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fully aware of our policy, but my belief is that popular culture shouldn't even be a section. If an event / depiction isn't notable enough to appear in the main history of the artifact, it probably doesn't need to be mentioned. Oberiko 14:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
One point to mention is the need for sources beyond the original work. In just about every case, poor popular culture sections rely exclusively on the primary work (i.e. "X appeared in the film Y") rather than any reliable secondary source (i.e. "The appearance of X in the film Y has been noted by Z"); the first form is implicitly ORish, in my view, because we have no way of knowing if anyone other than the editor sees the appearance as significant. Conversely, if a secondary source does exist, it shouldn't be difficult to add some explanation of said source's viewpoint on the significance of the appearance into the article. Kirill 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You're rehashing old territory. This debate played out a few times, with you as a participant, I believe Zulu. I still fail to follow your logic and it eludes me how to counter your points as I can't even see where you're going. I don't understand, for instance, how Arnold shooting a 'gimic' gun advanced or decreased the status of a fine, historical weapon. As I've said before, the bar is set really high for inclusion and these two instances you mention aren't even in SIGHT of the bar, let alone close to clearing it. I think it's absurd to have an armchair discussion about how some twit in a movie didn't know or wasn't instructed properly on how to use a rifle. What the F%&# does that have to do with the rifle? How can that REMOTELY be considered notable given the standards of the pop culture concensus?--Asams10 14:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are examples of acceptable stuff that looks like trivia (but isn't). It might be helpful, when talking about the bar being set "really high" to give an example of something that clears the bar. I'm trying to think of some, but haven't thought of anything yet. The "can it be integrated into the main article" rule of thumb works well. Carcharoth 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
To use Arnold's shotgun from Terminator 2 as an example- I'd hardly call it a "Gimmick" gun, given that the Soft Air Gun manufacturer Marushi makes a Soft Air copy of the gun- it's obviously had [i]some[/i] cultural impact if there's enough demand for a Soft Air replica. The M1887's profile and status, as a result, has been affected- people associate it with Terminator 2, and the fact it's a fine (and mechanically interesting)historic shotgun falls by the wayside in comparison to the fact that "The Terminator used one in that film!" After all, if James Bond didn't use the Walther PPK, it would probably be best known as the gun Hitler used to shoot himself. Movies significantly affect people's recognition and understanding of firearms, in other words. To address your other points, Assams, "Historic" movies (and, to a lesser extent, computer games) are generally held up to be a depiction of an historic event, and by and large they try to be accurate. Minor historical inaccuracies are understandable (such as anachronistic music which is of the type that would be heard in the era anyway), but equipping and entire army with the wrong firearm is so spectacularly out of order that it should be noted on. You and I know the Russian army did not make a habit of issuing Lugers to their officers and NCOs, or that the German Army in WWI were not issued with Lee-Enfield No 4 Mk 2 rifles, but your average wiki reader doesn't. As a firearms historian (and writer), I for one find that kind of information to be fascinating. I've had any number of people try and tell me that the Turkish Army in WWI used Mauser Broomhandles because that's what the guy in Lawrence of Arabia had (they didn't, they had S&W Model 10s), or that German POW Guards in WWII had Thompson M1A1s because that's what they saw them carrying in some B-grade film with no budget, or that the only guns Cowboys had were Colt Peacemakers and Winchester M1873s- you get the idea. The idea behind an encyclopaedia is to educate and inform, and pretending that guns have no cultural impact from film/TV is not the way to go about it IMHO. --Commander Zulu 09:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you called me ASSAMS... I consider that a personal attack! I read through your reply twice and, I have to say, you're living in a different world. Were I immersed in a fictional world, I can imagine this stuff would be pretty important to me, however it's a fictional depiction of a real item, it's not the real item. You play with toy guns as a child to learn how to and fantasize about playing with real guns as an adult. You read books to imagine what these things are like... IN REALITY. Airsoft copies, annoyingly, are made of EVERY FIREARM I can imagine and probably a few I can't. That doesn't make any of those toys culturally significant enough to mention them in an article on a REAL gun. To use "Terminator" as an example, the Beretta 92FS that the liquid metal dude uses isn't mentioned under the 'Beretta 92FS' article... why? Because it doesn't matter. They chose the lever-action shotgun because he can do the flippy thing with it... that's it. I knew what kind of shotgun it was, but did the public know? Did ANYBODY go into detail about the gun at all in the movie? Look at the Dirty Harry series of movies. Firearms are constantly discussed in these movies. From the 458 to the Automag, the guns themselves serve pivotal plot points. Heck, if the Sharps rifle don't get a mention of Quigley Down Under I'll be damned if the examples you're giving deserve mention in the articles you're discussing... AND, once again, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE and that concensus still stands. It's precedent, we've followed it up till now. Why do you think you get a 'do-over?' What's changed?--Asams10 11:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, everybody has the right to make typos. Zulu has mentioned some points that should be considered. The in popular culture section still seems inappropriate in my opinion. In my opinion it should be mentioned in the movie articles as 'equipment shown in the film', so anyone who cares what gun Bond uses can look it up. Under no circumstances should a list of movie appearances be added to gun articles since that tends to be unmaintainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalstouring (talkcontribs) 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A somewhat general point: it is very rare that asking for further discussion on a topic is inappropriate in and of itself, and we have certainly not reached that level here.
In any case, two points:
  • The two examples mentioned by Commander Zulu are quite different, in my opinion. The Terminator reference is, in my view, on the trivial side of things; I rather doubt that the specific firearm used will have been remarked upon by anyone citeable. (Certainly there's a great deal to be said for shotguns in popular culture generally—I expect there's no shortage of sources available for the overall topic—but that's not quite the same thing.) The historical inaccuracy, on the other hand, is something that I would expect to be pervasive and noted by secondary sources concerned with historical accuracy. Is the firearm commonly used as a stand-in for others, and has this been discussed in print? If so, a mention of this in the article, similar to the one the Webley has, seems perfectly appropriate.
  • The consensus, as far as I know, has always been that any discussion of cultural impact needs to be cited to appropriate sources; but if there are such sources, then it is quite acceptable to include the material in the article. (That is what our guideline says on the subject, anyways.) Is there some other understanding of the intent here?
Kirill 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen Quigley Down Under, but if the Sharps Rifle is mentioned somewhat prominently in the film, then I'd say it warrants a mention in the article. Please don't take my mis-spelling of your username as a personal attack- I've honestly always read it as having two "S"s in it. Please accept my apologies. As for the Beretta M92FS- there's nothing special about them, as they're a "standard" 9mm handgun- so an appearance in film isn't notable as a general rule. But they obviously chose the M1887 shotgun for a reason- they could have used a sawn-off Browning A-5, for example. The shotgun in the film isn't fictional- it's an actual shotgun (albeit a modified one). Just because no-one in the film said "Hey, you've got a sawn-off Winchester M1901!" doesn't change the fact that Arnold was, in fact, carrying a sawn-off Winchester M1901. The M1901 shotgun is a distinctive part of the Terminator's image, just at the Walther PPK is a distinctive part of the James Bond image. As for Soft Air guns, as a general rule I agree with you- soft air versions of real firearms are not generally notable (say, a Soft Air Sig P226 or a Soft Air AR-15 are completely un-notable in any encyclopaedic sense- the real guns are very common, and it's a given someone would be making Soft Air copies). A Soft Air replica of an obscure shotgun (the only reason they even make modern 12ga smokeless reproductions of the M1887/1901 is for the Cowboy Action Shooting market and for export to Australia, where pump-action shotguns are heavily restricted) isn't noteworthy in itself (you'll note there's no mention of a Soft Air variant in the article as a result of the consensus that Soft Air Gun articles don't belong on WP, and I agree with that), but in a wider cultural sense there's obviously enough recognition of the Terminator 2 sawn-off M1901 to justify a Soft Air replica, which means (to me at least) that the fact the M1887/M1901's appearance in Terminator 2 is notable enough to warrant a mention in the article, even a simple one line acknowledgement that the shotgun used in the film is a Winchester M1901 that was specially modified for the film. As to why my feelings on this consensus have changed? Well, as I've said before, I believe that the intent behind the consensus is well-intentioned (some of the firearm articles used to have massive lists of every film the gun had been in, relevant or otherwise, and they needed to go), but is being somewhat mis-interpreted by people who are being a wee bit over-zealous in their interpretation of its implementation. I'm not advocating that we mention every time a gun appears in a film, but I am saying that the bar has been set far, far too high and needs to be lowered in the interest of encyclopaedic completeness.

Here's what I have in mind as a form of "Notability Test" (It goes without saying that the film the gun is appearing in must be well-known itself, of course!):

  • 1. Is the firearm likely to appear in the film because of historic reasons or being in wide-spread real-life use? (eg, a M1 Garand is likely to be in a WWII film, a Glock 17 is going to be in a modern thriller, a Winchester repeating rifle will be in a Western etc). This is the "Whatever happened to be in the armoury" test- if the answer is "Yes", the firearm's appearance is prima facie not notable.
    • 1a. Is the firearm in the film for historic reasons, but appearing inappropriately enough that it affects the historic integrity of the film? (ie, German soldiers with Lee-Enfields in WWI, Japanese soldiers with M1903 Springfields, etc). This is the "Blue Max" test- if the answer is "Yes", the firearm's appearance might be notable, depending on the overall context.
  • 2.Is the firearm commented upon by characters in the film and/or used as a plot point? ("Only James Bond carries a Walther PPK..." etc). If the answer is "Yes", the firearm's appearance is Prima Facie notable.
    • 2a. Is the firearm identifiably used as a signature weapon by the title character? (to be read in conjunction with Rule 1- basically, is the gun also unusual?). This is the "Terminator 2" rule- if the answer is "Yes", then the firearm's appearance may be notable, BUT mentions must be kept brief AND factual- eg "A modified Winchester Model 1887/1901 was the signature weapon of the Terminator character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1992 film Terminator 2: Judgement Day", "The Mauser C96 was used as the basis for Han Solo's blaster pistol in the Star Wars trilogy", "A modified version of the Minigun, nicknamed Old Painless, was notably used by Jesse Ventura's character Blain if the film Predator"... you get the idea.
  • 3. Has the firearm's notability been affected by the film? (this includes making obscure guns well known- James Bond's Walther PPK, for example, or perpetrating false information about the gun- ie, the "Glocks can't be picked up by Metal Detectors" thing from Die Hard 2. If the answer is "Yes", then the firearm is notable
  • 4. The above rules are still to be read in the spirit of the general consensus that "in popular culture" sections are- generally- to be avoided where possible.

Anime automatically fails the "Film notability" test because of it's relatively limited audience, as do "Foreign" (non-English language) films not widely released outside their home country. Like I said, I'm not in favour of listing every single film a gun appears in, but I think we should be acknowledging that most people get their information on firearms from movies (and to a lesser extent, TV and video games, which are an entirely different kettle of fish again), and that it can be prudent to acknowledge a particular firearm's notable appearance in film. Does that clarify my stance a bit? --Commander Zulu 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We've already GOT a test. How about the 'reasonable man' test. If you take a reasonable man (or woman) and ask them, "Hey, Identify this weapon." If they identify it as belonging in a particular movie, GREAT... add that to the firearm article. If they know what the gun is and say that first, keep it out of the article. You can show somebody a picture of Dirty Harry's gun and many, even gun folks, might even rattle off the lines from the movie, "This is a .44 Magnum...". I'll tell ya, you'd be hard pressed to find a reasonable man that would look at an Enfield and give you ANY of the information you feel needs to be included. Further, show people the [Wild West Guns "Bushwhacker"], chances are, they'd just as soon identify THAT as the weapon in Terminator as they would any other lever action gun. It's a GENERIC lever action. Even seasoned moviegoers just see it has a big barrel and the little flippy trick. What you're gathering about notability is contrived by your knowledge that it was, indeed, the Winchester lever action shotgun (did anybody else make one?) that was used in the film. The average, reasonable Joe wouldn't make that connection and it's, therefore, non-encyclopedic.
The concensus is there, by the way, to keep HUGE retarded popular culture 'sections' from dominating articles. Trust me, the minute you add anything like you did, there will be some 12-year-old boy who's seen an animae film that says, "Oh, it's okay to add fiction stuff so here I go." You don't have to trust me, we've been there. Look here: SIG SG 552, and here:Beretta 92 or here: Desert Eagle, or here: Beretta 93R]. C'mon, this is absurd. Myself and several other editors spent a great deal of our time and effort to see that "Children's Sections" of these articles went away and these are just a few of the scores of articles that were vandalized. It's graffiti. Leave well-enough alone.--Asams10 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
How about this, if a referenced source (focusing on the artifact, not about the particular film/book it appeared in) can be found that includes material about the artifact has been affected by its portrayal (ie. "X saw a surge in popularity as of late due to its appearance in Y") then we can include it. Otherwise, the information about its appearance would be kept limited to articles on the film/book themselves. Oberiko 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's pretty much what I was getting at, and what I think the original intent of the guideline was. We should try, as much as possible, to let our choice of material be governed by what our sources choose to note rather than what we ourselves consider to be worth noting. From that perspective, the question is not so much "should we mention the use of the firearm in film X", but rather "has anyone writing about the firearm commented on its use in film X", which is somewhat simpler to come up with an objective answer for. Kirill 16:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
While I certainly sympathize with Commander Zulu’s concerns over the potential for abuse of firearm articles with popular culture sections, and think his notability test feasible, unfortunately, I doubt it will have any effect on those who want to add trivia to articles. To a great degree, this is because firearms are themselves an iconic element in popular culture, so allowing popcult sections is just asking for a rapid degradation to lists of trivia – and there aren’t enough fingers to plug all the eventual holes in the dike.
What I’d like to recommend is a separate article on “Firearms in popular culture” – or perhaps a short series of articles (given the breadth of categories of firearms in general) – which addresses their cultural and cinematic aspects. Articles on specific firearms could have a “See also” link to them, if relevant, while the popcult article would have normal hyperlinks to the “technical” articles. One article in that series might even be addressed to “Media misportrayals of firearms”. This approach might serve to convert what would otherwise be widespread cruft intrusion into technical articles into articles of encyclopedic merit themselves. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. Perhaps more prolific firearms (such as the Thompson submachine gun) could even have entire "List of media appearances of X" article; on the whole though, I'm drawing black to think of anyway such a list would be useful, or, really, even interesting information for anyone. Oberiko 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I just breezed through this debate, and two things that were said greatly stand out in my mind...

"In just about every case, poor popular culture sections rely exclusively on the primary work (i.e. "X appeared in the film Y") rather than any reliable secondary source (i.e. "The appearance of X in the film Y has been noted by Z"); the first form is implicitly ORish, in my view, because we have no way of knowing if anyone other than the editor sees the appearance as significant. Conversely, if a secondary source does exist, it shouldn't be difficult to add some explanation of said source's viewpoint on the significance of the appearance into the article."

...and...

"We should try, as much as possible, to let our choice of material be governed by what our sources choose to note rather than what we ourselves consider to be worth noting. From that perspective, the question is not so much "should we mention the use of the firearm in film X", but rather "has anyone writing about the firearm commented on its use in film X", which is somewhat simpler to come up with an objective answer for."

Nice, Kirill. That about says it all right there. Any policy regarding popular culture, IMO, should then simply be this...

Any popular culture item being considered for inclusion in a firearms article should...
A) Be able to be attibuted to a source that is notable and reliable in the field under which the article topic falls; and...
B) Said source must be writing/speaking as a whole about the article topic (ie. the firearm) rather than the pop-culture item as a whole.

My phrasing could likely use improvment, but any pop-culture policy really need only be that. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this, taking it a tad further (with some wording correction)...
Any popular culture item being considered for inclusion in a firearms article...
A) Must be able to be attibuted to a source that is notable and reliable in the field under which the article topic falls; and...
B) Said source must be writing/speaking as a whole about the article topic (ie. the firearm) rather than the pop-culture item as a whole.
An item meeting these requirements should be able to be worked into the text of the article. A seperate section for popular culture items should be avoided at all costs.
That sounds pretty good to me. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Adding, of course, that the source be reliable... a reputable news agency, magazine, peer-reviewed article, or creditable published work (no anti-gun hack books or publicity pieces for the Brady campaign). Does anybody looking at this agree with me that this, indeed, sets the bar HIGHER than it was before? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that it should be higher.--Asams10 03:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That's my concern- I think the bar needs to be lower, not higher. I'm also concerned by what might qualify as a "Reputable and reliable" source, too. FWIW, I'm in favour of doing away with "in popular culture" sections entirely (with exceptions, such as the Webley being a stereotypical British revolver or the Thompson M1928 SMG being associated with the Prohibition era) and just incorporating the information into the main article. This would hopefully keep the kids and the OMG THIS GUN WAS IN MY FAVE FILM!1! lists out of the article, whilst still acknowledging that, yes, this particular gun was used in this well-known film, by this well known character, and that it's appearance is unusual and/or notable as a result. A separate article on firearms in popular culture might be a good idea, as others have suggested. --Commander Zulu 03:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would avoid, in general, applying "notable" to sources; most scholarly works are not notable in and of themselves, even if they're well-respected. Something like "reputable" would better express the intent here, I think. So, somewhat modified (and minus most of the bolding, which is IMO excessive):
Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion:
A) Must be attibuted to a reputable source for the field of military history under which the article topic falls, where...
B) Said source is about the article topic (i.e. the firearm) as a whole rather than about the aspect of popular culture being referenced.
Items meeting these requirements should typically be worked into the text of the article; a seperate section for popular culture items should be avoided where possible.
(There's no reason to limit this to firearms, incidentally, as it applies equally well to anything else we work with.) Kirill 02:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1st section break for "Firearms in Popular Culture Sections (or lack thereof)"

This is starting to get long, so I am adding a section break to make it easier to add to the section. On that note, my opinion here is mixed. I tend to lean toward the pop culture sections becuase some of the material is interesting and notable; and certain shows and films do specify what kind of gun the characters are using. And yes, I am aware that adding a legitimate pop culture section invites contributers to add instances of minute appearences of the weapon from every single medium imaginable, which doesn;t help the reputation of the pop culture sections. Having said that, I do agree that there ought to be a way for this information to get added to articles. IMO, you should at the information to the page of the company that manufactured the gun; this way, you can combine several otherwise bordline cruft sections into a functional section that can grow (assuming the company in question remains in business, a new or improved gun that makes waves in pop culture could go there). It seems to have worked for me with the Iowa class battleships, but I have no idea how much succsess you would have with it (or for that matter, if anyone else would consent to doing it this way). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Any other comments? Kirill 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a "Firearms in Popular Culture" article; I'm just concerned about how we'd keep it orderly given the somewhat passionate debate on the subject here. I honestly believe that film appearances of firearms are notable and should be included in articles, subject to a few restrictions (ie, no Anime, no "Obvious Appearances" such as Mausers in a WWII film, no Indie stuff no-one's ever heard of, etc). --Commander Zulu 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It's totally legit to mention the guns somewhere. The issue is rather where. Keep such information as sections of the corresponding films and we don't have to bother with every gun appearance in the Simpsons, because it is part of an overview about stuff to be seen in the movie in the Simpsons article. If we move the mentioning to the gun articles, we get the old unmaintainable mess again. Naturally this shouldn't be limited to guns, since swords and mailarmor also classify for such sections. Wandalstouring 10:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
At first look I like the wording, but it looks like the major portion of my favourite example, T-34#Tank as a symbol, would fail the test (Černý's pink tank is mentioned in a good tank book, but the other items mentioned are not, to my knowledge). Webley revolver#Film depictions might also not pass. I'm concerned that our own examples in WP:MILMOS#POP don't reflect the wording.
But I would still support the wording as proposed, and individual examples can appear as exceptions, subject to consensus by their own merit. Michael Z. 2007-09-26 13:52 Z
In terms of sources, wouldn't the word "reliable" be better than "reputable"? It is better defined elswhere in Wikipedia policies/guidelines and can be linked accordingly. I also think that the more words there are in a guideline or policy the more arguments in interpretation there will be. For our purposes here wouldn't a single clause suffice, along the lines of...
Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attibuted to a reliable source for the article topic. Items meeting this requirement should typically be worked into the text of the article; a seperate section for popular culture items should be avoided where possible.
If the two clause approach is adopted I think that the text "(i.e. the firearm)" should be removed. In particular "i.e." (which I've always understood to mean "that is") makes the clause specific to firearm articles, whereas the policy is surely applicable to any milhist article. --FactotEm 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The single-clause approach is a good one, I think. I'm not sure that changing from "reputable" to "reliable" is a good idea, though, as the terms do refer to subtly different things. The bar for "reliable" can be quite low; I think the intent here was not merely to filter out references that couldn't be attributed, per se, but rather to limit references to those which had been mentioned by some legitimate historian writing on the topic. But perhaps I'm reading too much into this. Kirill 05:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I think the phrase "(reputable/reliable) source for the article topic" is so important. I'm not so precious about the 'r' word. I would say though that whilst from my newbie understanding of Wikipedia there seems to be enough difficulty with what is and isn't a reliable source, there are at least policies and guidelines to refer to in disputes. Introducing 'reputable' eliminates this support structure.
Looking at the current version of WP:RS, it specifically includes the statements "A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. Authors may be reliable outside their primary field if recognized as having expertise in a secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views...", which also seems to support the objective here. --FactotEm 09:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft guideline update?

So, would anyone object to proceeding by simply adding Factotem's proposed text to the current guideline:

"In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. If present, the material should be a prose discussion of the subject's cultural significance, cited from reliable sources. In particular, the following should be avoided:
  • Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia)
  • Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research)
Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic. Items meeting this requirement should typically be worked into the text of the article; a separate section for popular culture items should be avoided where possible.
This tends to be a particular problem in articles on military hardware (weapons, vehicles, and so forth); for example, the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand may appear in any World War II film, and their many appearances don't warrant an exhaustive list. On the other hand, a discussion of the Webley representing a stereotypical British revolver, or a conceptual artist's public response to the symbolism of the East European tank monument, is certainly notable.

(addition shown in bold). Kirill 14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I had 3 corrections to your proposed text - just spelling/grammar, nothing controversial - so I've made the corrections above. One was in the pre-existing text, so I've corrected it at the source as well. Maralia 14:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just dont see why we dont make a "wikitrivia" website ForeverDEAD 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the first part tends to duplicate the new addition. How about...
"In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic. Items meeting these requirements should typically be worked into the text of the article; a separate section for popular culture items, and in particular the following, should be avoided:
  • Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia)
  • Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research)
This tends to be a particular problem in articles on military hardware (weapons, vehicles, and so forth); for example, the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand may appear in any World War II film, and their many appearances don't warrant an exhaustive list. On the other hand, a discussion of the Webley representing a stereotypical British revolver, or a conceptual artist's public response to the symbolism of the East European tank monument, is certainly notable. --FactotEm 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that looks good. If there are no further objections, we can go ahead and use FactotEm's text in the guideline. Kirill —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As there haven't been any objections, I've gone ahead and updated the guideline. Further discussion is, of course, entirely welcome. Kirill 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Two articles on hold for GA sweeps review

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed two articles that are still in very good shape but need some assistance to remain GAs. I have put them on hold for seven days until the issues are addressed. I wanted to mention it here so that members of the project, if interested, could assist in improving the articles and helping them remain GAs. The two articles are:

  • Hood event-needs just a few inline citations and other minor problems.
  • American Civil War-has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates; needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc.

Additionally, so far I have reviewed about 30 of the current 60 "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" GAs and have delisted several of them. The following are the delisted articles if you desire to help return them to GA quality. I've probably made enemies in delisting them, but I'm only delisting them for not meeting the requirements of the GA criteria.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I hope members here assist in addressing the issues within the articles, and keep up the good work in improving articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Help please

In my research of the Montana class battleships I relised I had forgotten to include the role the Mastiff UAV played in the Pioneer UAV's development with regards to the Iowa class. I added a section for the Mastiff on the main Iowa class battleship page, but I am a little to busy right now to copyedit the entry. If someone could find it in there heart to look over the entry and smooth over the rough spots I would be grateful. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedited the Mastiff section for you. JKBrooks85 19:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

United States Navy Third Fleet

Hoping this doesn't spur another excrement-storm like we've had with unit names, but this article's name does not appear to fit the conventions followed by the rest of the Fleet articles (Category:Fleets of the United States Navy). It should probably be moved over the redirect currently at United States Third Fleet. There is no conversation about it at the article's talk page, so the discrepancy may not have been pointed out before. Maralia 04:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's probably fine; it looks like the article was originally there, but was moved to this title in April.
(But are these the actual names of the units, or holdovers from the old naming form? If it's the latter, they should really go to titles like Third Fleet (United States); but I have no idea if that's the case.) Kirill 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Kirill, the official name as given by the commander's website ([1]) is "United States Third Fleet," or U.S. Third Fleet. The same applies for the other fleets of the U.S. Navy. I'd recommend shifting the article over to the redirect, as recommended by Maralia. JKBrooks85 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it up JK. I checked all the non-defunct Fleets' official homepages yesterday, and there were only two variations in name: "U.S. "vs "United States" and capitalization on the spelled out number (U.S. THIRD Fleet, etc). Neither of those variables is one that would really affect how we would name it here, so I think we'd be safe to rename. Maralia 10:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Had this move done today. Maralia 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators?

This "Coordinator" business builds a hierarchy, especialy with the "lead coordinator" and "assistant coordinator" positions. I'd suggest merging the to positions into "coordinators" and doing away with the elections. That way anyone who takes a large role in the coordination of this project could list themselves there with a comment on what they do--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening up the position to anyone that wanted to sign up would be a mistake, in my opinion. While elections have their various drawbacks, they do serve as a halfway-decent filter on the candidates. Under a system where no approval from the project as a whole were required to become a coordinator, we would inevitably see (as has occurred in some other projects) an influx of enthusiastic but inexperienced—or even misguided—editors signing up. This would, at best, make the coordinators useless as points of contact (since there would be little assurance that a coordinator knew anything about the project) and generate confusion as inexperienced editors stepped on each others' toes doing some of the more complex infrastructural work that the coordinators carry out. At worst, the appearance of ill-behaved editors claiming to be "project coordinators" and throwing their weight around in content disputes would bring the entire project into disrepute. It would be better to scrap the system entirely, I think, than to make it a meaningless label.
Beyond that, I'm not a fan of breaking things that work in practice merely because they don't agree with some purely theoretical concept of how things ought to be. I would argue that the coordinator system which has been operating for the past two years has been largely successful in keeping the project running smoothly and productively; changing it to something that has never been tried and seems to open the door to a number of problematic scenarios doesn't strike me as a particularly good thing to do. I have, in any case, seen no indication that the project members are chafing under some perceived hierarchy.
(But I am obviously not the person who should be deciding this. I will abide by whatever course the members feel would be most helpful to the project.) Kirill 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't support Phoenix's proposed changes (no offense intended, mate!) Accountability is important and all too-rare here at Wikipedia. The elections system works extremely well, and I firmly support the elected coordinators and the system that put them in positions of authority. JKBrooks85 20:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I didn't clarify enough. What I mean is that the coordinator system should be more informal. I didn't mean that it would be open enough for anyone to sign up. If someone does some good Coordination work (such as starting a new work group etc.), rather than improvements to articles then they should become a coordinator with a comment beside thier name saying what they do. The elections would be replaced with a simple request on this talk page--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Most projects (this one included) is open for self-appointed membership; very few proects have the impetus to be able to appoint active coordinators, so in many projects I think the coordinatorship is fairly irelevant. This project appears to have enough people to allow for a usefull coordinator body. In any project, creating a self-appointed coordinatorship would mean coordinator function is not much more than a self-glorified membership. There are pragmatic reasons there should be a limited number of coordinators. If you have only a few coordinators that will basically keep complexity down, so in my opinion there should be a limited number coordinators. Open registration would not allow that. So how do we decide who is in this limited number??? I think elections are a fair way. If you think you should be in (not me, too much responsibility, I'll keep with being member ;-), the elections are open for everyone to enter. If you have strong feeling about a set of articles (ie a theme) you are free to list them on your watch page and engage in discussion, thus taking up duties (but not name) of coordinator. If that is done in a good way, you may even be succesful in next years' election. (in other words, I suggest showing that you can manage the duties/have the skills before you get the title not the other way around) Arnoutf 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I didn't mean for it to be open to everyone (as I said in my last comment), but just to make the whole thing more informal. Let's just forget it--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that would still allow for an (in theory) unlimited number of coordinators. Arnoutf 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a system that works not only for MilHist, but also for the other projects. A good coordinator prospect is usually an editor who has some tenure, has shown good stable edits, has maintained civility but at the same time has stood up and fought the battles that matter. Coordinators really have only the power other editors allow them, they don't have a magic wand. A stable WikiProject should not need only lead coordinators, but there are alway task forces. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, let's just forget it--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Just before we close this out, just want to reiterate my support for the current system. I think Kirill and his team are doing a grand job, on the whole. People can quite easily act as coordinators/points of contact for task forces or groups of articles they're interested in without actually being named as coordinators formally. Anyone who wants to help out in that way can easily volunteer on the relevant TF talkpage - or just start doing stuff that needs doing (that's why I had a bash at the AFAGIR) Cheers Buckshot06 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the coordinator page has been nominated for deletion, so the matter is likely to be up to the wider community in any case. Kirill 20:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • This being the most stupid/disruptive thing happening on Wikipedia since i'm contributing. --Eurocopter tigre 20:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur. Seriously, why would anyone want to shuffle a winning hand? Its unbelievable. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • WikiProject Scouting has run into some similar things recently. CfDs bringing up that one of the CfD participants is the coordinator (at least two occasions), reporting to ANI that coordinators are unnecessary bureaucracy, nominating style guidelines for deletion. Between that and vandalism it is getting hard to do any real editing. I'm glad to see the deletion failed. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FACs need some attention

We have a number of open featured article candidacies that haven't received many (or any, in some cases) reviews. If anyone has a bit of free time and could drop by and comment on some of these articles, it would be highly appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

War theory

I just stumbled across this article after a link was added to it from Military. It looks a lot like an essay and probably violates WP:OR but might be salvagable by someone who knows a bit about military history theory (though I'd suggest that deletion or a redirect to Causes of war might be most appropriate). --Nick Dowling 08:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It was apprently nominated and cleared for deletion, why its still here is anybody's guess. I say we burn it, but thats me. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
From looking at the edit history, it seems that the article's apparent author User:Outofthebox simply removed the prod template, and all the other templates for good measure. --Nick Dowling 08:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Then why don't we put the article up on AFD again? And this time make sure the template stay on it until the article is deleted (or merged). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed and boldly done. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Y'all might want to check out Military Keynesianism also. User:Outofthebox has contributed to the page, which is what caught my attention. THe page was created in 2004, but still has NO soureces whatsover. It appears to be an effort to connenct military spending in certain persiods to economic growth - 1930's Germany, and 1980's USA, but ignores the massive military spending by the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. Not really suprising, since Eisenhower is revered for his "military-industrial complex" speech -which one could say he helped create! - and JFK and LBJ, both Democratics. See what you think! - BillCJ 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This page looks like it has potential, but needs cleanup and sourcing badly. I have concerns over the name of the article, since it implies that theis type of spending belongs to one particular country, otherwise this looks salvagable. Thats my take on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the Wikichevrons with Oak Leaves. Thank you to everyone who voted/nominated me for the award. I really appreciate it, and just want to say thanks! JKBrooks85 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Backlog

I just dropped off an article for another Wikiproject at the GA Review page and noticed quite a few war/military articles waiting to be reviewed. If you've got a few minutes to take a look and give your opinion, it can be found at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#War_and_military. I'm sure the editors of those articles would really appreciate it. JKBrooks85 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to this into the announcement template, since we don't seem to have any pointers to it from within the project. Kirill 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli in infobox

There's been (another) proposal to remove the casus belli field from the military conflict infobox; if anyone has an opinion on the matter, please drop by Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict#Remove casus belli (again)?. Thanks! Kirill 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The current result of the discussion is to delete the casus belli in the infobox. It would be a good thing to hear more voices before such a radical step is done. Wandalstouring 10:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanian MilHist task force proposal

I would like to create the Romanian Military History task force in the very near future, and I'd like to know if somebody doesn't agree with this, or has any complaints. I've already talked with some Romanian users which will help me and become the future members of the task force. Thoughts?? --Eurocopter tigre 15:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope they are reliable. Wandalstouring 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Who, or what, do you hope will be reliable; and why wouldn't they, or it, be reliable? --Thus Spake Anittas 19:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume he's hoping that the editors that sign up will stay consistently active. Kirill 20:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not such a big problem, as i'm convinced that on our way we'll gather more members. --Eurocopter tigre 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the Romanian military history task force has been created; please sign up if you're interested in the topic. Kirill 16:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to object guys but is it really necessary to have a task force for every country? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing, actually... --Commander Zulu 12:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think that every country should have a task force. Only countries that matter should have it, such as UK and USa. Romania is a shitty country and should therefore not have one. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No need to get upset, please; this is merely a polite discussion. Kirill 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking you'd support it as you are a Romanian yourself ;) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
He is supporting it indeed, but he's explaining about what you actually think about Romania, and why you don't agree with the RO task force. --Eurocopter tigre 18:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's please avoid getting into accusations and such. I am confident that everyone here has only the best interests of the project at heart. There haven't been any actual objections to the task force, in any case, so I doubt continuing a purely academic debate on the topic is worthwhile. Kirill 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize guys if my intervention wasn't clear enough. It wasn't about the country at all. It was about the project and its expansion. I am not objecting at all but simply discussing ways to enhance this excellent project. You'll find me helping the task force indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Anittas was thinking that you wouldn't say such things if we were creating the UK/US task forces now, that's why he was so angry and replied in such incisive terms. So, I think you're welcome to add your name in the Participants list :D. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
UK was militarly involved at almost all parts of the world and still is (Falkland islands, Afghanistan, Iraq). US are 50 states w/ a large military history (in terms of quantity) and only the Iraq war would make a WikiProject itself. It was about quantity and not quality. I got no idea about how New Zealand task force was created. Re Romania, i'd have said the same if it was about Morocco where i am coming from. See you at the task force guys and sorry again for this mess :) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't we have a task force for each country with significant history? I mean, for example, the Romanian Military History is quite much wider than the New Zealand one. --Eurocopter tigre 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not every country, certainly, but I'd think that any country with a significant military history is probably a suitable natural focus for a group of editors. Most European countries are going to qualify if we include their predecessor states; here, for example, the amount of material on Wallachia, Moldavia, etc. is probably larger than that on modern Romania itself. Kirill 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
and then the Balkan task force would become obsolete. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Which wouldn't necessarily be unacceptable, I think; the main reason we went with regional task forces has been that we couldn't get the needed level of editorial interest for more specific ones. But this is really a matter for long-term consideration rather than anything in the forseeable future. Kirill 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Romania is not part of the Balkans... --Eurocopter tigre 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
not 100% true. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Balkan topo en.jpg

  • This is the Balkans official region, we are not talking about current controversies. --Eurocopter tigre 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks Eurocopter tigre. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! Best, --Eurocopter tigre 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, I've already suggested the NZ task force be merged with the Aussie TF, but the task forces are now evolving, they're not task forces per se(groups temporarily created for working on a specific activity), rather permament departments and contact points for each area. Buckshot06 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Alexandru Averescu now open

The A-Class review for Alexandru Averescu is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Retiring task forces

We seem to have guidelines for retiring MilHist participants, do we have any procedures about retiring task forces? Oberiko 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need any? Task forces are essentially harmless even if they're not very active; and, given the amount of infrastructure created for them, bouncing between "active" and "inactive" states is likely to be more trouble than it's worth in any case. Kirill 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Input on Strange Intelligence Disciplines :-) and related topics

Not too long ago, I observed that the articles on MASINT and SIGINT were on the stubby side, and I decided to start adding material, mostly braindumping and then grabbing relevant citations. Unfortunately, this turned out to be rather like eating one potato chip, and the articles have become very large.

I would also mention I've done/updated some related articles on National means of technical verification -- and a few pertinent biographies such as George Kistiakowsky and Dino Brugioni. The Kistiakowsky material has bearing on SIOP, where I put a little of it. The article on verification, in fact, was what really drove me to write a good deal on MASINT. While there's always room for improvement, I'm fairly pleased with the explanation of the common elements of MASINT, since it's an exceptionally obscure yet important area.

One of the challenges is that there truly are core elements to SIGINT and MASINT that don't belong in the more specific articles that might spin off. For example, the text and drawings on remote sensing and sensor geometry, in MASINT (and, to some extent, IMINT) apply to many disciplines, and I believe belong in a central place.

MASINT could reasonably spin off articles on the (usually thought to be 6) major sub-disciplines. One approach to splitting SIGINT is by historical period, but that still doesn't neatly deal with the sub-disciplines. Perhaps the part about national capabilities, general definitions, industry, etc., is what belongs in a central article -- I'm also not sure what should (if anything) move to COMINT and ELINT, since there are times when the same antenna captures COMINT, IMINT, and SIGINT. The difference is in the processing of what came through the antenna.

It's also been suggested that an article on the intelligence cycle (tasking, collection, possibly data reduction, analysis, possibly estimation/correlation of forces, and dissemination) would be useful, to complement the articles that deal more with the technologies.

Any thoughts would be appeciated. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My God, that's incredible! A fantastic body of work! There's enough material there for starting points for dozens of articles... hell, even a SIGINT Wikiproject probably wouldn't be too far out of line. There's a WikiProject Intelligence Agency, but it doesn't look to be too active. That being said, you might find a few people working along similar lines to yourself there. I'd also suggest the Military engineering and technology task force. I'm stretched a little thin right now, otherwise I'd help myself. But it looks as though you've done a fantastic job, and I hope you'll keep it up! JKBrooks85 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Pretty impressive work, Howard! The last time I looked at any of those, they were all rather stubby. I would think the appropriate central place to start would be something along the lines of "Military intelligence" which would define the various areas (including HUMINT) and describe the intel processing cycle. The extant article does a fair job but is unwieldy and daunting for its extensive delving into the US structure for it (which could and probably should be spun off into its own article). There are a number of weaknesses, though. For instance, the topic of BDA and how it is worked into operations is not developed, info ops is mostly ignored, and there's no history of the development of MI practics. The detailed articles on the various "INTs" would develop from such a central article which ties it all together. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
To keep stuff together I'll respond there. discussion seems to be fragmenting all over the place.ALR 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, where's "there", ALR? There are multiple pages discussed above. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The SIGINT and MASINT talk pages, I think. SIGINT was getting so big that the editor was slowing down, so I made an arbitrary decision and extracted SIGINT by Alliances, Nations and Industries, not a great title but one that seemed to work. That daughter article, I suspect, needs a better opening, and, even so, it's a fairly large article. I dug up more material, both for the daughter and the history section still in the main article, to make it less US-centric.
I'm leaning toward splitting off the six major MASINT disciplines, especially if I make a special effort to fill out the "leaner" disciplins such as radio frequency MASINT. Looking back at the SIGINT spinoff, I should have made SIGINT the last word, not the first.
The SIGINT history sections are the next logical spinoffs.
Does anyone know of a tool that helps make sure all crossreferences, especially things like the Harvard Citations, make it to a spinoff, or does that have to be manual?Howard C. Berkowitz 01:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the SIGINT talk page. A little rushed as I was on my 3G card yestarday. I typed up sitting on the train home from work.ALR 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
All the MASINT subdisciplines are in their own articles. SIGINT is being more difficult to split. From the historical standpoint, I think there is a value in having it by time periods rather than country, although I immediately had to back off on doing it by decade. Just as battles are traditionally fought at the intersection of two maps, wars seem to like to be at the overlap of decades. WWI was an exception. I tend to think of Korea as in a continuum of post-WWII pushing and shoving. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British and United States military ranks compared

Circle-style-warning.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! JKBrooks85 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost story

For anyone that hasn't seen this, we are the topic of a story in this week's Signpost. :-) Kirill 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This project is clearly setting the standards. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely one of the best Wikiprojects around. JKBrooks85 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae GA sweeps review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed Battle of Thermopylae and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention it here since the article falls under this project, and if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning inline citations and other general fixes. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Battle of Marathon is currently on hold as it needs some more inline citations for several facts and quotes. You can see the statements that should be addressed on the talk page of the article. --Nehrams2020 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

IRA

Is an article such as 1985 in the Irish Republican Army under the scope of the Milhist project. I am torn about whether to tag it or not. Thoughts? Woodym555 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely yes. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a stretch or inflaming to add the "British military history" task force tag? It does relate to British Military History due to the loss of British Army soldiers. Yet i can see how could this could inflame certain groups of people and spark an edit war. Woodym555 14:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, because they often acted on British territory, even if they were headquartered in Dublin. --Eurocopter tigre 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. By convention, task forces covering a certain country include all military activity within that country, even if the country's own military was not necessarily involved. Kirill 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. I have added the tag and given the article a spring clean. Thanks for your comments, backed up where i was leaning really. Woodym555 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Wallachian Revolution of 1848 now open

The A-Class review for Wallachian Revolution of 1848 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Announcing ... Tag & Assess 2007

Can you spare a few hours to help the project? We're looking for volunteers to process 165,000 articles and we've introduced a special award structure to reward them.

You can find out more, and sign up here. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Great job Roger. By the way, in the instructions it says that if it is not part of the project, strike it out using <s>...</s>. Does that refer to the article talk page or to the worklist? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind i found the answer. Thnaks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll tweak the instructions to clarify this. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tet Offensive now open

The A-Class review for Tet Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's misspelled on the page header. JKBrooks85 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Er... forgot this is Wikipedia. Fixed. JKBrooks85 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)