Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members

Widespread sockpuppet disruption - Falklands War, Italian World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, and Malayan Campaign[edit]

The fol SPI case (now closed) highlights the existence of widespread sockpuppet disruption across a range of areas including the Falklands War, Italian related World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, Battle of Dunkirk, and the Malayan Campaign (especially the Battle of Singapore), and others - pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimSala/Archive. These accounts have been in use at various different times mostly in the last few years although some date back to 2010, indicating that much of this disruption is now unlikely to be able to be undone. Perhaps more disturbing is the likelihood of there being other accounts (and possibly new ones). The main accounts confirmed (and blocked) are listed below (there were also a number of stale users and IPs that couldn't be confirmed but were likely and have also be tagged but not listed below):

I hesitate to just undo all their edits (where that is even possible) as some appear to be helpful; however, given there is obviously several agendas being advanced here there are definite POV concerns as well. Is anyone interested in assisting to review the contributions of these (now blocked) editors and attempting to deal with any issues that become apparent? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at 100menonmars, I remember them, and they definitely crossed over into my area of expertise. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Me too, there seems to be some mischief on the Operation Compass page.Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Great work in uncovering this problem Anotherclown. The cleanup task is obviously now non-trivial... Are there any particular articles which you think should be priorities? Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Keith-264:, @Farawayman:, @Rich Farmbrough:, @GraemeLeggett: and @EnigmaMcmxc: - FYI I think some of these guys may have edited in areas which you have some knowledge in also. Any chance you might also be able to look over some of their edits too pls? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Also if editors working in these areas could also be on the look out for the reappearance of this editor (under a new name of cse) that would be appreciated. They have a fairly distinct style (as per the SPI) so should be fairly easy to spot unless they change their habits (obviously a distinct risk now due to the evidence presented at the SPI though I'd think). Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

List of articles affected[edit]

I think this is most of them. Some are far more affected than others (and some of the edits date back years so have probably been written over / changed over time) - Anyway I will attempt to prioritize them shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gee, you weren't joking about this person having an axe to grind. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this so far. I'm done for the evening now so will have to come back to this tomorrow. If others are interested in assisting, once you have checked / fixed an article pls mark it as done and I'll try and get to whats left. Unfortunately though some articles really look like the edits are so far ingrained that it may take an expert to review them. Not too many of them around either. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
While I have conversed with this editor, if memory serves, Operation Brevity is the only article that we crossed paths editing. His edits were verified and integrated into the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
With regard to articles dealing with the Italian war effort, such as the Italian-Greek War and North Africa, etc, there is a deeper malaise here. Perhaps certain editors are so frustrated by being blocked, they are resorting to these tactics. If you really want to get to the root of the problem, then perhaps a bit of soul-searching and asking the hard questions about what is wrong with many of the articles dealing with the Italian war effort. Until some hard questions are asked, the problem of sockpuppet disruption will not go away. AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I looked at one article, which is a mess anyway, and most of the sock edits had been reverted by ClueBot.
I realised when looking at Compass that I had copied a version into a sandbox, in the hope that the mass of trivia being added would stop and I could put it back. As for Annales' point, the Italians are often a bit anonymous in Anglophone writing, like the Canadians in Normandy but it's not easy to find decent sources in English that aren't extortionately expensive.... unless someone knows better?Keith-264 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The British, Kiwi, and Oz OH seem a sound starting point. I used them to ref the 70 Div article in regard to Tobruk and they seemed quite balanced and fair avoiding stereotypes and slander.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've got them but it's the IOH I want....Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, that would be a real boon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've taken a look at Invasion of Sicily and Battle of Kasserine Pass, and there has been substantial editing by 100menonmars, all of it glorifying the Italian contributions. What's the call on this stuff? GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this. At the very least the massive block quotes in the notes are excessive so I'd remove those in their entirety simply on that basis alone. (This seems to common for many of this editor and their sock's contributions, with lengthy quotes often detailing / highlighting quite minor episodes in an unencylopeadic manner.) Depending on the quality of the sourcing we might keep some of the other material (although I think Lulu is self published so maybe we might need to be careful keeping that too). Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm dealing with the Italian military formations. Just done the 17th. A strange thing about the blockquotes. They are screamingly out of synth with the information given in mainspace! I am increasingly leaving the blockquotes but rewriting the supporting mainspace narrative so they support what the sources actually report. Amazing. To me it just shows a sign of deep insecurity. Here, 3 hour stands are turned into stunning victories. Sorry, but that is just a halfway decent unit earning it's rations. Will crack on Irondome (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Made a start on Battle of GreeceKeith-264 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Differences in naming convention[edit]

Hi, back in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles with the summary "Name comes before hull or pennant number or disambiguation. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming articles about military ships." It appears that such a convention applies chiefly to American and British ships, as those that serve in the Russian and Soviet Navies follow a different naming convention, with the name following the pennant number eg "K-141 Kursk". This convention appears to have been adopted by several other navies as well. Should the moves be kept as they are, or should they be reverted? Has there been a significant oversight on my part? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that for Soviet/Russian submarines, that " K-xxx" is a Pennant or Hull number - its more like an alternative name , with some subs only having a number. For Soviet/Russian SURFACE ships, the pennant number (as painted on the ship's side) would be unsuitable for use as a disambiguator anyway as they were noted as changing very frequently.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard[edit]

Hi all, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some very significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost‍ '​s 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I just voted - the procedure is certainly painless, and I learned a fair bit about the role of the Wikimedia Foundation and hot issues across different Wikimedia projects. Thanks for the note Ed. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem—thanks for voting! Perhaps after this election's (hopefully) high participation we'll all be listened to. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Korean question[edit]

Would Draft:US aerial bombardment of North Korea merit a separate article or be better suited for Korean_War#Aerial_warfare? Thanks for your help, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Couple of notes to consider:
  • I would tone down the language a little. It's too hyperbolic and conversational. "Leveled" the peninsula, "massive" hydro electric facility. The bombing did not in fact level the peninsula. There are still large mountainous areas. While it is technically literally a massive facility (as opposed to one constructed out of massless photons), massive is a euphemism for large. An encyclopedia should use the word, not the euphemism. Wording like this is sprinkled throughout.
  • It's absolutely ok to use hyperbolic language like "veritable mass productions of death", as long as they are quotes attributed to a WP:RS. The hyperbole should not be "said" by Wikipedia.
  • Take out statements of opinion that exceed the bare facts. "However, the American campaign quickly exceeded the strategic; US leaders intended on crushing North Koreans’ morale." Well, the thing is...that doesn't actually exceed strategic bombing. That is precisely what strategic bombing is. Demoralizing the enemy and inspiring public outcry to end hostilities is kindof the point.
  • This is also seen in "As such, they leveled non-strategic targets such as schools, hospitals, agricultural land, and later the dams that provided power and water to the country". All of these targets have strategic value if the strategy is to destroy infrastructure and morale, which again, is exactly the strategy.
  • Simply put (and this seems to be an overarching premise of the article, and should be excised), strategic bombing in Korea was not quintessentially or qualitatively different than strategic bombing in other wars. WWII was worse than WWI. Korea was worse than WWII. Vietnam was worse than Korea. What you are seeing here is the progression of technology. The basic nature of morale bombing (if it's you) or terror bombing (if it's the enemy), has been the same ever since the first blimp dropped hand grenades on London. We just got "better" at it.
  • Consider a name change to Strategic bombing during the Korean War. Aerial bombardment is a very 19th century term (see wording at the Hague Conference). The modern military term is Strategic Bombing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that you are not the author of this article. I will post my previous comment on the talk page for the draft. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there two "Wilhelm Brandt" tank warfare officers (Chaco War and WWII) or same person?[edit]

I wanted to work up a stub on Wilhelm Brandt, who was a tank commander for the Bolivian army during the Chaco War. But looking up that name, I'm finding a Wilhelm Brandt who wrote about armored warfare in the 1920s, and during/before WWII desiged Waffen SS camouflage. I'm unable to suss out whether in between those phases he was mucking around in Bolivia, or whether these are two different people of similar name who both happen to be involved with tanks. Any input? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: or @23 editor: this is a bit out of your normal topic area, but maybe you'll be able to help? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Not me, but maybe @MisterBee1966:. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry, I have no clue MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
They were one and the same person. The Germans had a military mission to Bolivia, which allowed them to play with tanks outside the Treaty of Versailles. Apparently he talks about his experiences in Bolivia in his books. [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Added some background data on Brandt to the article. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Awesome, thanks for your help! I've been meaning to write an article on that guy for like 5 years since I saw passing mention of the names of a few foreign tank instructors in the Chaco War in an Osprey Book. A few colorful characters drifted down for that one... This project always has some amazing experts emerging for the nichest questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

removing disambiguators[edit]

FYI, a bunch of military units have been requested at WP:Requested moves to have their disambiguators removed speedily

  • 2nd Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 2nd Mounted Brigade
  • 4th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 3rd Mounted Brigade
  • 17th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 17th Mounted Brigade
  • 18th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 18th Mounted Brigade
  • 19th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 19th Mounted Brigade
  • 20th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 20th Mounted Brigade
  • 21st Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 21st Mounted Brigade

If this hasn't been already processed, they will show up in a listing at WP:RMTR from this [2] request -- (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This was done without reference to WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES. They were technically moved, but I believe that was done incorrectly. In some cases, there are Canadian formations with the same title, and in others, the formation actually had another name for the last two years of the war (often as a Cyclist Brigade). Not sure what the requester thought they were doing, but someone who is interested in British Home Army formations of WWI should probably check them all. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
For the units where a Canadian unit shares the same name, a new WP:RMTR can be requested to revert the speedy change on the basis of there being other units sharing the same name. (or someone could just press the move button) -- (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if you read the MILMOS, these should be at their last name, usually a Cyclist Brigade. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you didn't do mass technical moves when they might well be controversial. RM is the way to do it. That ensures the community has a good look at it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You'd need to ping the person who requested the technical moves for them to read that. -- (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what the requester thought they were doing
I requested the removal of the disambiguators in the honest belief that they were redundant. It has since been pointed out Talk:4th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) by @Peacemaker67: that this was a mistake and I accept this. I note the recommendations in the style guide WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces. I did not reasonably expect another 2nd, 4th, 17th, ... Mounted Brigade. A google search did not show up anything, though in fairness, I did not think to search for Canadian "4th Mounted Brigade".
As to renaming the articles to nth Cyclist Brigade - that has other issues that I am happy to discuss with Peacemaker67. Hamish59 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across as blunt. People do say that about me. I'll talk to Hamish about some options. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Input from project solicited for RM Construction battalion (disambiguation)[edit]

Member of this project are invited to participate in a requested move discussion that would benefit from this project's knowledge at: Talk:Construction battalion (disambiguation) --Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Mutiny on the Bounty peer review[edit]

This is just a note to let members of the project know that the important article Mutiny on the Bounty, on which Brianboulton and I have been working over the past month or so, is now up at peer review here, with a view to going to FAC afterwards. All comments welcome. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Military bases, facilities, or installations[edit]

The consensus of the editors at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11#Category:Military_facilities_of_the_United_States_in_Germany was to speedy large numbers of category changes from 'military facility'/'military base' to the 2010 recommendation of 'military installation.' The 2010 discussion was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_12#Military_bases_and_facilities, and there I requested that all the subcategories be moved as well. Some were (eg Category:Military installations by country), and some weren't. To do the remainder, I wrote a series of CfD Speedies. I tried to do this, but @Armbrust: consistently opposed every CfD Speedy that I've raised, on the basis that some of the subcategories mostly use the base or facility term. But the entire focus of my listings has been to standardize the entire category to the 2010 recommendation of 'installation.' I'm quite frustrated with this, and thus I have raised the matter here. I have invited Armbrust to put his point of view, because I cannot fully understand his reasoning at present. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Caliber nomenclature[edit]

How are larger calibers denoted? Is it "40mm grenade" or "40 mm grenade"? Also, is it "100mm gun" or "100 mm gun"? (This is a continuation of a discussion here). Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:MEASUREMENT. ie there is a space between. But if you use convert templates, they will do that for you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I have some self-reverts to perform. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
So does that apply to smaller calibers too? ("a 5.56mm rifle" or a "5.56 mm rifle"?) Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, although it gets a little more complicated if you're not abbreviating the unit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Requested move 17 May 2015[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Requested move 17 May 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

3rd opinion at US Invasion of Panama[edit]

An editor misread an article in Newsweek and is now trying to alter the infobox to reflect his contention that the US only had 4,500 troops in Panama and that the only units to participate in the invasion were the units flown in (such as the 82nd). In his version, units already there, such as the 193 Infantry Bde didn't participate. I've provided a considerable amount of reliable sources that refute this, but he has a massive case of WP:IDHT. Conversation is here [3]. Outside observations would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Three editors have weighed in on the issue. The discussion is now closed. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


OK I managed to add myself to the main list fine, but the Task Force itself not so much... Haha!

--Luis Santos24 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"4.5th generation" ?[edit]

Why are we adding the "th" after "4.5"? It's not as if we are pronouncing it "four point fifth", (which would actually be written as "4.2"). It's silly, needless and doesn't make sense. It should simply be "4.5 generation". As in, between the "fourth (4th) generation" and "fifth (5th) generation", is the "four point five (4.5) generation". Can we drop the "th"? - theWOLFchild 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The linked article uses "4.5th" for two specific usages of the term, one describing what language the US Government uses and the other in relation to a specific aircraft. So unless these statements in the article are incorrect, I see no reason to change them. (However, one has no citation, the other - which puts 4.5th in quotes - is cited to a dead link. Fifth-generation jet fighter uses it four times without citation. So, what the actual usage is in the context being used (and Google brings up both results) should be what is preferred in Wikipedia articles. I'm not as certain as you that "we" wouldn't say "four point fifth", but would think Americans would be more likely than Commonwealth citizens to use that term. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

3rd opinion at Operation Eagle Claw[edit]

Should the Iranian Commanders be listed in the Combat Infobox even though there was no direct combat between US and Iranian forces during the Iranian hostage rescue mission? Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Date format for articles on US military personnel[edit]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel? for a discussion on which date format should be preferred for articles on US military personnel. sroc 💬 09:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeating/appending-RFC on No Gun Ri[edit]

Request for Comment on No Gun Ri
Hi to all,
Once more, I am requesting a review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in part due to the intense feuding and debate over sources that has transpired on that page. If anyone were to volunteer, I would be very grateful.
GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I, for one, would welcome a peer review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in hopes the reviewers will prove to be intelligent, unbiased one way or the other about the U.S. military (and about Asian people), willing to put in the time necessary to understand the No Gun Ri story and the article (including reading the Talk archives back to August 2013, as GeneralizationsAreBad apparently has done), and cognizant of the fact that they themselves should independently review authoritative, professional sources on the subject.
Over the past 21 months, the article has become an example of the worst of Wikipedia. A single angry POV pusher, profoundly ignorant of the subject, has been allowed to make no less than 124 edits in a furious effort to minimize and excuse the mass killing of South Korean refugees by the U.S. military in 1950, a bloodbath confirmed by two governments and whose basic facts are enshrined in a museum and 33-acre memorial park at the site. While loading the article with countless falsehoods and purging it of crucial facts, he also turned it into an often incomprehensible mess.
The journalists and academics who know the subject well became disgusted long ago with a system that allows one deeply biased "editor" to revert, without discussion or explanation, every effort to restore established, well-sourced and important facts to the article, facts he killed out earlier. Appeals to WP administrators for help simply led to being sent from one forum to another, with admins either ignoring the appeals or saying they weren't up to dealing with this serious problem. Those of us who are expert on No Gun Ri then decided to let the article fester. This POV pusher's juvenile bullying approach to WP has antagonized and drawn disapproval from dozens of contributors elsewhere. (He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism). Perhaps the WP community would catch up with him, it was thought. This all is a sad commentary on WP's failures -- thus far.
I will shortly post separately at Talk: No Gun Ri Massacre, under the heading READER BEWARE, a litany, with diffs, of the incredible run of blanket reverts WeldNeck made over just one period of a few days to kill any effort to restore integrity and truthfulness to the article. I strongly urge all interested parties to study it. You'll see that in his frenzy he even attacks simple efforts to restore sense and syntax to the gibberish. (Whoops, just in: Sorry, but WeldNeck has now unilaterally deleted the posting at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre that listed the serial reverts and serious problems he has created with that article. Let's see what we can do.)
If appropriate disclipinary action isn't taken in this case, our hope is that peer reviewers with open eyes and clear heads, who background themselves adequately, might get this editor to calm down and face the facts of history. Many thanks. Charles J. Hanley 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

Diagrams of naval engagements?[edit]

Hello, is someone in this project skilled in drawing battle time lines? I was thinking that instead of something like this, the progression of both parties could be detailed in separate boxes until they clash. I have a diagram of the battle, but it comes from a copyrighted book, which is the reason why we need to handle it differently. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Proposed Supercarriers[edit]

An RFC has been posted at Talk:Supercarrier on whether to add a section, Proposed Supercarriers to the article [[[Supercarrier]]]. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Move Request[edit]

Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 25 May 2015

The above move request may be of interest to this group. WCMemail 22:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Describing gun size...[edit]

...can anyone remind me where the guidance is on the formatting of gun sizes (e.g. how we format a "9 lb gun", a "75 mm gun")? They don't normally make an appearance in my medieval work and I can't find the relevant pages! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917)[edit]

Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) Does anyone know what I have to do to make the collapsing table collapse rather than open automatically and have to be shut? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it....Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

problems with no TF template[edit]

I've been going through the assessment backlog and found a template problem I don't know how to deal with. First, in the "no task force" area, I'm finding several that have task forces but are still coming up on the no TF list. The common thread in these is that they redirect to another article. for example, Talk:Battle of Girard, Alabama redirects to the talk for the article of Battle of Columbus (1865), and has a TF associated. I suspect that the redirect was created without redirecting the talk page, BUT....I dont know how to fix this. Others: Talk:Middle Tennessee Campaign. Talk:Last Stand Hill. Slowly whittling away on the backlog!  ;) auntieruth (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that a talk page for a redirect should also be a redirect (just like what happens when you move a page -- unless you say no, the talk page becomes a redirect, too). So the MILHIST template on this page should just be replaced with a redirect template. In the case of a talk page with extensive contributions that isn't moved along with its main page, issues with licensing and copyright may occur. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Argentine dictator - copy editing request[edit]

Hello, Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the most famous Argentines in History, having ruled with an iron grip his home country for decades and engaged in several wars, including with the Empire of Brazil. The article is full ready to be nominated for FA, but I need to be sure that the writing is great. Is someone skilled at copy editing willing to take a look at the article? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)