Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 84

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

Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85


AFD for Middle East campaign

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle East campaign (2nd nomination). NVO (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Super Columbine Massacre RPG! now open

The peer review for Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! (I'm especially interested in you military chap's opinions to make sure its accessible.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

could we have a Recommended Reading List??

I have a suggestion.. Can we have a section within WP:MILHIST that is the recommended sources list? For instance, we all have online / offline sources, that we use for citing sections of articles. This section could be added to over time, especially with why (or why not) it provides a good source. For example, the list at Jules Crittenden has an excellent combat veterans reading list.. comments?? Jez t e C 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

we actually discussed this idea a while ago, the contents of which is located here. We created the Personal Libraries section to allow for something similar. The difficulty with actual reviews is that it's a time-consuming process that requires multiple editor input (what I believe to be an excellent source won't necessarily be an excellent source in eyes of...say..Catalan or Roger). If it comes down to having time to write articles or having time to review sources, I think the majority of editors will likely go for the first one. That said, I know of several editors who have written small reviews for individual books. The difficulty is, if you have over 100 sources in your collection (as do many contributors), it gets difficult to review all of them. Cam (Chat) 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there's something to be said for a list (somewhere) of websites considered reliable, too. I don't mean to say they should be reviewed, necessarily, but if they're considered solid enough by project members to be used, & accepted, it could be useful for others who may not (yet) know about them or who (like myself :( ) have seen them but can't find them again... It might be nothing more complicated than the "personal library" idea (which I've already found helpful). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Would there be interest in compiling a list of useful basic reference books? I find books like the Oxford Companion to the Second World War, A Military History of Australia, etc, to be an excellent starting point when choosing topics for articles to cover (even if I do then end up referencing more specialised works). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Cam - I had to go searching for Unreliable Web Sources, but saw that Roger had created the Personal Libraries section.. BRILLIANT WORK!.. just a thought. Could Logistics be mentioned clearly on the front page? save this conversation happening all over again! ;) -- Nick I would like to help with a list of Useful basic reference books.. it would make sense for each of the Task Forces to have there own "reading list" Jez t e C 23:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a link both on the project banner and in the drop down list to the right of your screen. In regards to websites, I think that this is very necessary, given that 90% of websites will not pass FAC. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In that case, would it not make more sense to make the list of websites that are considered "reliable"? it would be much more useful (pointing users in the right direction), and be much smaller and easier to manage (10% vs 90%). Cam (Chat) 00:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, that would be easier - especially becuase a list of the reliable websites will be much less dynamic than an unreliable site list. However, there may be a use for something along the lines of a "List of websites that are commonly thought of as RS's, but really aren't" so that sites like Hazegray can be mentioned...this way, people (like me) won't use them but later have to replace them. Maybe. I also don't want to create too much work... =/ Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 00:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take initiative, and start a reliable website list for the land vehicles task force. Hopefully, this will expand throughout the project to other task forces. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a look over at Vehicles Task Force and saw the resources section. I had a look at the history, and didnt see anything so created a small table and populated it with the 2007 Janes Tank Recognition Guide! Is this a simple way of doing this? Perhaps amend the Table heading with Ratings?? Jez t e C 07:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In mentioning a list of reliable websites, I had in mind a "master list" to avoid just the problem ed had; in effect, it's a "Milhist Seal of Approval", & if it's not there, you may as well stay away from it. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
We could alos make use of the fact that others have done some of the work for us. Intute have 945 records under their military history category. All of these have received some level of review by academics (plus so far as I can make out, anyone can suggest a resource for inclusion, provided it meets the criteria set out by Intute). If we have a list, there also needs to be a way of gettign new things on it. David Underdown (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


There is a disagreement over the use of quotes in a military related article. The discussion at Talk:Battle_of_Nitzanim#Quotations would benefit from some more input. Thanks. -- Suntag 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for letting us know! Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 00:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying task force coverage

I've been assessing some articles as of late and there seem to be some that don't meet any task force at all. The Nations and Regions can be confusing as most regional task forces aren't very specific on what they cover. For example: looking at what the Balkan task force covers, forces people to go to the Balkan article and try and decipher what countries are in that blue blob or read the article and still not understand what countries are covered. It would be so nice if regional task forces could put on their front pages all the countries they cover. The other problem is the few I've found this morning that seem to fall through the cracks:

  • Any country with a "stan" on the end of their name.
  • Austria, Switzerland, Albania, Caribbean, Mexico, Portugal, Sri-Lanka, Central America.
  • Turkey post Ottoman.. Middle-Eastern? --Brad (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I've brought up the idea of a general European TF that would include the current British, French, German, Balkan, Spanish, and others that I'm sure I'm forgetting. This would cover those and most of Eastern Europe and smaller countries that do not have their own TFs. I would also consider modern Turkey to be part of Middle-Eastern, but don't have any solution for the -stans. – Joe Nutter 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
At one point, we were considering having a "Central Asian" task force to deal with the various -stans, the khanates, and so forth; but that never really saw much interest. How many editors do we actually have working in that area? Kirill 01:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Given that the purpose of the task forces is too coordinate the efforts of interested editors rather than to classify articles (which is what categories are for), I don't see anything necessarily wrong with having gaps in TF coverage if there aren't enough editors working on these articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
From a categorisation standpoint, we could create a dummy group ("other topics", say) and assign the articles that would fall under a hypothetical Swiss taskforce, etc, to it. This would mean we wouldn't give the impression it was an active area when it wasn't, but likewise it would mean we don't have to keep checking the uncategorised articles to see if they should be filed somewhere. Shimgray | talk | 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Something like that shouldn't be too difficult to set up; I'll see what I can do. Kirill 01:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the "|no-task-force=yes" tag is now available to mark articles for which no task force exists. Kirill 01:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been working Category:Military history articles with no associated task force and most of them are working into a task force. One reason why articles are getting into this category are from typos: |Balkin instead of |Balkan , |American instead of |US and |weaponry instead of |Weaponry . If the task forces were not case sensitive that would help a lot. The new |no-task-force= should cure the rest of them. --Brad (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Walter Oesau now open

The peer review for Walter Oesau is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

False breeching

A question has come up re how to disambiguate False breeching. See Talk:Firearm#False breeching. --Una Smith (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A massive day for military history

28 June 2014. The centenary of the start of WWI is a bit over 5 years away.

You can bet that the coverage of the centenary of one of the most important events of the 20th century is going to be absolutely massive. Wouldn't it be great if Wikipedia had an authoritative article on every major theatre, battle, and person involved in the War, and every important way the War impacted on the rest of history? We would have students, teachers, lecturers, veterans associations and the media flocking to us. It could be a breakthrough for our credibility as a resource.

Of course there is a lot of work to do to get there - but in Wiki terms quite a lot of time to do it as well. We would need dozens of committed editors to do it - perhaps hundreds in total. But I think something like the centenary of WWI could really get people worked up to contribute.

What do you guys think? The Land (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are still a lot of articles that need to be made that cover WW1. We do however, have five years to produce these articles. This is more than enough time to produce every article that has a link to WW1 and to get those articles to B-class standard. Perhaps it should be the main job of the WW1 task force to create all of these articles? I, myself, will contribute by starting any biographies on military personnel involved in WW1. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like a great idea. It should certainly be a major project for Milhist as whole, especially as we get closer to 2014. We could even have a special contest for articles relating to the war as a means to get more people involved. As for me, I've been working on WWI German warships for a while, and my work will likely spill over into the naval battles of the war, and perhaps British warships as needed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds great. A big thing would be getting the article World War I back up to FA Quality. Perhaps as it gets closer we can sponsor something through the WWI taskforce that's a contest for people who do the most improvement on WWI articles that are very important but low quality. In a quick look at some articles on famous topics that the average American would have at least some familiarity with, Battle of Verdun, Battle of the Somme, Battle of Belleau Wood, Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Jutland, RMS Lusitania, John J. Pershing, Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig and Poison gas in World War I are all B-Class (barly acceptable), First Battle of the Marne, Second Battle of the Marne, Philippe Pétain and Battle of Passchendaele are all start. This list, with aditions that I haven't thought of, could be like a blueprint of articles that it would be nice to get to FA. It isn't that these are necessarily the most important, just the ones that the most non-historian readers would think of; the ones that American high-school history classes mention. – Joe Nutter 15:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Please don't forget the British and European readers of Wikipedia - we would also need to focus on the Eastern and Middle Eastern Fronts as well. Skinny87 (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
True, as I said, that was just something quick I came up with off the top of my head. I'm no expert in WWI, so any additions would be welcome. – Joe Nutter 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a section in the WPMILHIST Announcements that is specifically for the expansion of WW1 coverage. We could have a competition specifically for WW1 article creation and expansion, either as part of the contest department or as a separate thing. Or perhaps there could be a collection of random WW1 articles listed for expansion and creation, each week. Both of these would increase WW1 coverage. Also could someone make a WW1 barnstar that we could award for significant contributions to the WWW1 expansion. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 16:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of good ideas here, thank you everyone! What I'm suggesting is a very long-term project - in fact, probably unprecedentedly long-term. So there is plenty of time for thought and debate about exactly how to go about it. Obviously, there is a risk that our articles on WWI topics are to focused on English-speaking nations and that is something we very much have to watch out for. Personally, I am aiming to finish my work on dreadnought, and then perhaps move on to Battle of the Somme. As time goes on, perhaps we can formalise things... it strikes me a list of WWI core topics would be a good place to begin. The Land (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably a good idea. If we can have the WWI TF come up with some rough priority list of articles that need to be worked on, we'll have a better idea of the scope of the task, and probably of how we should approach it initially. (We might also look at WP:FT for this, incidentally; if we're going to be working on the whole area, we should be able to get some natural groupings of articles going for that.) Kirill (prof) 16:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Western Front (World War I) is already an FA, I don't see why it couldn't become the lead article for a FT with the major battles in it. – Joe Nutter 17:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing seems exactly what we had in mind when the Special Projects department was founded. Admittedly it has stagnated as of now, but this type of drive could be the thing to rejuvenate it. -MBK004 18:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the thought of this becoming a special project. I Support the addition of WW1 coverage to the special projects. It will get the special projects department up and running again. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Same. MBK, I think that some of those old battleships are looking kinda nice at the moment... ;) Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 20:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI:Special projects never ceased running, its just that it scope at times leaves the department with little to no available work. As for this idea, I think its outstanding, and I would suggest two things: 1st, aim to have the major engagements on the mainpage on the 100th anniverse between 1914-1918. We need to get Raul654 in on this, as it may require some priortizing for a tfa appearence. The other thing I would suggest is that we bring on other TFs to assist. Obviosly, WWI will have the bulk of the work load but editors for maratime, armored vehicals, us, uk, aviation, and so forth can work on WWI articles in unison. I think the best way to tackle this would be to have each task force set up an FT work group with articles that should be FA by the time these aniversy dates roll around so that everyone can see what has been done, what needs to be done, and who is pitching in to help. (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
That Western Front FA might need some work on it; it's a 2006 FA and looks a bit sparse in a few areas. Skinny87 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Count me in on this project. I have been tagging and assessing articles in the Category:Military history articles with no associated task force and have the list down to about 3,500 articles. I'll finish the rest of the list in the next few months; the WWI article list should be pretty accurate by about March 2009. - Canglesea (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
My reading of the 'special projects' was that they were for ad-hoc, short-term projects - and this is, clearly, long-term. That said, as people have indicated this is where it belongs, I am being bold and adding this project idea to the Special Projects page. The Land (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Further, I quite agree that in due course we should approach other projects to join in. I think before we do that we should get some structure to the idea and some improved product to prove it's a serious project. The Land (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which I have been working on the start of a list of core topics: User:The Land/World War I Topics
Looks good (speaking from a non-expert point of view). Might I suggest adding Aviation in World War I to the list of technologies?
I'd suggest creating a subpage from WP:WWI (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Centenary drive) for the whole effort; if we're careful with the formatting, we should be able to transclude all (or part) of it on both the special projects department and the main task force page, and get both wide exposure and a single centralized place for discussion. Kirill (prof) 23:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree - given that there's an existing task force, it would be better to make use of it to support this project Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have created the subpage that Kirill suggested. The Land (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've transcluded the header to WP:MHSP and WP:WWI; how does that look? Kirill (prof) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine - thank you very much! But WP:WWI -> WP:NOT rather than where you want it to! ;) The Land (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wow! That doesn't seem to be a commonly-used shortcut; perhaps we should repurpose it for the task force? (Or at least come up with something usable ourselves?) Kirill (prof) 13:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
WW1 (one, not I) is unused, as is FWW. WWI (What Wikipedia Is[n't]) seems too sensible a link to replace. You could also take WP:1914... Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone drop a note off at the Signpost when we get this set up and see if we cannot drum up some support from wikiepdia as a whole. Also, you may wish to come up with some sort of catchy name for the effort. I recall that when the battleship Nevada was up on the main page The Ed17 dubbed the counter vandalism effort "Operation Silent Sentry", a catchy codename. Perhaps a similar catchy codename here would be of use for the time needed to make this work. (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I, uh, "borrowed" that from User:TomStar81, by the way...that's why it was "Operation Silent Sentry redux"... :) Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If a "codename" is appropriate, let me offer a couple: Operation Trench Overwatch (per a WW1 theme) or Century Sentinel. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer no code names, to be honest - names should be self-explanatory IMV ;) The Land (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Count me in, at least as far as working on WWI firearms articles... we've got Webley Revolver as a FA, so it looks like the next phase is to get Lee-Enfield, Luger P08, Mauser K98, M1911 pistol, M1903 Springfield rifle, and so on up to FA standard... Commander Zulu (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The Military Land Vehicles taskforce could take on the A7V and the various British/French/American tanks that were used! Skinny87 (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Orders of battle

In trying to clean up, Second Battle of Fallujah, I've noted that the "Participating Units" section needs a lot of work. It looks like anyone who fought in the battle has edited the page to add their unit, no matter how small, down to the platoon, team level. The result is that it's not clear that it was the 4 USMC battalions and 2 US Army battalions that led the main assault into Fallujah from the north. However, I don't want to delete any units mentioned. Can someone please give advice? Is there a specific MPMILHIST guideline on this that I can look at? Lawrencema (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the highest-level units are the most important for listing; if they took part then obviously their compenent units did as well. Also there may be some special cases. For example if only one platoon from a company takes part in the battle that platoon should be listed along side brigades and whatever else, while the platoon's parent unit should be left out.--Patton123 13:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Dreadnought now open

The A-Class review for Dreadnought is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for New Mexico Campaign now open

The peer review for New Mexico Campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Jon Burge now open

The peer review for Jon Burge is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Length for FACs

I would be very grateful if any available editors could put in their two cents in the FAC for Arena Active Protection System; the argument is about how length is relevant to FAC (which, according to the FAC requirements it's not, if the article is comprehensive). Thank you. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Every time I look around you've another FAC, it seems! Have you tried leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria? There's been some discussion on the short-FA issue there. Shimgray | talk | 20:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Length I don't think is a criteria for FAC, only comprehensiveness. I can think of two pretty short FAs off the top of my head: USS Kentucky (BB-66) and USS Illinois (BB-65). Both are shorter than your article, I believe. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) now open

The A-Class review for Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Vietnam War MIA issue

An RfC has begun at Talk:Missing in action#RfC: Should Vietnam MIA material all be here or be located in a separate article and summarized here. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Ninja Gaiden (NES) now open

The peer review for Ninja Gaiden (NES), an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! MuZemike (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome template

Do we have a welcome template, inviting users to this project? To see what I have in mind, see Portal:Poland/Welcome for a template used to inform users interested in Poland-related subject of the related WikiProject.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a template to welcome (joining) users to the project—WP:MHW—but nothing to invite people who haven't yet joined, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure that templated invitations are the best approach, in any case; since there's no need to provide a complex set of links at that stage, a personal note, even if brief, would probably be more inviting than a boilerplate message. Kirill 02:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas break Barnstar contest

Being big into Christmas. I thought I'd make an offer. There are a lot of Start-Class war films and Stub-Class war films that should be B-class instead of what they are now. If anyone would like some Barnstars, I'm going to be generous. Elevate any ten to B-class, and I'll award a Barnstar. I'll give double or triple credit if the article is deemed particularly important by me. Do 20, 30, etc. and I'll give out a better barnstar. This offer good until the 12th day of Christmas, January 5th, ends for me (0500 UTC 1/6/2009).--Gen. Bedford his Forest 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha.... this calls for a song, Sir Bedford!!!!
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
one vandal revert and a smiley.
On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
two wikilove kisses, one vandal revert and a smiley.
On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
three little warnings, two wikilove kisses, one vandal revert and a smiley.
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
four tireless barnstars, three little warnings, two wikilove kisses, one vandal revert and a smiley.
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
five pillar rules, four tireless barnstars,
three little warnings, two wikilove kisses, one vandal revert and a smiley.
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
six talk page messages, five pillar rules, four tireless barnstars,
three little warnings, two wikilove kisses, one vandal revert and a smiley.
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
7 Wikichevron stripes, six talk page messages,
five pillar rules, four tireless barnstars,
three little warnings, two wikilove kisses, one vandal revert and a smiley.
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me,
8 class-B tag and assess lists,
7 Wikichevron stripes, six talk page messages,
five pillar rules, four tireless barnstars,
three little warnings, two wikilove kisses, one vandal revert and a smiley.
.... and I've run out of more ideas.... fill them in, if you have any. :-D. Cheers, and a very merry, white christmas. Stop editing wikipedia, and spend time with real people for a change. :-D Sniperz11@CS 06:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop editing?! Block this dangerous vandal immediately! =] TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You are being Naughty, and not nice, Sir Trekphiler.... posting Anti-christmas messages just as Santa was about to start his work!!! No goodies, stockings or barnstars for you... Merry Christmas btw. :-D. Sniperz11@CS 05:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Where can I find a userbox to post on my page for this Project? Resident Mario (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Outreach#User_banners_and_userboxes has all you need. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanx, couldn't find it. Resident Mario (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for proper project tag

Someone may wish to visit Camp Concordia to review and set up an appropriate tag for your project. I assembled the page as a part of Kansas history, but as a WWII POW Camp, it also would fall under military history. Also, any additions would certainly be welcome!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 05:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Request Article Creation and Research Help

Hi. I have been working on Sailing and Fighting Instructions for sometime now. Now that I have moved more of wikipeding time into fighting Vandalism, I was wondering if members of this project could finish the articles for me? There are a few sources for information, but not a lot I must say. Thank you for your help if possible! Renaissancee (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt we have the manpower or the willpower to do that, but if someone does eventually come along then great.--Patton123 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You have to structure the material and provide at least some sources for anybody to work on this. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for John S. McCain, Jr. now open

The A-Class review for John S. McCain, Jr. is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for James Newland now open

The A-Class review for James Newland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Civil war now open

The peer review for Civil war is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ParaData and Copyright

Now then, I've been searching long and hard for a photo of Eric Bols for a while. I've finally found one here: [1] at the ParaData website. I'd upload it like a shot, since it's under PD-Gov as it was taken by a govt employee in 1945. But the website states that it had copyright over the photo and it can't be reproduced without permission. So, how do I reconcile these two things? Any and all help would be appreciated! Skinny87 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as has been pointed out to me, I don't know if it is a government picture. But still, any thoughts would be nice. Skinny87 (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It all depends on the year of publishing. Since this photo was taken by a govt employee in 1945, it is taken before the crown copyright rules came into effect in the British Commonwealth in 1949. In addition, it is likely my guess that this is simply a copy of a British Archives picture. Similar to how NAC works in Canada, WWII Pictures are considered Public domain, since they are not bound by the Crown Copyright laws. So, yes, you can use that picture, as it's before the 1949 laws. Hope that helps. Cam (Chat) 21:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If you can prove that the photo is in the public domain, ParaData is committing copyfraud by falsely claiming copyright, and can be safely ignored. Parsecboy (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, so just look for it somewhere else that is PD, and you can use that instead. That also works. Cam (Chat) 17:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
After some perusal of their image archive, I've decided to send ParaData a message informing them that they are committing copyfraud (for example, they're claiming copyright on File:Operation Tonga.jpg, which is clearly in the PD). Let's see how (or even if) they'll respond. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd certainly be interested to know what they respond with, Persec, because not only will it impact on the Bol picture but also my interactions with them when I research my PhD material; if you could let me know on my talkpage specifrically I'd be greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a concept of copyfraud as such in UK law. But I'm also not sure how well the site owners understand copyright law because they state in their terms and conditions that "Any infringement risks prosecution to the full extent of the law" - and since copyright violation is an infringement of a civil right, there is (almost certainly) no question of prosecution. Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Timothy Bloodworth now open

The A-Class review for SS Timothy Bloodworth is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Port Chicago disaster now open

The A-Class review for Port Chicago disaster is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Please could anyone with expert knowledge help out with a raising date question for World War II for this formation at the British military history task force. Buckshot06(prof) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing now open

The A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Princeton


I intend to start working on the Battle of Princeton which is, at the moment, in shambles. It will be a rather large task and I was wondering if anyone would care to help me, especially if you have a copy of Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer. I have some other good sources, such as the Winter Soldiers by Richard M. Ketchum, General George Washington by Edward G. Lengel and 1776 by David McCullough. Anyone interested in helping either respond here or on my talk page.-Kieran4 (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilcox on Patton

I have been trying to facilitate a discussion at Talk:George S. Patton#Wilcox dispute summary and resolution. I think additional experienced eyes on the matter might be useful. Thx. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD proposal

A renaming of Category:Tanks of the post-Cold War period to Category:Modern tanks has been proposed here. I think that some input from this project is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Commented, thanks for letting us know. Cam (Chat) 06:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

date ranges

I hope no one minds my boldness in adding a section on what I believe is a common problem in MilHist articles. I've been doing a lot of date auditing over the past few days, and the date ranges for battles et al. have required a good deal of fixing to make them clear and attractive, not to mention compliant with WP:MOSDASH. Please let me know if there are issues. Tony (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

After a quick look (going out my door, sorry), that looks great. Thanks! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, all looks good to me. Kirill 06:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

On dasher, off dasher

This isn't a huge issue, but... I notice there's use of both Hs293 and Hs-293. For the sake of consistency, is there a preference? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • To further complicate the issue, the article itself uses a space. See Henschel Hs 293. -- saberwyn 03:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Battles of the Mexican–American War

User:SRE.K.A.L.24 has nominated Battles of the Mexican–American War for a featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 10:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Pollack's - Arabs at War

I have found on google books that K. Pollack writes :

"[At the first battle of Latrun], [t]he Jordanians broke the attack by noon, inflicting as many as 2,000 killed on the Israelis.",
Kenneth M. Pollack (2002), "Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness 1948-1991.", University of Nebraska Press, p.277.

He has a reference (note 12) but I don't have access to these notes of the book.
Does someone have the book and could give me the information about the source ?
Thank you ! Ceedjee (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just cite that book and page - no need for the other book. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well. Not that easy. The information is false.
There were 72 israeli deaths at the 1st battle of Latrun.
The higher numbers are part of what Anita Shapira calls the myth of Latrun that has been forged by the collective Israeli memory.
Ceedjee (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
...oh. That makes life more difficult. You might try WP:MHL#LIBRARY... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that does present you with a few unique problems. Cam (Chat) 07:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have the book. The sources are: Trevor Dupuy's Elusive Victory, El-Edroos, Hashemite Arab Army, Chaim Herzog, Arab-Israeli Wars, Shmuel Katz, Fire and Steel, Netanel Lorch, The Edge of the Sword, Edgar O'Ballance, Arab-Israeli War. I have Dupuy's, Herzog's and Lorch's books, and they don't give the number of 2,000, so I suppose it's one of thew others (the footnote is for two pages of text). -- Nudve (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nudve. Would you mind taking a look at Battles of Latrun#The Arab Legion takes control, especially nb3? When I looked at Pollack's book (don't have access to it now) it appeared to be the type that would make clear the insufficient information in that section. Buckshot06(prof) 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What is it exactly that you want clarified? -- Nudve (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) The Arab Legion, like many British-inspired military forces, probably called it's battalion-sized units 'regiments'. Nb3 is waffly on this, and Pollack should clear it up one way or another. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 14:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added some info about this. This article seems to be under construction, as well as in the process of being translated from French. -- Nudve (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very for the support ! :-)
About the issue between regiment and battalion : in the Arab Legion they had regiment but -I assume to help the reader to understand and to make comparisons- some historians talk about battalion because the Arab Legion had their size and because battalion is the usual name of units of that size and function...
Ceedjee (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for William Bostock now open

The peer review for William Bostock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Help for Heroes political issue

There is currently an issue with the article Hero (Mariah Carey song) where I am involved in a discussion about an Irish political video being included in the article. More opinions welcome at Talk:Hero_(Mariah_Carey_song)#éirígí Alternative Video. (Posted here due to scope of issue). Regards, Woody (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, as the user involved is an IP, Hero song seems an appropriate place to centralise discussion as it was where it was first discussed. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Patton123 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

17th ABN

I have to sleep now, but I have an anon i.p.editor editing 17th Airborne Division (United States) addiing in false info, such as the division participating in airborne ops (Torch, Husky) and other battles it never did, or even could have as it was training in the United States. Could a few people watch the article and revert any further vandalism? I've requested they discuss on the talkpage but they haven't so far. I'd be very grateful; I'm going to revamp the article tomorrow anyway as I realize I made a few errors when I wrote it a few months ago. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted edits by the IP, and rollbacked edits made to the Husky article. That IP should be warned, and then blocked. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just given them a first and last warning, and would be very happy to implement a block if they do this again. Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Persistent little bugger, they vandalized Torch and Husky articles as well. I'm fairly sure I've met them before, under a different IP address; I had a similar case of vandalism a few months ago with 17th ABN. Thanks everyone! Skinny87 (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
If they turn up again with a new IP address they can still be banned if they repeat this vandalism. I've watchlisted the article and will keep my eye out. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon now open

The peer review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Bailén now open

The peer review for Battle of Bailén is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WWI Casualty Figures

My girlfriend is doing some research for her MA Dissertation on WWI British casualty figures, but the official figures she has only extend from October 1916 for some reason. Does anyone know where she could find casualty figures for the period 1914 to late 1916? And does anyone have any idea why the official figures wouldn't start from August 1914 when the conflict began? Skinny87 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The History of the Great War might be worth a look as a starting point if she hasn't tried it. The Australian official history is online, and the medical series includes figures for the British Empire across the whole war at [2], though I don't think that this is quite what she'd be looking for. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There's some fairly extensive notes on information sources here. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The general WWI histories all provide accurate and full casualty figures (Willmott & Keegan immediately spring to mind for their individual World War I "tomes") Cam (Chat) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator candidacy: ("Cam")

A member of the project,, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Military History Project IRC Channel

I went ahead and registered a channel on (same server Wikipedia uses), if anybody is interested. I saw that WP:Roads had one, and I had been thinking of it for a while. It's located at #wikipedia-en-milhist connect. If anybody needs instructions on how to use IRC, I can offer help. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah nice. I shall frequent it. Rather then wait for anyone to ask I shall justprovide instructions here. Go to Type in your name under "nick" (Delete the name that's already in there). Under channel type "#wikipedia-en-milhist". From the dropdown "IRC" menu at the top select "Freenode" (That's the server the wikipedia channels are on). Then click go and viola, you're in the channel and can start typing.--Patton123 15:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be set up properly, and noone in there at the moment...--Patton123 16:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm in there now. Someone closed my window last night. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ChanServ is now always in the channel, so the topic will always be up (there is always someone in the channel). All MILHIST coordinators should have op status once they join and whatnot (I just have to give it to you). We now have two "regulars" (well, I hope they're regulars :P ). JonCatalán(Talk) 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ack! I forgot about this! Sorry Jon...I'll be in there more now that I remember. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm always willing to try something new.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

coup d'état

I don't understand why articles relevant to coup d'état are concerned as parts of military project. Personally, even coup d'état is done by military unit, but its issues are mostly involved with political. In addition, military is just a tool of state and for committing coup d'état, military unit is deployed for this purpose, isn't in? Thus, from these points on view, I doubt why coup d'état is in this project, or if there is a military unit involves with an event, this event will be concerned as a part of military project, regardless, the main issues of the activity is about what. --Brandy Frisky (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A coup d'état by the military fits quite clearly into our defined scope, which is "any article related to historical or modern-day warfare or military affairs"; this is no different from any other aspect of military participation in politics (e.g. the military-industrial complex). Military history is more than just, say, the history of warfare; while overthrowing a government may not be a military's usual role, it's nevertheless a part of that military's history which needs to be documented in the same way as any other aspect would be.
(Obviously, if a coup doesn't involve the military in any significant way, then it's probably not in scope; that's why we usually don't cover things like palace revolutions and so forth.) Kirill 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A coup d'état by the military, usually leaves the military in control of the state. --Ranger Rudy (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Lee Clark

I'm not too familiar with the US military, so can anyone determine if Cecil Lee Clark should deserve an article on Wikipedia? It is also currently unsourced. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the unsourced article content, Lt-Col Clark doesn't appear to meet the notability standards set at WP:BIO or the important standards for biographies of living people. I think that the article should be nominated for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about deleting it and would prefer if we could assess his contributions to military manuals. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This strongly appears to have been written by Lt Col Clark himself; check the picture credit. Everything is totally unsourced; it could be db-advert-ed in half a heartbeat. Buckshot06(prof) 10:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I got the impression that the article was written by Lt Col Clark or someone close to him - the personal photos are a bit of a giveaway. This isn't necessarily a problem if the person is notable, but being one of the authors of two field manuals isn't much of a claim to fame as these kind of works aren't attributed to individuals and this may not be possible to verify - I can't see an acknowledgments page in the version published at (ditto the claim that he appears under an alias in Not a Good Day to Die). Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, the article was created through the articles for creation process. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Although looking at the related discussion there doesn't appear to be any appreciation of how one might establish notability with respect to military, naval or air farce personnel. It might be worth some discussion over there about what thresholds to set, or establish a process of consultation.
ALR (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it meets notability, he's an SO1 and the US military is littered with them. When you consider the staffing process there are probably a good few dozen, if not more, who have contributed to the two manuals referenced. I also agree the points above that this reads like a self publication.
ALR (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I invited Fastroper101 who almost exclusively edits on Lt Col Clark to present his POV here. If we decide to remove him, we have to follow his contributions and remove this military personal from a number of articles. The one point, I'm not sure about, is how great his part in the manauals was. In case we can verify that he was one of the top editors, we could accept it as notable. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that: the notability criteria are based around the subject of the article receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If lots has been written about Clark and his role with the field manuals then he's notable, but if not he isn't, even if we can verify that he worked on them. I work for the Australian government and have contributed to large documents which have been published, but the contributors names don't appear anywhere on them (as is normal for government documents) as they were published on the responsibility of my minister and the department where I work - the same appears to apply to most military publications. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, would that mean that I'm notable enough to have my own article? Most SO2 (Major and equivalent) and SO1 (Lt Col and equivalent) will have contributed to official documents of some kind. As an acting SO2 in 2001 I wrote three with some input from others; communications security related. I really think that notability can only be established if his contributions were in some way ground breaking and accordingly been discussed elsewhere in order to demonstrate independence from the originator. For what it's worth the current US COIN doctrine isn't particularly ground breaking; still seen as being at war.
ALR (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, reasons accepted. Go on and delete. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Prodded [3] --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, we also had a little discussion about this guy over at WPAFC because I couldn't decide if he was notable. See WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2008#Wrestlers vs Soldiers. Martin 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Winter Storm

I want to work on this article a.s.a.p., but the current article (Operation Wintergewitter) is named in German. On the other hand, Soviet operations are in English. Understandably, I believe that the article title should also be in English (or Operation Winter Storm). Unfortunately, that page is taken as a redirect to a disambiguation page. Can I have an admin help me out and/or opinions on the move? Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest updating the article with its current name and at the same time put a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move Operation Wintergewitter to Operation Winter Storm. The other article for the dab page has been deleted, so the dab no longer necessary. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
All done. Article is now at Operation Winter Storm, with Operation Wintergewitter redirected to it. The redundant redirect has been deleted. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

I have a question for you military historians...

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is the article the covers for the most part the events around the Operation Cast Lead that Israel launched. Besides the usual drama around the I-P conflict articles, there has been, pretty much since the beginning, a lot of contention around the title. The title as it stands is a compromise title that no one really likes, but we can't seem to agree on a title, even if we have made progress in other areas of the article.

Basically, there is a fair number of editors that support Operation Cast Lead as I title, which was how it was created. In the very beginning of the article it was rather quickly changed, and then I WP:SNOWBALLed (over opposition) it to something else, then it was protected. This led to a few days discussion, and when the ground attacks were evidently going to happen, we changed to the current one after thorough consensus. Surveys have been inconclusive for any alternative so far, and I am afraid we are at a stalemate.

I have argued, rather strongly, that Operation Cast Lead is not neutral, is not supported by RS, and it doesn't meet WP:MOS#CODENAME. Someone argued that a lack of a better alternative meant we could ignore WP:MOS#CODENAME, which I agree to in principle, but I think there are alternatives, and we are just not exploring them. I have argued as an example to follow, Invasion of Grenada (aka Operation Urgent Fury).

So my question to you guys, as experts or hobbyist in the matter, what alternatives would you use? Or do you think this case warrants ignoring WP:MOS#CODENAME? I do not say necessarily that any opinion here will change my mind (I am rather stubborn on neutrality :), but a good argument from uninvolved editors whose primary focus is military affairs, I think would go a long way. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the current title is the most neutral and in-line with MilHist Style Guides on naming conventions. This also seems to be the norm for modern warfare article (2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden, 2003 invasion of Iraq rather than "Operation Iraqi Freedom" etc). Cam (Chat) 07:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The common name for the event should be used. From what I've seen in the Australian media, that's something like the current title - 'Operation Cast Lead' is rarely used. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cam. Operation Cast Lead doesn't speak for any operational codenames the Palestinians may have for their defense, although there is a precedent with Operation Barbarossa which could be argued (although, I'd support a rename of that article, as well). JonCatalán(Talk) 07:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Although in those cases, it all comes down to common names. I've heard "operation cast lead" used once in the Canadian media, and that was by a leader of a zionist group writing in The National Post. Operation Barbarossa is the common name for those operations (no one says "1941 German invasion of Soviet Union"), while 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is the (most) common name for this current conflict. Cam (Chat) 07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, the article Fall Weiss, or the German invasion of Poland, is actually Invasion of Poland (1939). JonCatalán(Talk) 07:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
We're getting off onto a bit of a tangent, but (at least from my experience), historical works don't generally use Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb, Fall Rot, etc., but they do frequently use Barbarossa. I would agree that the current title is similar enough to what is most frequently used in the media. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are various reasons for using the operational title for a battle vs a title that is neutral for both sides. For example, Operation Ke was over before the opposing side (the Allies) realized what it was really about. In this case, however, the two opposing sides, Israel and Hamas, appear to be fully engaged with each other and thus, a neutral title such as exists currently is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That was my point when I used Operation Barbarossa as an example; Operation Barbarossa doesn't take into consideration the countless operational names of Soviet counterstrokers during the 1941 period. This isn't about Operation Barbarossa, and perhaps I should open a separate discussion (not that I am really interested in pushing the matter), but it was just an example. It was to avoid having people claim precedent by saying that Operation Barbarossa should probably not be used as an example to support "Operation Cast Lead". JonCatalán(Talk) 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The descriptive one is more common in any case, which I support. I have never heard OCL on the BBC/ABC/SBS news etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kaiapit now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kaiapit is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Joachim Peiper

Hi folks there is a bit of an edit war going on at Talk:Joachim Peiper over which photograph to use of the subject can we have some opinions from the project thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Most of it seems to have already been resolvedCam (Chat) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship now open

The peer review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The ed17's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, The ed17, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of The ed17's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -MBK004 04:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon now open

The A-Class review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Bugle" logo design competition

Do you have design skills? Can you help Milhist with a logo for "The Bugle", our newsletter? The logo needs to be eye-catching, incorporating both a graphic bugle motif and the newsletter title, "The Bugle". Fame and honour (a mention in the newsletter plus a barnstar) guaranteed for the successful design. Submit entries here please. Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good news for war image collectors

The US army has just released 147 images from the Korean war into the public domain. The images are available here.

They have also released 40 videos (see this link).

Spidern 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Yarmouk now open

The peer review for Battle of Yarmouk is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Grand Port now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Grand Port is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fred Moosally now open

The A-Class review for Fred Moosally is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear test videos

I just added a number of videos of various nuclear tests (example). I've grown tired of adding them, but there's a lot more public domain videos of tests here. If someone else was interested in adding more, there's info I found useful at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files and Wikipedia talk:Creation and usage of media files#How to use ffmpeg2theora. You basically download the video, convert it to .ogg, upload it to commons, and add it to the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Col. Alexander Scotland

Gentlemen, I have commenced in a subpage a draft of an article on Col. Alexander P. Scotland OBE, an officer of MI19 during the Second World War who gained prominence as commandant of the "London Cage" prisoner interrogation center. I generally focus on film articles, and I became interested in this person because he was the centeral character of one of my favorite war movies, The Two-Headed Spy. What began to fascinate me is that it appears that this supposedly "true" story was entirely fictional. I have a copy of Scotland's book on order, and meanwhile a draft is at User:Stetsonharry/Draft. I am new to military history and have limited knowledge of web resources. If anyone has any suggestions (such as, for example, if there is a database that would tell me why he got the OBE, and his dates of birth/death), I would be grateful. Thank you. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added what I could find to the talk page of the draft, including some details of military career, including his WWI service, and confirmation of OBE (only gives a very general reason for the award). David Underdown (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That's really outstanding. Thank you so much. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Alan Vasey now open

The A-Class review for George Alan Vasey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST editors in WP:CUP

There are several WP:MILHIST editors who are taking part in the 2009 WikiCup. I'd like to remind them that the competition began on 1 January 2009. I'm sorry if I miss you, but these are the ones that I know of insofar: Bedford (currently 16pts.; tied for first place in Pool F), Cam (currently 36pts.; second place in Pool J) & the_ed17 (currently 5pts.; third place in Pool F). Good luck! JonCatalán(Talk) 06:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

...and JonCatalán, in first place of Pool A with 134 points. :) Thanks and good luck to you too! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
...Bedford, when in heck did you get in my group? :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
A day or two ago; I was on the waiting list. I plan to do as well in the Cup as I did in 2007 T&A.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons guidelines

A parade of flag icons is constantly being added and removed from various parts of articles. We have a number of specific cases which come up again and again. Let's just settle on some specific guidelines to stick to, instead of perpetuating this slow-motion revert war.

List of countries Decorated list
Germany, Romania, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spanish volunteers  Germany
Romania Romania
Finland Finland
Italy Italy
Hungary Hungary
Slovakia Slovakia
Independent State of Croatia Croatia
Spanish volunteers

In articles about armoured fighting vehicles, we see flags coming and going once in the infobox,[4] twice in the infobox,[5] in lists of countries.[6] In my opinion, these are all inappropriate according to MOSICON because they don't “provide additional essential information or needed illustration”.

They may be appropriate in a mixed list, like the list of commanders in the infobox of Operation Barbarossa. But the list of belligerents (shown) could sure be more compact, without omitting any information at all:

Let's agree on inclusion of flags for some well-defined types of occurrences, or at least for some specific cases which occur in many articles. Michael Z. 2008-12-10 17:50 z

We have discussed this before and WP:MILMOS#FLAGS was created. Does this answer your issues? Regards. Woody (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the guideline but its interpretation is not clear. Flags are constantly being added by newer editors to the infoboxes and #Operators sections of AFV articles, sometimes repeatedly[7][8] and systematically,[9] and removed by the veterans. The state of this set of articles remains inconsistent. We need a consensus interpretation of the guideline for a few scenarios, so we can get off the merry-go-round, and cite an unambiguous rule.
Here's one concrete proposal: “An alphabetical list of country names does not benefit by adding flag icons.” Michael Z. 2008-12-10 18:41 z
Alternately, we could specifically mention infoboxes, repeated use of flags, or AFV #Operators sections, but I think it should apply to a wider range of articles. Michael Z. 2008-12-10 18:44 z
The edit war is continuing.[10] We need some discussion or a poll on this. Michael Z. 2008-12-12 16:58 z
Not so much an edit war, just challenging a vague and ambiguous policy. It comes down to what one considers "decorative". I believe just ONE national flag in the origin field allows the reader to quickly identify the vehicle/weapon's origin and place it within a historical perspective. Koalorka (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding a flag to the infobox, where "designer" is has never been a problem for me at FAC. Normally, the flag is removed by another editor (such as in the case of Leopard 2E). JonCatalán(Talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So shall we agree to enter one flag for place of origin, which is always a country and has the strongest regional association? What happens for internationally-developed AFVs (e.g., LAV-25)?
Can we agree to omit flags in used by, designer, and manufacturer? In many cases these will be redundant with the first one. In others, the former will list several countries—including flags encourages a space-eating column layout rather than a compact list with commas (like in my example table above).
I absolutely want to ban flags from the stereotypical “list of operators”. They look attractive to drive-by editors who want to standardize article layout, but they are useless and distracting for readers. They encourage the creation of nearly empty main sections for articles with only one or two list items, and make these sections look like garish circus tents in articles about widely-used AFVs. Michael Z. 2008-12-12 22:29 z
Yes, I think restraining the use of flag icons to the "place of origin" is the best option. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
That's reasonable, just one (or two flags in multinational developments like the LAV vehicles) in the origin field. Anything else is nationalistic decoration. Koalorka (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I am very happy to find a guideline we can agree on. I'll propose a brief summary note for posting at Wikipedia:AFV#Infobox, assuming no one objects in the next few days.
Do any other task forces have a similar consensus? Can we generalize this for Wikipedia:MILMOS#FLAGS?
This seems backwards. Having one flag in the infobox adds nothing at all to just the country name, and is therefore decoration, which we don't do. The place where flags may arguably be of some use is in long lists. This is the way the entire rest of the 'pedia operates; it would seem logical to do the same thing here. --John (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how flags help in long lists of alphabetized countries. I can probably find a particular country faster without the distracting patchwork of colours. It doesn't offer any useful information at all, except perhaps in an article about flags. Michael Z. 2008-12-14 23:27 z
Well, my own personal view is that I agree with you; I was trying to sum up the larger consensus embodied in WP:MOSFLAG. --John (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. The big advantage that the current consensus has over other schemes is that three of us can agree on it. (If everyone was perfectly happy, then it wouldn't be a compromise ;-) Michael Z. 2008-12-15 14:37 z
True. However I feel that the local consensus here should reflect the wider consensus, which involved hundreds of editors over a period of many months. I feel quite strongly that in an online encyclopedia aimed primarily at adults, there is no extra informational content in  United States that isn't already in United States. Such use of icons is thus decorative and to be avoided, for all of the reasons described at MOSFLAG. --John (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess the justification for this use is not additional information, but providing information which is strongly tied to the article subject, at a glance and above the fold. For example, when you load the article, you can instantly see that it's not just about “a tank”, but “a U.S. tank”. It's arguably useful, it's better than some alternatives I could imagine, but it is still relatively unobtrusive and appears only once. I was against it, but if it leads to a truce in the ongoing flag-icon skirmishes, leaving the body count at one flag in an article (rather than hundreds), then I am happy with the result. Michael Z. 2008-12-16 21:39 z
I, on the other hand, am not happy at the result. Your argument seems to contradict itself. Does the flag or does it not add information to the article? If it does, please describe what information it adds. If it does not, we really should not use flags like this. In an encyclopedia aimed primarily at people who are confident readers of English, I think stating in text (with a link if necessary) the country of origin is ample. Adding the flag adds unneeded emphasis on nationality and brings in all kinds of problems of anachronism which we do not need. Have a read of WP:MOSFLAG to see where I (and more importantly the wider community) are coming from on this issue. --John (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
We need to settle on some kind of compromise, so we can write a guideline which everyone accepts. One flag is better than the scores that I'm still seeing on many articles. It is also much more spare than the well-cemented consensus allowing a couple dozen to appear in battle infoboxes (e.g.).
To answer your question, the flag arguably adds functionality, not information—allowing the identification of country of origin at a glance. All encyclopedias use graphic design for these kinds of things, and although it is not my choice, I don't think a single flag is egregious.
Can you point out an example AFV or weapon article where a flag in “place of origin” causes any of these problems with nationality and anachronism? Michael Z. 2008-12-28 17:23 z
Easily. The very second one I looked at. M6 heavy tank shows the wrong flag (see here for details). Flags do not really belong in an encyclopedia for adults; we prefer to use words here, hence the thought and wide consensus that went into WP:MOSFLAG. If this project wishes to diverge from the project-wide consensus, I would need to see compelling reason to do this. I have not seen this so far. --John (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

John, your argument doesn't make much sense. If we prefer to "use words here", why is it a requirement for FAC for an article to be properly illustrated with photographs? Why do people still include visual aids? Because an article has an incorrect flag shouldn't mean that all flags should be pulled down; it means that it's better to use your time to fix the flag, than to argue about it. WP:MOSFLAG does include guidelines for use of flags in tables, including infoboxes. In fact, directly quoted: The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables (especially of sporting and other statistics), and have subsequently found widespread usage in infoboxes. The guidelines just say not to use it in the text. It then says: If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. Neither of these are a problem in regards to what we're currently discussing. I don't see the problem. JonCatalán(Talk) 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jon, I am sorry you do not see the problem. We use photographs to illustrate articles it is true. A flag is not a photograph however. The MOSFLAG principle is that decorative flags are to be avoided as they overemphasize nationality over other attributes, and are prone to anachronism. Maybe if you think it important to retain the flags, you can describe what exactly a flag and a country's name adds to just having the country name. Put it another way, how is a single flag in an infobox (a use strongly deprecated by MOSFLAG) anything beyond decorative (and potentially misleading, as in the case I highlighted)? --John (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I never said that a flag is an image; you are just putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that your point that Wikipedia is for "adults" who want "text" is wrong, and provided an example of why it's wrong (images and the use of tables as visual aides). I directly quoted relevant passages that have suggested the use of flags in infoboxes. The use of a flag allows the user to see the "nationality" of the vehicle in question; the infobox serves to offer information at a passing glace. With that in mind, it becomes obvious that the flag is not just "purely decorative". JonCatalán(Talk) 03:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
John, you've pointed out where technically the wrong flag was in place, but what is the problem? For one thing, at 22 pixels wide, the 1912 and 1960 US flags are not distinguishable—either one suitably, and identically, identifies the USA.
I also don't see how this places “unneeded emphasis on nationality”—this is not at all like the biography example in the guideline, where a person may be associated with ethnicity or country of birth, citizenship, residence, etc. Not only is the information provided in an AFV infobox unambiguously the country of origin (not exactly nationality), but this is one common way for reference sources to organize AFVs. Even private ventures are associated with a country, since military materiel is controlled.
And what is “all kinds of problems of anachronism”? Wrong flag is solved by placing the right flag.
Yeah, I'm against inserting flags just because we can, and I would choose not to place this one. But I don't see a lot of demonstrable problems with doing so, and I think it's an acceptable compromise to achieve consensus, seeing as in some other applications (e.g. battle boxes), the consensus and guidelines favour many more flags in the infobox. Michael Z. 2009-01-02 06:40 z
So we can improve articles with edits like this one, and be able to back it up by citing an unambiguous written S.O.P. Michael Z. 2009-01-02 06:51 z
Jon, I think you have misunderstood the guideline. It does not suggest using them in infoboxes, quite the contrary. Michael, I believe the text string "United States" adequately identifies the country. The criterion for inclusion in articles is not whether there are "demonstrable problems" with adding something, but whether there is a demonstrable benefit from adding it. I do not see this and neither does the project as a whole. Using flag icons in a long list is one of the accepted reasons for using flags, so that edit would not be considered a good edit by most wikipedians, though I have no problem with it personally. --John (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I was hoping to work toward a consensus, but the disagreements mount. While a single flag on the page may help identify a country at a glance, an alphabetized list of countries decorated with a parade of flags is terrible—the icons are no help in finding a particular country, the garish visual clutter is distracting to the reader, and a simple list may be expanded to occupy as much as a screenful of space. In something like a mixed list of athletes, flags may help convey the proportion of medal winners from different countries, but in a list of countries the flags are worse than useless. Michael Z. 2009-01-02 21:25 z
I am sure we still can achieve a consensus. Whatever consensus we do achieve should be informed by the project-wide consensus established by the input of many editors at MOSFLAG I think. Wouldn't you agree? --John (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That's why I started this thread on this page; to generate some guidelines specific to the AFV articles and infoboxes, which would be compatible with the rest of Milhist. But the only way to reach consensus in such a big group is if everyone is willing to compromise. That usually means that almost no one gets exactly what they want. Michael Z. 2009-01-02 23:10 z
I'm sorry, but you and I must be reading different guidelines; or, you just seem to be ignoring what I directly quoted. I will also quote this: If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. The use of a flag to demonstrate the country of origin of the tank doesn't make the information unclear, ambiguous or contreversial. On the contrary, it makes the information clearer (this is the point that you seem to be ignoring). Obviously, your use of "project as a whole" is self-termed, because two members of the project do not agree with you (at least two; more than two, sinc we're not the editors who started inserting flags in the first place). JonCatalán(Talk) 18:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
One more quote: 'They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon. However, since not all readers can do this, the icons should be accompanied with names and/or the use of sortable tables. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There is little point in quoting selected snippets of that policy to me. I had a hand in drafting these guidelines, as did dozens of other editors. When I speak about the project as a whole I am speaking about Wikipedia as a whole. If this sub-project wishes to establish a different local consensus I would need to see good reason for this. This I am not seeing. The key question which we haven't seen answered yet is this. In an encyclopedia aimed primarily at adults who are confident readers of English, how does a single flag in an infobox like  United States offer more functional information than the text United States? --John (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
We're not looking for a different consensus. As far as I know, everyone discussing this is happy with MOSFLAG and MILMOS#FLAGS.
We're looking to interpret these very broadly stated principles (“help the reader rather than decorate”), which are open to all kinds of interpretation, and generate some concrete S.O.P.s (like “put a flag icon in this infobox; don't put flag icons in that list”).
John, I think I have answered the question several times now—the flag in the infobox enhances its “quick reference” function by allowing the country of origin to be determined at a glance at the page. Michael Z. 2009-01-02 23:13 z
I'm sorry, but with the greatest of respect I still strongly disagree, as does the great majority on the project as a whole. Those of us who are confident readers can easily read a country's name in text just as quickly without the little flag. Perhaps this idea may have more merit and attract more support at the Simple English Wikipedia, which is designed (unlike this one) for those who are not confident readers of English. --John (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, because I have to call you on that. If you don't agree that we should support this, you're perfectly welcome to state your opinion. But if you are implying that graphic design or the use of a symbol serves no function except for a semi-literate audience, then I'll tell you that you are wrong.
And how do you know that the great majority disagrees? (and disagrees with what, exactly?) In three weeks of discussion here, no one else has disagreed about this. Michael Z. 2009-01-03 03:31 z

For one, Wikipedia is not aimed towards adults; it is aimed for middle school children and high school children, as well (it's one of our policies to write articles within a prose level readable to these age groups; just ask at FAC). Two, I quote the policy because you seem to be ignoring it, despite the fact that you claim to have hand written it (everything you've claimed has not been supported by WP:MOSFLAG. Because you disagree, doesn't mean that that is consensus within Wikipedia... obviously it's not if there are people who disagree (that isn't consensus). JonCatalán(Talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate, United States conveys the same information as  United States and the usage highlighted in MOSFLAG is what I would call acceptable Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Country_can_sometimes_be_omitted_when_flag_re-used Gnevin (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Gnevin for backing me up. Basically we already have a project-wide (i.e. Wikipedia-wide) consensus not to use flags in this way. If this sub-project wishes to establish its own norms for some reason, we would need a lot stronger arguments than "Wikipedia is ... aimed for middle school children and high school children" or one or two users' personal preferences. This is why we have a Manual of Style; we want the articles to be reasonably consistent in presentation and formatting across the entire project, for the benefit of our readers, who are not predominantly going to be baffled by a country's name in text. --John (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but your argument is going to have be based on more than ignoring ours (and then going off on tangents and avoiding the fact that you have already been proven wrong on many instances) and continuously repeating the same thing. United States and  United States convey the same information, but in a different way.  United States is a visual representation that makes sense in an infobx; it allows a reader to just glance over it and receive the intended information. It's used in the same fashion that it's used in articles about battles (where the contestants normally have the flag next to them). Again, I don't see this "project wide consensus", other than what you claim. The use of flags in this case does not fall under any of the "inappropriate uses". It does, however, fall under: They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't ignored your argument as you haven't presented any coherent ones that I have seen, merely stating that you like the flags and asserting (without any evidence) that flags will help the middle school readers this encyclopedia is supposedly aimed at (which is news to me). " United States" is merely decoration, and adds nothing informational to the text string "United States". The only exception to this guidance, as you correctly say, is in long lists and tables. An infobox is not a long list or a table however. There may however actually be a coherent argument that battle infoboxes should have a flag, the flag under which the participants in a battle fought, if this can be verified. An AFV is not a battle however. Most AFVs (and weapons in general) are not produced or designed by national governments (which have flags), but by private companies (which do not); do you see the distinction? If you don't see the project-wide consensus which I assure you exists, maybe you should take this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) and see if we can attract a wider participation, as I feel we may be moving in circles here by now. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Although it's true that tanks are designed by private companies, they are funded by national governments and most of the time it's the national government which decides the characteristics of the tank. Furthermore, that "private company" does not have the right to export the tank without the express agreement of the national government, making the tank the property of the national government, not the tank. In that sense, tanks do have nationality. So, the M1 Abrams is expressly an American tank, while the Leopard 2E is both German and Spanish (sale of the tank is based upon consensus between the German and Spanish governments; not Krauss Maffei). And, in regards to infoboxes, they are in a way a table (they are a visual aid with information provided in the same format in which it would be displayed in a table; it just uses a different wikicode). JonCatalán(Talk) 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
List_of_football_(soccer)_players_with_100_or_more_caps is a long list which the MOS refers too not in the tanks example where several countries may be using it but is no where near the numbers of countries needed to be helpful. The fact is the MOS is a guideline and indicates community wide consensus . Objects do not have nationality! Gnevin (talk)
Gnevin, you referred to specific guidance in a guideline earlier, which is helpful (but I don't agree with your interpretation):

*In this infobox, flags of participating countries are first given with their names. Following this, the flag alone is used to identify the nationality of military commanders.

What does the linked example show us? That in a list of five items, flags are an acceptable way to show nationality. That even when there is only one nationality represented in a list, it is acceptable to use five identical flags to show nationality. Personally, I find the flags more useful in a mixed list like the “commanders” infobox field in Western Front (World War II) (but not so much in the “belligerents” section). Do you think the guideline supports including flags in minimal cases like Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands and Battle of Tassafaronga?
Regarding nationality, I agree with Jon Catalán: AFVs are strongly associated with their country of origin, they are typically organized this way in reference books, and as weapons, they are designed and built with the express permission and typically at the behest of their country of origin. Their origin is permanently their country, unlike the “nationality” of a ship, e.g. Soviet–Ukrainian–Chinese Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag (would you support the use of the Chinese flag there?). Michael Z. 2009-01-04 20:01 z
The example is poor Battle_of_the_somme ,Battle_of_the_Bulge or Italian_conquest_of_British_Somaliland are better . MOSFLAG is a guideline ,a thus is flexible Technically the examples you show above could be fine without flags, h owever for the sake of internal consistency its better to have these flags that are not 100% needed so we can have the usage for commanders when needed Gnevin (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But if we recognize that consistency is good, then we are agreeing to allow a flag in hundreds of articles where it can be called “merely decoration, and adds nothing informational to the text string”. So apparently we can't apply John's criteria absolutely strictly. This is why we need to agree on some ground rules. Michael Z. 2009-01-06 18:56 z
What do you think of this User:Gnevin/sandbox1? I can't figure out the code at the moment so it the proper version would look better Gnevin (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Not bad. I really like that the factions are linked just once, so that the commanders' names are mildly emphasized by their linking. It could be simplified a bit, I think. Omit the “Commander · Allegiance” legend, and simply enter them in plain English: “Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah”, “Shimon Peres, Israel”. Abbreviations are perfectly justified if they can fit on one line: “Hassan Nasrallah, Hez.”, “Shimon Peres, Isr.” (is that the correct abbreviation?). Michael Z. 2009-01-10 04:20 z
Or, even simpler, put the allegiance in parentheses, as we do for unit names; e.g. "Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah)" to mirror "George Patton (4th Army)". Kirill 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
But compare, also, Italian War of 1542–1546, where some of the allegiances are more complicated, either because the country names are unwieldy, or because a precise allegiance cannot be easily determined. Kirill 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey John, what information is added by the flags in any of the examples I just linked? What information do they add in long tables which a text string like “United States” wouldn't add? Michael Z. 2009-01-04 20:08 z
For what it's worth, I rather like the flag icons in infoboxes- they're a handy instant visual guide as part of an overview, IMHO. Having them in the main text is just silly, of course. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that if tanks didn't have "nationality" then there would be no point to that field in the infobox, don't you guys think? JonCatalán(Talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for AH-56 Cheyenne now open

The peer review for AH-56 Cheyenne is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! unsigned comment added by on 2 January 2009

Thanks for the input! -Fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking inclusion in MILHIST

An editor has added the MILHIST banner to the talk page of the article Roof knocking, but the article's creator continuously removes it. The article, in my opinion, is clearly within the scope of the project. I'd appreciate any help in persuading the creator to stop reverting the addition. Thank you! The conversation is here. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Military historians of the year"

With the start of the new year, it might be good to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project contributed most. Any Milhist editor may nominate up to ten editors – this is to prevent any of our resident geniuses from nominating the entire membership list :) – but can vote for as many editors as they like. Self-noms are frowned upon.

The top three get the gold wiki, the silver wiki, and the bronze wiki respectively. All other nominatees will receive the WikiProject barnstar. Please nominate in the following format, with brief comments (twenty words max). Votes go under the nomination and are approval (ie support) only.

  • [user name] [reason] ~~~~
:# Support. ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yamato class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Yamato class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Landing at Saidor now open

The A-Class review for Landing at Saidor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for B-52 Stratofortress now open

The peer review for B-52 Stratofortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin move Wikipedia:Peer review/B-52 Stratofortress/archive2 back to Wikipedia:Peer review/B-52 Stratofortress as it is still ongoing. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking at the PR instructions, that is how it works now. It is all automated and this is entirely normal and correct so it shouldn't be moved. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, I will revert Parsecboy. It is meant to be at archiveN. Woody (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops, didn't mean to gum anything up :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it! I think all is back to normal now. Having it at an archive page while still active is counter-intuitive I have to admit. ;) Regards, Woody (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, well that's the opposite of the instructions for moving manually at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review#Peer_review. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It is the opposite of almost every other review process on wiki, but that is a result of the current automation procedure. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Bostock now open

The A-Class review for William Bostock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Extended quotes from sources

What are the guidelines on including big chunks of text from sources? I’ve just moved one from Fort Wagner to here, but I’m not sure if it shouldn’t just be deleted. What’s the thinking on this? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK to use direct quotes that can be up to 10 lines long. However, it has to be made evident that this is a quote and what the source is. Anything longer than that quoted as one piece is highly disturbing for the reader. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd see there being two aspects; policy and implication. Policy is quite clear and there are tools to help make clear what is quote and what is editor contribution, the implication is more difficult.
I see extensive use of quotes as frequently demonstrating weakness in evidence or argument. If the statements being supported are credible then it should be reasonable to finesse the wording to minimise the need for overquoting. If it's not possible to do that then the statements being made are either not supported by the evidence or trivial.
ALR (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the removed section from Fort Wagner would be better served by being quoted in full on Wikisource, certainly not deleted as it seems rather interesting.
ALR, in many cases quotes, i.e. what someone said, often are the evidence. A leavening of good quotations can also make an article far more readable and lively than endless cited, paraphrasing. Yes they should be used in conjunction with other sources rather than on their own, but I'd hardly dismiss them as wrong or trivial. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Moving it to Wikisource would be a good idea. I think the issue is the overuse of quotations; the Fort Wagner article with the quote is 9kb; minus the quote, it's only 3kb. That's a little excessive, in my book. If there are specific lines that illustrate important points, that's perfectly fine to include them, but not the whole block. Prose should heavily outweigh the amount of quotations, not the other way around. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterise what I suggested in that way, I specifically referred to overquoting and excessive use. A skillful analyst should be able to represent the evidence in such a way that there is no need to replicate that evidence. Whilst I agree that judicious use of quotation can be beneficial, excessive use is frequently an indicator of weak analysis.
I will acknowledge that my personal preference is for a concise, pithy treatment of the topic and quotation doesn't really support that.
ALR (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: I didn’t know the guideline was, but it seemed wrong to me.
My beef with this isn’t so much the length of the quote, as the attempt to introduce a large piece of text from a highly partisan source into an article. It effectively gives an alternative, and highly biased, account of the action from a particular POV; and the fact it is from a primary source gives it a credibility it shouldn’t have in a project, like WP, that strives for neutrality.
It would be OK as an external link, but I don’t know where that is, and haven’t heard from the original editor. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bounty Hunters

Although there is hardly any activety at the board at the moment, I would propose to you that the special projects department adopt as priority any article within our scope that has a bounty (see WP:Bounty) on it. If we can meet the demands of the person who placed the bounty than wikipedia stands to pocket change from the effort. That would make us look good, and may inspire the other projects to adopt a similar aproach. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I count three that's in the purview of this WP.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
If I can find sources on the U.S. Invasion of Panama (I have two) at my university, then I am willing to work on that one. We'll see. JonCatalán(Talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Same. I'll look into the college and university library (both of which I have unrestricted access to). Cam (Chat) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
$250 for WWI?!?!? I will get to work right away Roger...--Pattont/c 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's currently a bounty of $250 each on World War I and Alexander the Great, both within our scope. Shall I set up special projects pages immediately – say at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Special projects/World War I and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Special projects/Alexander the Great – so we can get cracking? --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Also, lets add a bounty tab to the template {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} so that other can track these articles when they appear. If I am right about this and it does catch on it will be a big help to both our project and Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(@ Patton) I should be able to help with the maritime aspects of WWI... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I've transferred a few things from the WWI Talk Page (notably our established consensus for a new layout for the page - which needs a huge rewrite) to the new page. Cam (Chat) 07:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going for Alexander the Great. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-3 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for U-3 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for No. 410 Squadron RCAF now open

The A-Class review for No. 410 Squadron RCAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! TARTARUS talk 00:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Illinois (BB-65) now open

The peer review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment

The FAC for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment has stalled somewhat and needs more reviews to determine consensus. If you have time, please take a look at the article and post your thoughts at the FAC page. One reviewer mentioned that an audit to see whether primary sources were being properly used would be helpful. BuddingJournalist 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese imperialism → Territorial expansions in the history of China

Chinese imperialism article has just come up at WP:RM for renaming. (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for neutral opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [11]. I would request all interested editors to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Image donation of the Bundesarchiv to Wikipedia Commons


Today I sent an email to the Military Archives of Ávila, Spain, in an attempt to establish a dialogue in which I could persuade them to transfer any number of images to Wikipedia Commons and allow us to use them throughout the project. This is a very amateur way of carrying the idea out, but since I moved to the United States in August 2008 I, unfortunately, cannot make a more direct approach (visiting the archives in Ávila; I did this with the El Goloso museum of armored vehicles in Madrid, but that was just me being allowed to photograph their collection of vehicles). I would like information on how the dialogue was established with the Bundesarchiv, and the steps whoever led the program took in order to achieve the spectacular results. Although I think that less people would enjoy photographs of Spanish history than photographs of German history (especially the Second World War), the contribution would be immense in regards to the quality of Spanish articles. It may also spur interest in the development of articles on modern Spanish military history, not only on the English Wikipedia, but more importantly on the Spanish Wikipedia (which has failed to even completely translate the articles I wrote on Spanish tanks).

Thank you for any help,

- JonCatalán(Talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The bad news is that the email the Spanish Ministry of Culture has on their website is no longer in use. There is no good news. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I tried one that seems more up to date. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The project was done entirely by Wikimedia Deutschland - the German chapter - as far as I'm aware; you'd be best off contacting them directly - - and seeing if they can help you figure out how to pitch it. Shimgray | talk | 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have some experience in making deals for images. If you can point me to the organization's website I can try to negotiate. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The Archive goes through the Spanish Ministry of Defense, and their portal is here. They haven't responded to my email (it isn't the first time; they didn't respond to my request to visit the Army's tank museum at El Goloso, which is invite only, but they did respond to my uncle's and then I called them directly). JonCatalán(Talk) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The good news is that I finally got a response. The bad news is that they told me that they don't have the authority to carry out that kind of petition, and so they've forwarded my email to the people that do. They didn't tell me who these people were, so that if time passed I could just directly email them. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Type 63

Hi! Are Type 63 (armoured personnel carrier) and Type 63 light tank the very same veicle? Can a expert take a look at this articles? Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 15:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no common lineage. The Type 63 is a copy of the Soviet PT-76 amphibious tank. Koalorka (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Junkers Ju 87 now open

The peer review for Junkers Ju 87 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 "Military historians of the Year" - Results

The winners of wikis are:

In first place (gold), JonCatalán
In second place (silver), Cla68
Joint third place (bronze), TomStar81 and Skinny87.

The runners-up in alphabetical, who each receive the WikiProject Barnstar, are: Abraham, B.S., Bellhalla, Dreamafter, Durova, Ian Rose, Nick-D, Saberwyn, Woody, YellowMonkey and Ynhockey.

Congratulations to all the nominees and thanks to all who nominated and voted! --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have upgraded Skinny87 to joint third place as there was ambiguity over whether nominators should vote. If the nominator's vote is counted for Skinny, then he ties with TomStar. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
JonCatalán's works are praiseworthy. AdjustShift (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations to the winners! Out of interest, what exactly does one need to do to be eligible for these sorts of awards? Commander Zulu (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For this one, you need to be nominated by another editor and then attract votes. The details are above. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations everyone. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks people, that's rather flattering considering I thought Belhalla and all the other winners did way more than I did. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have two points here: 1) Thank you very much for even being considered for such an honour. 2) Looking at the votes, it seems to me that both TomStar81 and Skinny87 were tied for third place. In the votes, Tom's goes down to 14 as The ed17 both nominated Tom and voted for him, while in Skinny's it goes down to 13, however I nominated him but didn't vote in the lists as I assumed that my nomination would constitute a vote. If this is so, both editors were tied for 3rd on 14 votes. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say thank-you to Abraham for nominating me, and for all who voted for me; it's an honour to come in third, and I hope to continue the good work this year! Skinny87 (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to coney my thanks to all who participated. I am honored to be tied for third place. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Falaise pocket now open

The A-Class review for Falaise pocket is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of African-American soldiers on Iwo Jima

Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place but I'd like this image here added to the Battle of Iwo Jima article. I'm not sure of the copyright status and if it's public domain where I might find a source that doesn't have a watermark over it. Thanks for any help in advance. Lawrencema (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You can add anything you find in the web using Template:External media. However, I can't help you removing the watermark. Perhaps you find another version without it. If it's a work of the US government there's a public domain version available. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I found an image on BTW, I wasn't asking for you to remove a watermark on a copyrighted image if that's what you thought. I still have questions about whether it's in the public domain or not, so I've asked over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions Lawrencema (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Works of the US government are public domain, but you're still save to ask. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812 DYKs

I've started working on Portal:War of 1812. So far, I've found only six articles that have been on DYK. If anyone knows any not at Portal:War of 1812/Did you know, let me know so I can add them.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 16:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Willie Gillis needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Willie Gillis; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK004 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK004 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Grand Port needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Grand Port; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK004 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fred Moosally needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Fred Moosally; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK004 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Bostock needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for William Bostock; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK004 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Plum Island Animal Disease Center

This may be off topic, but I'm having a dispute here with User:IvoShandor whether the sub-articles Building 101 and Building 257 he recently wrote should be merged with main article or not. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Large number of military-related articles nominated for deletion

An unusually large number of articles which fall into this project's scope have recently been nominated for deletion and there is presently no consensus apparent in many of the AfD discussions. Editors who wish to comment on these nominations are invited to do so via: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tom Derrick now open

The A-Class review for Tom Derrick is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hi, all. I'm seeking comments on a proposed merger of Battle of Santa Fe and Battle of Cañoncito. You can comment here. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't check and verify the sources but the article "Battle of Santa Fe" says the battle started on Aug. 15 while the article "Battle of Cañoncito" states that the battle took place on 8 August through 14 August. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Armijo prepared to resist the U.S. invasion starting on the 8th (or so) and placed his troops at Cañoncito in Apache Canyon to defend Santa Fe, but retreated on the 14th. On the 15th, Kearny and his troops entered Santa Fe unopposed. I'm suggesting that that should be one article, not two. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If there's a source supporting your story then sure... merge them together. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The sources are in both articles. (I've only read the ones in Battle of Santa Fe.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough. I'll proceed to the merge since no one has opposed so far. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for article's name appreciated

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Poland_1944-1945. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Texas (BB-35) now open

The A-Class review for USS Texas (BB-35) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Combined military forces of the European Union

I just spotted this new article, which seems to cover the same ground as the long-standing Eurocorps article (the article's claimed topic, though it covers much more) and List of countries by number of active troops. The article's title also seems to be misleading as the European militaries aren't combined. Is there an article on European Union defence cooperation or similar this could be redirected to? Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The article starts with The combined military forces of the European Union known as Eurocorps is the standing army of the European Union, under direct control of the European Council. If the article is referring to something else other than Eurocorps then that must be blatant original research as there's no unified European standing army. What is correct is the information found at the military of the European Union article which states the following: At present, there is no military of the European Union, as the European integration has not developed very far in the area of defence.
And you are absolutely right; the article covers the same ground as the Eurocops article. There must be a redirect.
p.s. I've just redirected European Defense Community to European Defence Community. We had two articles with the same content (copied and pasted). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class medal entitlement

WPMH ACR.PNG WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).png WPMH ACR (Swords).png WPMH ACR (Diamonds).png

Picking up on the discussion above about when A-Class medals should be awarded, here's a proposal, closely based on Bryce Abraham's idea, but will a steeper climb for the higher-value articles per Noclador.

Perhaps the new A-Class medals should be awarded as follows:

For 1-4 groups of articles, the standard medal is awarded for each group
for 5-9 groups of three articles, Oakleaves/Silver is awarded for each group
for 10-19 groups of articles, Swords/Gold is awarded for each group
for 20 groups of articles upwards, Diamonds/Diamonds is awarded for each group

Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me; I like it. It follows the basic principle I outlined, and then that of Noclador's in making it a challenge to be awarded, giving them a high value. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC) you need 60 A-class articles for the diamonds? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, why not? It's something to aim for. And it avoids us having to redesign them every couple of months. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Well, congrats Bellhalla. ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me, and we've already got a recipient for the Silver version just waiting for adoption of the award. -MBK004 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Cam (Chat) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Henry Tandey

Could someone take a look at the recent edits to this article. User is removing material relating to Tandey and Hitler. Could do with some oversight...Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at this and as the claims about Hitler are all unsourced (and perhaps apocryphal) so I have no problem with their removal. Is there any more to this that perhaps we should know? --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read a few things about this incident in sources, but all state that it is disputed whether it actually occured. I think that information about the incident between Hitler and Tandey should be included in the article, but also have it expressedly noted that the incident is, in fact, strongly disputed. Also, it might be wise to watch the page as some edit warring seemed imminent. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I looked as well, and agree with Roger and Abe; if the alleged event is included, it should be made clear that it is strongly disputed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Lee-Enfield now open

The peer review for Lee-Enfield is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of WWI British Casualties

Hey all. My girlfriend is working on an essay, and needs detailed statistics on British casualties in WWI broken down month by month; I tried the WWI article and its associated pages but they're not quite what we're looking for. Does anyone know of any books, official or otherwise, that might contain such figures? Skinny87 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, "The Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War (1914-1920)". Published in 1922(?), it was reprinted recently. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Originally published by HMSO/War Office in 1922, reprinted 1999 Naval & Military Press according to The National Archives library catalogue (there is a copy in Kew). David Underdown (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There's one on the open shelves of the Imperial War Museum reading room too. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, all of you. We looked and the University Library has a copy; very informative, although somewhat oddly ordered. Still, it's what she needed, so cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military career of Keith Miller now open

The A-Class review for Military career of Keith Miller is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Is there anybody on Wikipedia that can be contacted to make a map for the article Battle of Aachen? I have a map published in a book, and perhaps it can be used to base a map for the Wikipedia article. I notice that one of the major weaknesses of my articles are the lack of maps with a lot of detail in them. Thanks. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's of any help, I have the official US Army history of the battle ('The Siegfried Line Campaign' by Charles B. Macdonald) on CD-ROM and it appears to have all the maps in the book in it. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
That very same book is online here, complete with maps... Shimgray | talk | 01:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm unfortunately going to have to re-ask the question. :P I'm soon going to start working on the Alhucemas landing article; I have a good map in an article, but it's not public domain. I want to scan it, upload it to photobucket, and see if anybody is willing to make some type of public domain image for Wikipedia. Who could I contact? JonCatalán(Talk) 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned the evolution of Template:Navboxes has now reduced the value of navigational tools

I'm not the only Wikipedian who has noticed the collapse-creep which has suddenly rendered invisible a large number of useful navigation tools. I'll admit I tend to be stodgy when it comes to the introduction of flashy new toys, and I'll also admit I didn't like this section collapse feature when it was introduced to Template:American Civil War. After I saw better implementation, understood the syntax and could see the value of selected collapse, I started to like it better. But here we are. Look at the Template:Navboxes implementation on the very visible Battle of Gettysburg page. On opening the bottom bar marked "links to related articles" we see three different templates, one closed, one expanded, and one with a section expanded. My complaint? Lots of clicks to get where one wants to look. Implementation on American Civil War? One semi-expanded template, and several closed ones. Again, several clicks just to see if there's anything there for the reader to use. Couldn't the project adopt some standard practice as to how best to utilize the new technology? Am I in a minority? BusterD (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The guide for a standard order for templates would be useful too (which subject matter template should precede another). BusterD (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a standard should be established and would favour it uncollapsed. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
One possible solution would be to auto expand any collapsible template (and section) inside the Navboxes template so that when the link is clicked, all the concealed links become visible at once, instead of the status quo (rooting through layers of links). BusterD (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In the specific Battle of Gettysberg example, it would probably look better if {{Gettysburg Campaign}},{{Pennsylvania in the American Civil War}} and {{American Civil War}} weren't capped off at all. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are ugly navboxes at the bottom better off closed up. The one under the battle infobox ought to be expanded normally though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Roger that in this case the three templates should be removed from the outer wrapper. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing ODNB

Is there a template or some special way of citing an ODNB entry? I have access to the entry for Richard Nelson Gale, but don't know hot properly cite it and how to place it in the bibliography. Any help would be appreciated. Skinny87 (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a specific template (though I've sometimes wondered if it would eb useful, there is one for the Austrlaian equivalent I think). I tend to just use {{cite web}}, or occasionally {{cite encyclopedia}}, then copy the citation info they provide at the bottom of the page, and put it in the relevant fields, adding a comment that subscription is required. So for this article, I'd take:

Anthony Farrar-Hockley, ‘Gale, Sir Richard Nelson (1896–1982)’, rev., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 20 Jan 2009

Sir Richard Nelson Gale (1896–1982): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/31134

and turn it into:

{{cite web|first=Anthony|last=Farrar-Hockley|authorlink=Anthony Farrar-Hockley|title=Gale, Sir Richard Nelson (1896–1982)|coauthors=revised|work=[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|year=2004|url=|accessdate=20 January 2009|doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/31134|format=subscription required}}


Farrar-Hockley, Anthony (2004). "Gale, Sir Richard Nelson (1896–1982)" (subscription required). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/31134. Retrieved 20 January 2009.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

David Underdown (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Cheers David, thats a great help! Skinny87 (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a tool for scholarly material. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship (Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


I've found the above article in articles needing wikifying, backlog to August 2007. It's about diaries from WWI, so it would seem to come under your project. I've proposed a merge, but perhaps people here have a different opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the merger. Otherwise, we would have to list anything about German wartime diaries in this article. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any useful stuff to keep? Are there articles that already cover German WWI diaries? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Totalize now open

The A-Class review for Operation Totalize is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Cam (Chat) 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Marion now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class medal

How do I get a MILHIST A-Class medal for Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Bob Chappuis, and Elmer Gedeon?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the oversight; you've been added to the list of candidates! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I'll follow Tony's suit: do I become eligable for a second one for Clarence Smith Jeffries, George Ingram and John Whittle? Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I get one for Neil Hamilton Fairley, Edmund Herring and Admiralty Islands campaign? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure another coordinator will set it up for you (I have to go to work now). :) On that note, perhaps there should be a tally kept up on the coordinator's talk page (keeping track of promoted ACRs by reviewer, and then delete them and start over when they reach three). I don't know how often coordinators have missed ACRs, but it has happened to me as well (to provide an example; Panzer IV, Third Battle of Kharkov, Tanks in the Spanish Army & Arena Active Protection System (although this has been the most recent ACR, and so doesn't really qualify anyways)). It would make sense; the closer of the review can simply update the tally. What do you all think? JonCatalán(Talk) 00:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A poke at WT:MHCOORD would be good and we could set it up. That said, an excellent idea. -MBK004 05:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree; that's an excellent idea, Jon. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you should do something like the triple crown where instead of getting the same medal multiple times you get higher ranking medals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-class medal was traced over inspired by the Blue Max, so having a versions with oakleaves, swords, diamonds etc is very do-able. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
When we do modify the awards, we will need to go back and re-award the multiples to Bellhalla and the others who would have accumulated multiple awards? -MBK004 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should have them so that it takes this into consideration; i.e. after 5 awards you get the ACM with oak leaves, after X you get it with oak leaves and swords, and then after so many more you get it with oak leaves and diamonds (so let's say you're on your fifth medal, you'd get it with oak leaves; if you get another 4 standard medals, you're tenth will be with oak leaves and diamonds, and the same for the third one; these are just example numbers, but it makes sense, I think... and it makes it more difficult to attain). JonCatalán(Talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I'll see about cobbling together some variations. I think I know just the person to ask. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
WPMH ACR Oak.png

(od) Theoretically, you'd be a candidate for the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves after a while. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, editors are welcomed to self-nominate for the A-class medal. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's my thinking: A new level every 3 (since 15 is 45 A-CLASS ARTICLES, which no one project member here has ever done, and no non-Bellhalla member is ever likely to do). So, por exemplar, 2ACMs with the third being ACM w/ Oak Leaves, the 6th being ACM w/ Oak Leaves & Swords, 9th being ACM w/ Oak Leaves and Diamonds. Cam (Chat) 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
At the current rate, Belhalla is like to get oak leaves and swords within a year (if we do every 5). :P JonCatalán(Talk) 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you guys think? JonCatalán(Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice design, but the oak leaves are barely noticeable and, I think, it looks a little too close to the original. Maybe they could be incorporated around the wreath, or something? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought the idea was to create something along the lines of the Knight's Cross? I.e., Knight's Cross w/ oak leaves, swords and diamonds; same medal, but a minor variation. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What you could do is change the wreath around the overall medal to oak leaves, then add crossed swords in front, and then change the colour of the four-point star to a diamond-like one for each of them. Cam (Chat) 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same, Jon. Cam's got a very good idea too; sounds good to me. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Don't forget the golden oak leaves. ;) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The golden oak leaves were actually in the center. JonCatalán(Talk) 01:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New version uploaded; purge your caches if you need to. JonCatalán(Talk) 01:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work, Jon. I like the design, and my only comment is that I think the oak leaves should be a darker brown. At the moment, the medal could be misconstrued for the golden oak leaves due to the colour (sorry to be such a pain/nit picker). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
My expertise don't go beyond copy and paste. :P JonCatalán(Talk) 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol. Don't worry, my expertise with graphics is non-existant. It can either be left as is, or we can see if anyone is good with graphics and is able to re-colour the oak leaves. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Whatever we do, we should prob. do it soon. Belhalla isn't going to wait forever. :P JonCatalán(Talk) 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol, true. As there isn't much coming in from other editors of the project at the moment, perhaps this should be raised on the Co-ordinators talk page to see what your fellow Co-ords think? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the new design very much but have an idea to throw into the ring. Perhaps the way forward is to redesign the three medals as follows:

  1. standard version: bronze wiki, bronze laurels (this means a reissue to existing recipients but that no great problem)
  2. oakleaves version: silver wiki, silver oakleaf wreath
  3. swords version: gold wiki, gold crossed swords; green wreath.

They'd look very different, even at small sizes and still leave some scope for adding a crown/diamonds. If we can get the design agreed in principle I know just the editor to implement this. --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good; as per reissuing the first medal, just upload the new file over the old file. It will automatically replace them all. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting new spin on things. I presume the "Mil Hist A" would still be incorporated? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes. The idea is that the blue cross and text would sit over the Wiki in each instance. They will all be very much in the style of the existing medal but individually distinctive. Well, that's the idea :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah! I misunderstood your description. Sounds like a very good idea, Roger; like usual. ;) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've asked Noclador if he can help with this. He's done some outstanding work on military coats of arms. I do hope so, --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed upgrades to A-Class medals

Noclador has worked up three very good designs for (1) Standard A-Class medal (2) A-Class medal with Oakleaves and (3) A-Class Medal with Swords and Oakleaves. They are here in standard (125px) size for presentation and miniature size (55px) for /award page display.

Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png
Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal.png
Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal.png
Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal - Gold Oak Leaves.png
Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png
Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal.png
Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal.png
Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal - Gold Oak Leaves.png

Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooo, me likee. Very Wehrmacht. Skinny87 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Endorse the change. -MBK004 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Parsecboy (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that looks pretty awesome. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Epic. I like it. One question though: Could the bronze variant replace our current A-Class Medal image, to make it easier to transfer all current ACMs over to the new system? Cam (Chat) 22:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. That was the idea, --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks very good to me; full support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Will there be a diamonds version in the future? JonCatalán(Talk) 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe a double-diamond version? — Bellhalla (talk)
If we remain consistant with the theme of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, then the next version would be the Golden oakleaves with swords and diamonds. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
We've got an added "diamonds" version, except because diamonds are difficult to render it doesn't actually have any diamonds in it :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That looks pretty awesome. Now, we just need to figure out when to award these? Every 5? JonCatalán(Talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that is reasonable. Bellhalla's fifth nom is currently on-hold pending this. Standard is the default except for the following; on the fifth, OakLeaves; on the tenth, Swords; on the fifteenth, Diamonds; etc. -MBK004 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one to be wondering why Bellhalla is suggesting a double diamond version? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't imagine why Bellhella would suggest that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but wouldn't it be worth while awarding the standard for the first four (as suggested) then the oakleaves for the fifth to nineth, swords from tenth to fourteenth, diamonds from fifteenth onwards, etc. It just seems to me that awarding the standard varient everytime except the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth times creates a massive base of the same award. Just a thought and open to debate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad idea at all :) Though I'd prefer to see it climb a bit more steeply after the first "upgrade". I've started a new section below to discuss as this one is getting very cluttered. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'd go with your idea Abraham. -MBK004 08:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts about awarding: Why not use the Italian Army regimental medal system? with the A-class medals it would be like this:
for every three 3 A-class articles you get one bronze medal, once you're about to get your 3rd bronze medal (9 A-Class articles), you get the silver medal instead and must remove the earlier awarded bronze medals. Now the editor has one silver medal which equals three bronze ones (or 9 A-class articles). Now you start collecting bronze medals anew; when you are about to get again the a third bronze medal you will get a second silver medal instead. And if one day you happen to have 3 silver medals you get the gold medal instead (which equals 3 silver medals or 9 bronze medals or 27 A-class articles). Maybe 27 articles is a bit to much, so it could be decided to give the gold medal out for 2 silver medals (6 bronze or 18 A-Class articles) and give the diamond medal out for two gold medals (=4 silver = 12 bronze = 36 A-class articles.) With this system an editor with i.e. 33 A-Class articles would be presented with the following "Medagliere":

Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal.png
Gold (18x A)
Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal.png
Silver (9x A)
Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png
Bronze (3x A)
Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png
Bronze (3x A)

or i.e Bellhalla (15x A I read somewhere) would be presented with the following "Medagliere":

Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal.png
Silver (9x A)
Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png
Bronze (3x A)
Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png
Bronze (3x A)

Abraham would be presented with the following "Medagliere":

Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal.png
Silver (9x A)

I know it will be very though to get a Gold Medal,... but so the medals have a very high value and I admit: I like this system :-) --noclador (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in principle, it's a lovely system but very complicated to administer. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
that is indeed the biggest drawback :-) --noclador (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) As there is no opposition to Noclador's very good designs, I'll be updating the /awards section with them shortly. --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Precision bombing

I came by Precision bombing via Pointblank and Ira C. Eaker and as articles go - it's not much use at all. Anyone care to have a go? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bielski partisans

I wandered into this article through my film work, as this article concerns the persons involved in the new movie Defiance. Persons familiar with that chapter of the war (not something I know much about) may want to give it a look. There's been some concern expressed in the past over its neutrality, and there appears to have been some original research and synthesis which I've tried to tackle. Some neutral observers would be useful.Stetsonharry (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Suez and sources

There's a discussion going on at talk:Battle of Suez. A third opinion from members of this project would be welcome. In addition to the content dispute at hand, there's a larger issue: Primary and secondary sources. Are memoirs written by generals who fought in a war considered primary or secondary sources? Does this project has a guideline or consensus on that? Thanks, Nudve (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. I expect WP:RS might have a more generic view on it. My two-pennyworth would be that such a first person account should be considered as a primary source. Of course with the benefit of hindsight and a lifetime expertise in warfare, the general's account might give the sort of perspoective required of a secondary source, but it is more likely that his personal involvement creates bias. A biography of the same general would be a secondary source. Book reviews in learned journals or a biography of the same general that discusses the memoir might provide the analysis that allows you to put more weight on this as a source Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I always treat all biographies, particularly those by senior officers, as primary sources and often inherently biased. Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the generals involved in the war, when writing of the developments and events of the war, used a variety of other, mainly primary sources. What would such a source be considered? Sherif9282 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd still say primary; he may have used other sources, but he was still a participant and may be biased. Admittedly it's not always the case; Slim's autobiography is quite good. But I'd still treat it as a primary source. Skinny87 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Moltke (1910) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Moltke (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of suggested layout of Infobox Military Conflict

I proposed a layout for here which removed the flags but it was a secondary to the discussion that was going on at the time . You can see the layout here while the layout with flags is here. What are users opinions on my proposed layout Gnevin (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sans icons reads as clearly to me, and is cleaner and less busy than icons. A flag instead of shield for the SLA would improve it a bit.
There is still unnecessary redundancy. I made a compact version at User:Mzajac/Infobox military conflict. It's mocked up with a bunch of inline HTML and styles, but could be made nice and clean with style sheet support. Michael Z. 2009-01-23 01:29 z
Of the two layouts, I think the no-icon one is cleaner, but this is largely a function of there being short, obvious names for all the parties; if one of the parties has a long or convoluted name—common in cases where a party that's not a state is involved—I suspect the parenthesized version will become unwieldy.
The compact version is too dependent on having individual commanders for particular parties' contingents; how would you handle a case where a commander from one country commands units from several? Or where the list of parties isn't just a straight listing of countries, but includes some sort of nesting already (e.g. for indicating alliances or super-states)?
(A more minor variant of this issue is the current layout, which suggests that Lebanon didn't actually have anyone in command.) Kirill 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As a practical exercise, it may be worth considering how our template example (Battle of Lützen (1632)) would render in each of these styles, since it has a number of difficult features (long & cumbersome belligerent names, commanders commanding multiple belligerents' forces, junior and senior commanders, etc.). I'm fairly certain there's no way to fit it neatly into the compact form, and suspect that the icon form will wind up being the most usable given the circumstances. Kirill 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well the example above doesn't use flags for the commanders so we could just remove them but i will attempt a mock up later Gnevin (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
When there isn't a clear hierarchy of sides and commanders, then the separate table sections are probably appropriate. That is just a way to associate the data items visually, if they are actually associated. in other situations I could also see making the nested lists with commanders as the heads, and their forces listed below them. Here's Lützen: User:Mzajac/Infobox military conflict 2. The layout is more conventional, but the indented list format still makes it read a bit more clearly, while saving space (also enlarge your browser font size and compare). Michael Z. 2009-01-23 14:56 z
Interesting. I think we have three essentially distinct ideas now:
  1. Including or omitting flag icons
  2. Combining the lists of belligerents and commanders
  3. Adding style markup (e.g. indentation) to the lists
The first idea is basically unrelated to the other two; consider that we might have a compact, combined list with flag icons still present for the countries. It may be affected in the sense that a different layout would reduce the usefulness of the flags for associating belligerents with commanders; but unless the new layout is universally applicable, we'll still be left with a "sometimes yes, sometimes no" approach to using icons.
The second idea might be quite useful for modern battles where the convention is to list formations (e.g. army groups, corps, etc.) rather than countries; this could even potentially pull in the strength field to include a single list of formations (with strength and commander indicated) on each side. In older conflicts, though, it doesn't seem that it would be particularly useful, at least in this form, since most of them don't have such neat breakdowns of the combatants.
The third should be easy enough to implement as a general neatness issue, regardless of where we go with the other two. Kirill 01:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Mzajac can you mock up User:Mzajac/Infobox military conflict so it also has the belligerents like normal Gnevin (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Done myself here User:Gnevin/sandbox4 Gnevin (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In sandbox 4, we've now shrunk the item of interest in the "Commanders" field (the names of the commanders) and instead given priority to repeating the country names; I don't think that's a good idea. Kirill 01:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Is User:Gnevin/sandbox5 any better,it's basicly 4 with out small text Gnevin (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)?
Yes, that's much more readable. I'm still not sure whether it's really an improvement over icons, since we've removed them only at the cost of adding more lines of text. Kirill 02:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
To paraphrase MOSICON words are clear, Here is an example from above with out extra lines User:Gnevin/sandbox1 but I prefer 5 of all the mocked up example we've created so far. If you have any idea to improve the layout create a example or suggest it here and i can attempt to mock it up Gnevin (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military history of Australia during World War II now open

The A-Class review for Military history of Australia during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FAR notification for Władysław Sikorski

I have nominated Władysław Sikorski 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

USMA up for FAC

United States Military Academy is up for WP:FAC. Please go comment on the the nomination. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A-class review of Capture of Fort Ticonderoga

The A-Class review for Capture of Fort Ticonderoga is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Magic♪piano 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) now open

The peer review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 20:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

submarines General Sanjuro and General Mola

Archimede class submarine and Spanish submarine C-3 contradict each other, the first says that Archimede was renamed General Sanjuro and Torricelli was renamed General Mola, whilst the latter says that Archimede was renamed General Mola and Torricelli was renamed General Sanjuro. This contradiction requires attention. (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska class cruiser and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Iowa (BB-61) are in need of a few additional editors to review and comment on the FACs. Any help anyone can provide would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yamato now open

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yamato is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading complete for Frederick Bianchi, Duke of Casalanza - please revise rating

I have completed the revision of the article above, which was rated a stub before my revision. I believe the in-line referencing I've provided should suffice to improve its rating.
Thank you for reconsidering the article and updating the classification.
--Campelli (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For future references, WP:MHA is the specific page we have here for requesting rating changes. :) Thanks for helping improve out knowledge! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review backlog

We currently have a large backlog of A-Class review articles that need reviewing. Anybody with any spare time is kindly requested to help review the articles against the A-Class criteria and comment accordingly. Any help given is most appreciated. Thanks and regards, Woody (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of articles needing review

Army of Sambre and MeuseQuebec AgreementCommissioner GovernmentJohn GlennBrian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of OakridgeHelicopter 66SMS HessenMarcianYeomanry CavalryGordian dynastyNeil ArmstrongDonald Forrester BrownL 20e α-class battleshipEmanuel MoravecJapanese battleship HyūgaAvar–Byzantine warsJørgen Jensen (soldier)

As a note, it doesn't take many reviews to earn the content review medal ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally I'd have reviewed all of these, but I've been more busy than normal in the past couple of weeks. I'll try to squeeze in a couple soon. – Joe Nutter 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Horses in warfare

Horses in warfare is getting a makeover, in preparation for a run at FAC: see Talk:Horses in warfare. --Una Smith (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome support because it seems like only Fayssal and me represent the military part among equestrians. There's an ongoing discussion with an example of a new article structure here. This seems a rather radical step and I'd like to hear more opinions. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apres moi le deluge, Kh-31 and other missiles

Hey guys. I've rewritten Kh-31 which was a bit of a mess and taken it as far as I can go - apart from one or two minor fact checks, it must be close to GA if someone fancies it. It's also eligible for WP:DYK nomination - there's lots of worthy facts that you could use, but mention of "AWACS killer" might catch the attention of the average anglophone. :-)

Just wandering around the missile articles it seems that there's a lot of scope for tidying up - just things like standardising the introduction (formatting of NATO names etc) and doing infoboxes where they're missing would be a good start. Plus the naming of the articles is a bit random. Obviously weapons from non-anglophone don't get as much attention on as they could, but I'd make the comment that in general the Russian ones tend to suffer more from disinterest, whereas the Chinese ones tend to suffer from a bit of "overenthusiasm" at the expense of WP:RS - and most could do with a firm copyediting to translate them from Chinglish. There does seem to have been a bit of sorting out recently though.

Another thing, I came across a copy of the Brickhill book recently and it occurs to me that with Peter Jackson remaking The Dam Busters (film) there's scope for some Wikilove on all things to do with No. 617 Squadron RAF as a medium-term project - I've done some sorting on Operation Paravane and Operation Obviate (and will knock off Catechism in time) but it would eg be nice to have some "proper" maps showing RAF Woodhall Spa, Lossiemouth, Yagodnik and the Tirpitz etc. (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request on DCEETA

Notification of a peer review request for DCEETA in an effort to garner alternate opinions on the current poor quality and approaches to improvement.

ALR (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

An AfD might be more appropriate: that article is a total mess, covers a dubious topic and is nothing but a collection of weasel words. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that the article has been previously deleted, and this was upheld in a DRV. While it appears the the content is different, the article still fails WP:BOLLOCKS. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree - I don't think it warrants CSD G4, but it certainly appears that a verifiable, neutral article that is free of original research and synthesis is not doable on this topic, so perhaps another visit to AfD might be appropriate (and then as Tom suggests on the PR page, a salting)? EyeSerenetalk 08:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) The peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/DCEETA/archive1 Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been hacking at this for a while and trimmed it down to this, which was the best I could do. At that it may justify merging to Ft Belvoir, or to NRO, although I'm unconvinced that one SGS is all that notable. I've been wary of trying for a delete as given the length of the talk page, and the amount of traffic trying to trim down the article there are many who will find a reason to keep it. I'd tend to agree with Tom, salt it.
ALR (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've renominated it at AfD here. EyeSerenetalk 12:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 18:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) now open

The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Leonard G. Shepard now open

The peer review for Leonard G. Shepard is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD input on naming needed

Some help is needed in the discussion for renaming of Category:Royal Navy sailors. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Ship Gun Fire Control Systems now open

The peer review for Ship Gun Fire Control Systems is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-20 class submarine now open

The A-Class review for U-20 class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Systematic violation of Wikipedia:ENGVAR in World Wars articles

It strikes me that articles such as Military history of Australia during World War II should use Australian English (mutatis mutandis), and thus Second World War, as per Strong national ties to a topic. The Canadian equivalent has already been moved, so I'm obviously not the first person to notice. (Arguably this may extend to other languages such as French and Spanish which use the British formulation as well—Spain in World War II, Vichy France, etc.—but this may be a gray area with respect to policy.) Usage in battles or campaigns should be determined by the national combatants; again, in accordance with my interpretation of the policy, there's no reason for Commonwealth efforts such as East African Campaign (World War II) or a Franco-British affair such as Battle of France to adopt American English terminology throughout. Albrecht (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see anything 'systematic' about this... are you saying someone has been deliberately going round these articles and changing them to an inappropriate variant of English? If not, I suggest you take the matter up on each article's talk page, and don't do anything rash in the mean time. The Land (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No. To my mind, "systematic" has no conspiratorial connotation, and at any rate none was intended. Use "categorical" if you prefer. I think these articles were simply named in accordance with the parent article (World War II, not Second World War), but I still think it's inappropriate. Albrecht (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
(Maybe you mean systemic, “of the system”) I'll agree with you. Correcting this is just part of the normal polishing up of articles. But it's a subtle point, so be sensitive to editors who may not be aware of it. Michael Z. 2009-01-29 17:54 z
I'm Australian and I don't tend to use "Second World War" in print; I've always prefered "WWII" (or World War II). What's the Australian War Memorial's stance on the subject? I'd consider them the official authority on the subject... Commander Zulu (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(Without wanting to push this too far, I'm awfully sure I meant systematic: "marked by thoroughness and regularity <systematic efforts>") You'll agree, I hope, that our personal preferences haven't the slightest bearing on the national terminology actually used in our countries. But in the event, the Australian War Memorial does of course use First World War and Second World War. Albrecht (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, well, in that case, it makes sense to ensure that's the terminology in the article as well. Jolly good! :) Commander Zulu (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to go berserk and collaborate on USS Connecticut (BB-18) with me?

Would anyone like to collaborate on this article this weekend and nominate it for FAC on Sunday or very early next week? I want to get it on the main page for the centennial of the Great White Fleet on 22 February, but I don't think that I have the time to write a full article, only about half maybe (I hate homework...I liked writing papers better lol). I suppose that if I hadn't procrastinated life away and written a section a weekend, I could have done it, but I didn't. :( Thanks everyone, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a frantic effort to the page Great White Fleet up to FA standards offline, although I'm not sure I will make it for the same reason. At any rate, I'd like to help (if you don't mind, that is). TomStar81 (Talk) 05:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Would I be asking for help if I minded? :P
Connecticut would be easier to get to FA than the Great White Fleet article IMHO - less to write, less broad topic, etc...and I have a book about the ship... ;D —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started the rewrite. If anyone can help, please do. Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Morotai now open

The peer review for Battle of Morotai is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Largest battles in history?

Hi there Military history buffs. Recently the list of largest gatherings in history was moved to List of largest peaceful gatherings in history because battles were not included. I thought it would be great to link that page to a list of the largest battles, but so far I haven't been able to find any such list or article. Ideas anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The closest I found was List of battles by casualties... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We've got Largest naval battle in history, and I could've sworn we had a land battle equivalent somewhere—I know I read through it at one point a while back. Maybe it got deleted/merged? Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It might make sense if it has been - this strikes me as one of those topics it's wiser to leave uncreated ;) EyeSerenetalk 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It probably is; the naval battle article seems to have problems with OR. Parsecboy (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and I don't think we're so short of places where readers can be told the truth that we need to manufacture more :P EyeSerenetalk 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be pretty hard to define what the largest battle is. For instance, would the millions of civilians who were in the firing line during the Battle of Berlin and Siege of Leningrad be included? Moreover, how would campaigns be treated? I personally suspect that the opening days of Operation Barbarossa would be the biggest battle in history, but others would regard it as being a series of battles. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, tough questions. I guess this issue is unresolved/unknown. Nice to see a WikiProject with so many active participants though...Beeblebrox (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it could be doable if we're very specific (Largest tank battle, Largest seaborne invasion etc), because such things can be sourced but yes, as it's framed I think there is no answer. Sorry! EyeSerenetalk 10:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem with this is that we would also need the largest Legion battle, the largest Phalanx battle, the Largest Elephant cavalry battle; etc; or otherwise run the risk to end up with only 20th century battles. Arnoutf (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is one of definition: before the 20th Century, battles were well-delineated things in which two armies turned up in a small area and slugged it out for a day or so until one side was defeated. In the days of continuous fronts in the 20th Century a battle is an active phase in continuous warfare, and doesn't really mean the same thing. Some "battles" are campaigns, sieges or operations. It should be relatively easy to come up with the largest field battle of pre-1914. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Mole Cricket 19 now open

The peer review for Operation Mole Cricket 19 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant this instead, it's listed as an ACR, not a PR: == A-Class review for Operation Mole Cricket 19 now open ==

The A-Class review for Operation Mole Cricket 19 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe Nutter 15:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - whoops! Thanks for fixing this. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone announcements

Hello there members of WikiProject Military History! As one of the most active and fastest expanding WikiProjects, I would really like your comments and help regarding a bot I'm designing. In essence, the idea is to reinvigorate the Wikipedia Announcements page by letting a bot do all the hard work. All the respective WikiProjects will have to do is to let me know:

  • that they want milestones their project has reached to appear on the page
  • what indicator the bot should used for "counting" the number of articles
  • what those milestones should be

Although it's only at early stage, it would be great to be able to get a few projects onside (or not) for now, and get their details so dry-runs can be carried out. So, what about it? (I will be watching this page, but still best to ping my user to let me know you've replied.)

Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Reptile (Mortal Kombat) now open

The peer review for Reptile (Mortal Kombat), an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Scope #8

It is not clear to me how to read Wikipedia:MILHIST#Scope. I am believe War memorial locations like Lafayette Square, Buffalo are part of the project, but I am not sure that peace memorials like Fountain of Time are part of the project. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a memorial celebrating the end of of the war of 1812, so I guess it is legitimately within scope Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Scope #5 covers it explicitly but I guess I agree with Viv. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Military fiction

I notice there's a war films task force, is there a more general military fiction task force? (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but there's one for Military biography. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We announced our ongoing quest for a logo for "The Bugle" a while back. Bellhalla has come up with the goods and you'll see the fruit of his labour at the head of the next edition. In the meantime, thanks very much, Bellhalla, for your help with what was proving an impossible task. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WWI campaign confusion

Looking over the WWI campaign articles, I found two (Sinai and Palestine Campaign and Mesopotamian campaign) that seem to be much the same. Thing is, I'm not a huge expert on that conflict, and the articles are quite barebones. Do we have any experts of WWI who could inform me of the difference between the two (if there is one)?

Sinai and Palestine very briefly involves the British defence of Egypt and then the offensive to take Palestine and Syria. Mesopotamia involved the British in India invading present-day Iraq, attempting to take Baghdad (leading to the surrender at Kut-el-Amara) then trying again in 1917 and succeeding. Very different campaigns, not least because of the geography involved. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, they were totally separate campaigns. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Iraq War templates

On nearly all of the pages for the battles of the Iraq War, there is an ongoing revert war over what campaign box to use. One option is

while the other is the generic

(which has a link to the former template). The user putting forth the second option is claiming consensus, but there are at least three users (including myself) who prefer the former choice (therefore negating the "consensus" claim). Which option should we be using? Where should this discussion be taking place? How can we resolve this issue if there is still disagreement? Are there other alternatives to the two current options? Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, would opt for the battles template but is there an issue putting both on if it is causing that much of a problem?-Kieran4 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone remember why we split the templates in the first place? Now that we have a dedicated "|notes=" field to use as a campaignbox footer, could we potentially combine them into a single campaignbox again (as at right, for example), or is there some fundamental reason to retain two? Kirill 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid the decision was made a bit before my time. However, your idea sounds alright. It would be nice to somehow change the list of battles under the horizontal rule as you switch say from "Invasion" to "Civil War", filtering out the battles which apply to that period. One idea I had was to create a "Invasion" template which only listed the battles of the invasion (March to May 2003) but this idea would work much better I think, as long as the periods can be easily delineated. As for having both of the templates on the page, I think the primary problem is the lack of consensus and the revert war currently going on. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the detailed one that lists all the operations could be used on pages about those operations, while the more general one could be used for other, related topics that aren't directly military operations? – Joe Nutter 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my original post. The pages for (nearly all) the battles and operations are the subject of the ongoing revert war. I'm not sure about the other pages. While it seems to make sense to put the detailed "Battles and Operations" template on the pages about the battles, one user doesn't seem to agree. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yoweri Museveni

I have nominated Yoweri Museveni 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)