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

Opinions please on USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the Mark 37 torpedo[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated deletions of sourced content describing the torpedo, from the boat article. [1] [2] [3]. No real explanation, simply that "that's about the Mk37, not Triton".

I'm no expert on US torpedoes, but AIUI, the use of the Mk 37 on Triton is significant. This was a break with WWII practice and a move from air bubble-launched free-running turbine-driven gyro-controlled torpedoes in favour of ASW swim-out electric torpedoes using two-phase passive then acoustic homing, and for these to be used as the primary (in this case only) weapon. This is significant. It's so significant that it should be explained within one article, not by having to navigate across articles.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Your thoughts sound reasonable, but I don't see any attempt to discuss this on Talk:USS Triton (SSRN-586). Now that we are aware of the dispute, perhaps opening a new section there would be helpful in resolving this. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that it's a significant change, but why is it important to the Triton? She wasn't any sort of hunter-killer submarine, not at her gigantic size. So she's arguably one of the subs to which the change is least important. It should be discussed in some detail on the torpedo's article, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
That's the gist of my objection. The change is about the Mk 37, not about Triton. Yes, the swim-out tube is significant; IDK where that belongs, but my feeling is, it fits better with the Mk37 than Triton (absent its own page, or more detail at torpedo tube). Yes, the change to wakeless & homing is significant; that's not about Triton, either. So why insist on it being on Triton‍ '​s page? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. I've started a section for discussion...)
I raised this here to garner new eyeballs who weren't already watching the Triton page. I'm not the one advocating the change, so why can't Trekphiler put forward their case on Talk:?
Not a hunter-killer? Well after the radar role (or even during), just what else was she? (Which is something of a theme for Triton's career) This was a self-contained self-defence capability against other submarines, not an attack capability against surface ships. Hence the Mk 37. In the early '60s though, this was one of the US' most capable SSKs, despite the size. She carried a sonar fitment in excess of almost any other boat (a fleet largely of rebuilt WWII GUPPYs). The Soviets had noisy boats with poor sonar that would still have had trouble finding even Triton. If this "wasn't any sort of hunter-killer" (broadly true by original intent), then it's significant that she was armed with such a strongly ASW torpedo that was of no use against the terrifying Sverdlov threat (Was this a thing in the US? It paralysed the RN with fear for years). The Mk 37 description needs expansion to clarify its capabilities, not just trainspottering a dry description. For another thing, were they even the wire-guided model at this time?
To understand these issues and a real understanding of Triton requires description not only of Triton herself, but of the context in which she was built. That includes the role, the threat, the rest of the new nuclear fleet at this time, and the weaponry chosen. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to look, you'd notice I didn't delete ref to the FY56 building program, tho I should have. Your desire for "context" is outside the bounds of the ship's page & belongs, IDK, on the USN page, or somewhere.
As for what "real understanding requires", I maintain it doesn't require intimate details of the weapons she carried or the Navy building program; that's what the links are for, & why there are linked pages under them. Otherwise, we'd be adding definitions of torpedo & conning tower & who knows what; would you defend that?
By appearances, you've become attached to these adds. Maybe you need to let it go. And maybe you should have taken this to Triton‍‍ '​‍s talk page first, instead of whining about what I'm doing (or not doing). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
What "adds"? I'm not even trying to change anything here, you're the one knocking out blocks of stable, sourced content from a GA and your only reasoning is to start blaming other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My only reasoning? Clearly, you haven't bothered to read anything I've written, here, in the edit summaries, or on Triton‍ '​s talk page. Which somehow doesn't surprise me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As Trekphiler says, he was not responsible for that removal of content from that article. I was. I have long been convinced that that article, as with most articles here written by User:Marcd30319, is bulging with irrelevant details which should be at the linked articles. It's simply not how this encyclopedia works. Articles should focus on the point, not sketch in huge amounts of background. The links are here exactly so that people can with one click read about an associated subject. These articles have a very high degree of repetition. So concentrate your ire on me for that one, User:Andy Dingley, not Trekphiler. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Neither of these changes are good, because they remove context for why Triton was built, and why it took the form it did. WP articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not simply a Top Trumps list of which is biggest. Both of these aspects could bear improvement, but both should remain in principle.
The FY 56 construction was the first "mass production" of nuclear submarines as part of developing a fleet, rather than untried proofs of the propulsion concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Having been mentioned in, although not invited to, this discussion, I am the individual who is most responsible for upgrading this article above the cut-and-paste of public domain content lifted verbatim from the U.S. Navy's online Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Triton was a unique and historic ship, and this article required a great deal of research, effort, and detail to capture this uniqueness and historical importance within the context of its era. In fact, a WikiProject Ships Barnstar from TomStar81 was bestowed to me in 2010 for being the first person on the English Wikipedia to have successfully guided a nuclear power fast attack submarine article to A-class status. This was no small accomplishment. If find comments suggesting my contributions to Wikipedia as "bulging with irrelevant details" to be contrary to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, as well as being very unwelcoming and very unfortunate. As a senior technical writer with a degree in history and extensive private and public sector experience, proper content management is a worthwhile goal as well as constructive criticism. I do strongly caution against a "my way or the highway" approach taken by some as a mean of back-door ownership. This strikes me as being anti-encyclopedic. Marcd30319 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Great thanks Marc it's good you've said your piece. That was the reason I marked up your username when I brought this up. I thought this matter needs discussion. While you and I disgree (greatly) on style, no-one can fault the volume of work you've done on a subject that might otherwise have remained uncovered. I do remain annoyed with the way you present things, but in truth, I tend also to think that you deserve more barnstars than you have already. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a fundamental disconnect here where some people think articles should be self-contained and others disagree, thinking that readers should have to click through to other articles. Both approaches can find support in WP:PERFECT, so can we agree to leave this article alone and work on others that are lacking key information? You're fighting the wrong battle, folks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you also Ed. You're reminding me of the contempt I feel for people who spend all their time arguing on talkpages rather than writing stuff. Your words have a great deal of truth in them. I will pursue this matter no further. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well said, ED17! And many thanks to Buckshot06, too!Marcd30319 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Buckshot06 and Marcd30319. You both do great work, and I'm glad to see that we can all walk away intact. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ...and Trekphiler blanks it all again... 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"...and Trekphiler blanks it all again..." I rv'd a restoration I maintain is unwarranted. I don't appreciate accusations of edit warring over one lousy edit, just because you happen not to like it. And you're so certain of your righteousness, & my guilt for everything wrong with the page, you can't even be bothered to look at the history. So what else is new? You've proven to be irrational about any edit I've made before, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:32 & 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Trekphiler's last reversion because a consensus had been reached (see ed17 above) to leave this article alone and to work on other articles that lack key information. In fact, I expressly re-wrote the reverted text to enhance its contextual relevance to the article. I hope we can move on as this article has hitherto been remarkable stable article. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Guys, this really is a content dispute, and as such should really be conducted on a relevant article talkpage rather than here. That way it won't be hard to find if it comes up again in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Consensus? I don't see a request to stop arguing as "consensus". Moreover, IIRC, the "consensus" edit was the one after the off-topic material was removed, not the one before it. However, since I expect to be in the minority (as usual), you may have whatever the hell you want at Triton‍ '​ page, for I won't be editing it ever again. I am sick of accusations of edit warring. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfC submission 01/10/15[edit]

See Draft:Jemima Warner. Thank you as always, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Focus, I've read Draft:Jemima Warner. I suggest a couple of things:
  1. Put your citations in the draft itself, not simply at the end of it. You've done this for a few, but not all of your paragraphs. Where you obtained your information for a particular statement is/might be important, especially if someone wants to find it.
  2. There should be a Military Person box on this. you can find these on Infoboxes
  3. The lead paragraph could be a bit longer, a bit more detailed.
  4. the Legacy section uses some "unencyclopedic" words
  5. One of your sources actually says the Rebecca Grief, not Jemima Warner, was the first of the casualties. This is the same one that says Jemima married again. I'd be interested in why this is discounted, and your other sources are considered "right".

It was actually not unusual for women to accompany their husbands in the military. Holly Mayer's book, Belonging to the Army documents the vast train of men and woman that accompanied the early modern army. auntieruth (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ANZAC War Memorial move discussion[edit]

Recently ANZAC War Memorial was cut & pasted here to the Anzac Memorial by a new editor A Martin (talk · contribs), who appears to have some connection with the memorial. This was reverted, and a discussion on the issue has been started here.

Prior to the move, A Martin (among other modifications) changed all mentions of "ANZAC" to "Anzac" here. With the summary:

"ANZAC corrected to Anzac", the previous summary was:
"Correction of errors based on consultation with Brad Manera, Anzac Memorial Head Curator. Addition of information about upcoming Anzac Memorial Centenary Project."

Back in February another new editor Aliakhim (talk · contribs) changed all mentions of "ANZAC War Memorial" to "ANZAC Memorial" i.e. removed all appearances of "War" from the name text, here. With the summary:

"The official name of this building is the ANZAC Memorial, not ANZAC War Memorial. It is a memorial to the men, or 'Anzacs' of the first AIF, not the war more generally."

Thus the text has changed from "ANZAC War Memorial" to "Anzac Memorial", just this year, while the page name has been "ANZAC War Memorial" since 07:30, 31 August 2004‎ when the page was created, over 11 years.
♦ Just mentioning this here for input from interested parties. For my part, I think It has always been commonly referred to as the "ANZAC War Memorial", ANZAC being an acronym. The Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) seems to agree with me, at least on one page.[4]. 220 of Borg 14:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

wikibabble: Person data is deprecated (translation: the person data template is no longer to be used)[edit]

Ok, so an editor and I have been going back and forth on the person data for Alexander Henning von Kleist (the nephew, not the field marshal). He keeps deleting it, saying it's deprecated, which means nothing to me. Apparently there was a massive discussion about this, and the template of person data is no longer needed or wanted. Would have been nice to know. Mr. B, did you know this? You write a lot of biographies too. Anyway, I waded through the the argument from last May in the Village Pump, and as far as I can tell, Wikipedia is part way through implementing it, but obviously not all the notifications telling us NOT to use it have gone out. Anyway, apparently we are to stop. So those of us writing/editing bios should take not. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I stopped when they started deleting them off my bios. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The decision can be found here. I should have cross-posted a notice about it. The bottom line is that it has been superseded by WikiData. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Should the Wikidata link be in place before deleting person data?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Specific input for article that was at A-class review[edit]

AustralianRupert previously gave a lot of helpful comments from A-class review at Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States.

I think the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States still has some major issues = it reads more like a manual or guide and not encyclopedic, doesn't read like a descriptive encyclopedic article.

And I think the issues AustralianRupert already mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States of:


I think these above issues are still the most obvious glaring areas where there could be significant improvements made.

Maybe someone from WP:MILHIST could leave some more specific comments about that, at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1 ?

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Would be helpful if some WP:MILHIST experienced editors could look into above, please? — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

HMS Nonsuch (D107)[edit]

Just discovered the article HMS Nonsuch (D107). It is very clearly just a copy-paste job (without attribution) from the article Type 1936A-class destroyer. What should be done? I don't think this should be kept, and when an article is written on that ship, it should probably be at German destroyer Z38. Manxruler (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was a new-to-Wikipedia test edit at a first article. The user has no other edits. CSD A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". — Maile (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Who should do that admin work, then? Manxruler (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Nonsuch (D107) is the discussion page. Add your comments there, and just let it go through the process. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

infobox service record[edit]

Service record

V Corps Observation Group
Western Front, France: 12 June-11 November 1918[1]

  • Sorties: 417
  • Combat missions: 279
  • Killed: 3
  • Wounded: 5
  • Missing: 1
  • Aircraft lost: 5 [2]
  • Enemy Aircraft shot down: 3[3]
  • Enemy Balloons shot down: 0[3]
  • Total Enemy Aircraft Destroyed: 3[3]
Service record
  • V Corps Observation Group
    Western Front, France: 12 June-11 November 1918[4]
    • Sorties: 417
    • Combat missions: 279
    • Killed: 3
    • Wounded: 5
    • Missing: 1
    • Aircraft lost: 5 [2]
  • Enemy Aircraft shot down: 3[3]
  • Enemy Balloons shot down: 0[3]
  • Total Enemy Aircraft Destroyed: 3[3]


  1. ^ Series "H", Section "O", Volume 29, Weekly Statistical Reports of Air Service Activities, October 1918-May 1919. Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, 1917–1919, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Gorrell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d e f Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, Series M, Volume 38, Compilation of Confirmed Victories and Losses of the AEF Air Service as of May 26, 1919
  4. ^ Series "H", Section "O", Volume 29, Weekly Statistical Reports of Air Service Activities, October 1918-May 1919. Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, 1917–1919, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

{{Infobox service record}} has a ship mode and a non-ship mode. The parameter |is_ship=yes forces the template to use <td>...</td> instead of <th>...</th> for the line-item headings. I have just implemented a change to ship infoboxen that allows generic unordered lists to render without the bullet points. The reasons for this are described at WT:SHIPS.

I have tweaked {{infobox service record/sandbox}} so that it has two sections: a ships section and a non-ships section. I don't think that I've broken anything as can be seen in the sandbox rendering at top of this discussion. The second version of that (with tweaks) is rendered in a ship infobox with |is_ship=yes (from 99th Aero Squadron).

It is my intention to update the live version of {{infobox service record}} from the sandbox. Before I do so, are there questions? Comments?

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the live template from the sandbox.

Trappist the monk (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Where's the archive for[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests please? Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no archive for the page other than the page history itself, since requests are removed once they've been addressed. Kirill [talk] 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue-water navies again[edit]

I may be mistaken, but I believe there was a consensus either here or at WT:SHIPS that we would not use blue-, green- or brown-water navy in the type field of infboxes on navy articles. User:Deepanshu DEL has been adding these to several navy articles, anlog with an IP that is presumably also this user, even after I've reverted additions. Does anyone know what the guideline or discussion on this is? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thread you're looking for. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! - BilCat (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War Content Fork Article - Anglo-French War (1778–83)[edit]

I wanted to make editors aware that it appears a content fork has been created to the American Revolutionary War article, entitled Anglo-French War (1778–83).XavierGreen (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submissions 05/10/15[edit]

Draft:SEEK IGLOO, Draft:436th Operations Support Squadron (436 OSS) and Draft:Francis C. Harrington. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I have doubts whether any Operations Support Squadron has notability independent of the Operations Group it is assigned to. This article talks about the squadron "airlifting" lots of things, which were actually airlifted by the airlift squadrons of the 436th Operations Group and its reserve affiliate group. Footnote three, which supports almost all the narrative in the article, links to the accomplishment of the 436th Airlift Wing, not the squadron. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Scottish Army In World War I: kicking around AFC for three years: valid topic or no?[edit]

This was first submitted in 2012, and the originator recently returned to AFC to resubmit it. Is this fundamentally a valid article, or is "Scottish" a non-definitive subcategory of the UK Army so far as WWI goes? Any help on either approving this article, or definitively stating that it's not a valid standalone topic, would be useful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I could see List of Scottish regiments participating in World War I being a viable list, but not the rest of it. Scottish units weren't like the Bavarian Army operating under a separate command, but integrated within the British Army; the prose section of this is basically "list of notable British army officers who served in the 1910s with connections to Scotland". ‑ iridescent 05:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Not a separate Army. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Any Japanese or Chinese reading editors about?[edit]

I've created the SS Kuroshio Maru article, which is about a tanker with a rather colourful history. It's lacking in details of her construction, which I suspect that Japanese souces will be able to provide (I'm about ja-minus 3). Chinese sources will likely be able to provide further detail re her requisitoning by Hong Kong in 1951 and the fallout therefrom. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:Cla68. You might want to contact him directly as I'm not sure how many people pay attention to pings any more. ‑ iridescent 18:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots, there aren't very many sources in English that go into the details of Japanese logistics ships of WWII. Books like The World's Merchant Fleets, 1939: The Particulars and Wartime Fates of 6,000 Ships by Roger Jordan and The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II by Mark Parillo are hit-and-miss, especially since the latter book may not apply since Kuroshio was a militarized tanker. There are a number of Japanese sources, such as the periodical Maru Special, that give information like this on Japanese ships, but I don't think that journal has published any of its content online. There are two online forums where experts on Imperial Japan reside and may be able to help you out: Tully's Prop 'n' Turret, the discussion forum for, which is already used as a source in the article, and J-Aircraft forum, which despite its name is a discussion board about anything related to the Imperial Japanese military. Finally, Pacific Wrecks might have some info or the regulars there might know where to steer you. They specialize in studying the movement of Japanese forces around the Pacific during the war. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Davidships, we now have a fuller description. Turns out she was misnamed in Lloyd's Register. Cla68, those books certainly sound interesting. Will see what I can do to get my hands on a copy. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

rfc on Battle of Britain.[edit]

I call interested parties to the following rfc. (Hohum @) 18:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Britain

Should the article have a 'Significance' section containg this sentence (or a similar one with the same meaning):

'Had Hitler achieved his objective that, "The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing", it would have removed Britain as an effective belligerent from the war'. 12:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation links for MILHIST[edit]

Hi! We have a contest over at WP:DPL to fix disambiguation links. These are links asking you whether the Battle of Farmington was in Mississippi (1862) or Tennessee (1863). We have a tool (Dab solver) that makes it simple to update these links, accessible from the FIX links. The Military History project has 2,800 articles in this month's challenge.

Don't be afraid to create redirects or make redlinks for notable subjects, Wikipedia is far from being comprehensive. WP:The Daily Disambig shows the overall project's progress. Cheers, — Dispenser 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Total Confederate forces at Malvern Hill[edit]

Some sources list the actively engaged Confederate troops, which may have been around 35,000 (I need to research whether sources agree); on the other hand, other sources list the troops at hand, which was a number closer to 55,000. Question to MilHist experts: which figure goes in the infobox, in the summary paragraphs, etc.? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That IP that I reverted reversed the outcome before changing the numbers. Are you the IP?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, not me. If other facts were disturbed, then it might be vandalism, but it would be odd if a vandal accidentally hit precisely on a gray area. Anyhow, I'll keep thinking about this. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Military history Showcase[edit]

Military history Showcase is an outdated list that was manually updated by the person who created it. It hasn't been updated since 2012, and GAs have a section but no individual listings. Is there a chance this could be revamped and automated with bots? — Maile (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

978th Military Police Company[edit]

I've just seen this article crop up 978th Military Police Company

Are military companies notable enough for individual articles? Gavbadger (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) - Edited again for spelling Gavbadger (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If and only if they receive coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:GNG has more. In this case I don't see any sources at all, so I doubt this particular case is notable enough for its own article. It should probably be nominated for deletion (not speedy deletion though). Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Will do, thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree, an article for a company-sized sub-unit would be rare due to the GNG need to have multiple reliable sources independent of the subject with enough detail. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/722nd_Ordnance_Company_(United_States) and later discussions, including regarding 575th Sigs Company, separate non-combat companies are not considered notable. They should actually all be listed for deletion. The 507th Maint Company due to all its mentions meets GNG though. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of merging recently created content fork[edit]

France in the American Revolutionary War has been the subject of two recent move requests (Requested move 29 January 2015, Requested move 20 August 2015), both of which have failed. Perhaps frustrated by the failure to move, but undeterred from purpose, new User:AdjectivesAreBad chose to build the created redirect into its own article. France in the ARW is a legitimate topic, has existed since 2005, and deserves improvement. Newly created Anglo-French War (1778–83) is a clear content fork, and should be deleted and redirected (or perhaps merged) to the France in the American Revolutionary War pagespace. I encourage interested editors to visit the merge discussion here. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ANZAC War Memorial[edit]

Someone has been changing "ANZAC" to "Anzac" and did a cut and paste move to "Anzac" (since reverted). See talk:ANZAC War Memorial and the request for text reversion to ANZAC -- (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Operation Wotan[edit]

I'm not a subject matter-expert, but I looked around for some sources and I'm inclined to agree with users Angusmclellan and Pyutk that the operation is, at a minimum, inaccurately described, and more likely entirely fictional - I can't find any other references, and the article includes information from the linked alternate history timeline which is clearly inconsistent with other articles about what Kesselring and Kleist were doing at this time - and yet it's linked from the main Battle of Moscow, WW2 articles all over the place, and has been translated into Russian and Chinese. Can someone confirm and AfD? Willhsmit (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II appears to be speculative.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I put it up at afd for input. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Chanced to see this in passing, curious enough to look at it. Don't know anything about the subject, not sure about the article, but I do note that it was created by User:Brandmeister (old) which will automatically have received an afd notice but which hasn't been active since 2010, so this post pings Brandmeister which I take it is the current instance. Apologies if Brandmeister already knows by other means. Stanning (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lockheed AC-130[edit]

As you may have heard, an U.S. AC-130 bombed an MSF hospital recently. An editor assumed that that implied the USAF was responsible for the attack. Could somebody confirm whether the USAF is the only branch of the U.S. military which flies AC-130s, at least in Afghanistan? Even if you do know, is it WP:OR to make the inference? FourViolas (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@FourViolas: The only operators of the AC-130 and its variants are the US Air Force, so if it was an AC-130 on a US directed airstrike, it would've been an Air Force bird. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! And this is obvious enough (to knowledgeable people) that it isn't OR? My search for "kunduz hospital "air force"" only pulls up WP so far. FourViolas (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@FourViolas:Wouldn't be OR since the only operators are the USAF, so in the absence of proof to the contrary it can be reasonably inferred that this is a USAF flub-up. If that article had a rating at or above B then it could be an issue, but I don't see that as an issue at present since the article is still developing. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Audie Murphy plane crash article should be renamed[edit]

Audie Murphy plane crash was just created by Samf4u. It was not Murphy's plane, and he wasn't the only passenger who died. I suggest a renaming of the article, but I don't know what. Any suggestions? — Maile (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming we really need the page (I would lean to a merge with Audie Murphy), I think "Aero Commander 680 Super crash" fits the general syntax of crash page names.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)[edit]

Greetings. I am curious whether the Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) article is eligible for GA status since the battle is ongoing.--Catlemur (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)