Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The October newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge • Khalji Revolution • Teddy Wynyard • Siege of Breteuil Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. • Project Pluto Peer reviews 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Chunj • War of the Antiochene Succession Good article nominees Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • Mongol invasion of Khorasan • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Charles the Bold • James Alexander Ulio • Central Powers • Short Sunderland in New Zealand service • Te Pōrere Redoubts • Aromal Chekavar • Edward W. Gantt • Tumu Crisis • 1838 Mormon War • Mseilha Fort • Breton Civil War, 1341 Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Haile Selassie Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,990) • only work on referencing and citation (43,222) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,452) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,913) • work on structure (31,923) • only work on structure (339) • work on grammar (8,182) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (33,002) • only work on supporting materials (1,290) • assessment (15) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (3) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (6) • task forces added (1) • attention to task force coverage (654)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2017 now open!

Military historian of the year 2017

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominations

• Auntieruth55: since a hiatus during which I believe she became a published author, Ruth has returned to continue to continue her incredible work related to the Seven Years' War and other topics. Her contributions this year include at least 81 article submissions to the writing contest, many of which have been promoted to FA status. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Borsoka: Over the years Borsoka has produced an enormous output of articles on medieval history, most notably subjects concerning his homeland Hungary. Those include around 60 Good Articles and a single Featured Article. Helping shed light on an important period of European history while Wikipedia keeps struggling with WP:RECENTISM.--Catlemur (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Cinderella157 Gave me a run for my money on the review of Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign. Recent work includes Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Junayd of Aydın. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Iazyges: Has made numerous improvements to articles about German naval vessels, such as Z1 Leberecht Maass and Z39. In addition, he has played a role in the promotion of many military history articles to GA and A-class. SpartaN (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Indy beetle: Has been around since January 2016 and has produced four featured articles and three good articles in that time, as well as numerous other solid contributions. A good example of their work is Operation Grandslam. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kges1901: Kges has dominated the Writing Contest throughout the year, producing a staggering 143 articles through November, mostly on topics relating to the Red Army during World War II, though he has not been afraid to branch out into other topics as well. One of our most prolific content creators seems to be an obvious candidate. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Parsecboy: a strong content contributor, Parsecboy has had an incredibly prolific year, producing at least 65 articles as part of the writing contest, many of which have progressed through GAN, ACR, or FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• PBS: From what I can tell, PBS has created over 1,400 articles, many of which are history-related, but doesn't appear to have ever received a nomination for a MHOTY award in the past 9 award years. As such, I think he's long overdue being nominated for his continued efforts in creating and updating content for the project. — Marcus^(talk) 19:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67: Responsible for at least 14 A-class articles this year, as well as at least 12 featured articles, countless good articles and at least one good topic across a broad range of topics including biographies of military personnel, battles, ships and aircraft. In addition, PM has continued to help out as a co-ord and admin. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pennsy22: I've noticed his willingness to tackle large amounts of work on relatively obscure subjects, such as pre-World War I naval guns and Liberty ships. RobDuch (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• TomStar81: A stalwart of the project who has been around since 2004. Tom has had a hand in quite a few featured articles on battleships and has also played a pivotal role in keeping the project going, working behind the scenes as a co-ordinator and administrator. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2017.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Auntieruth55

1. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
4. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
6. Catlemur (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
7. Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
8. —Ed!^(talk) 02:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Borsoka

1. SpartaN (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Catlemur (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Cinderella157

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Iazyges

1. Pennsy22 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. SpartaN (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Indy beetle

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kges1901

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Parsecboy

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Pennsy22 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
4. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• PBS

1. — Marcus^(talk) 07:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67

1. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. — Marcus^(talk) 07:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
3. SpartaN (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
5. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
6. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
7. Anotherclown (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
8. —Ed!^(talk) 02:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pennsy22

• TomStar81

1. Pennsy22 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Zawed (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Euryalus (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
4. —Ed!^(talk) 02:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2017 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2017

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominations

• Brown Water Admiral: This newcomer specialises in articles on the Romanian Navy. Has only been active since August, but has already created a dozen new articles. Centrepiece work is Romanian Navy during World War II Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• HerodotusTheFraud: active since January 2017, Herodotus has already produced several GAs such as Battle of Plaman Mapu, Battle of Tug Argan, and Sunda Straits Crisis, as well as several other solid articles at the B-class level. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Romanov loyalist: active since September 2016 (so technically just outside the usual window for noms), but I feel their efforts are worthy of consideration for this award. Romanov loyalist has contributed a number of solid articles on aspects of military history that aren't usually well represented. Some examples include: 1st Army (Austria-Hungary), Suiyuan Campaign, Collaborationist Chinese Army and Patricio Montojo y Pasarón. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2017.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Brown Water Admiral

1. Gbawden (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• HerodotusTheFraud

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
6. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
7. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
8. Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Romanov loyalist

1. Kges1901 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
2. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Awards for 2017

You are all awarded a Mouldy Sandwich, whether you feel overlooked or not. (Hohum ^@)

Absolutely fantastic, I see I've been nominated for unforeseen work being the scenes. Nobody likes to award me with any with all the work I in, still nothing. Perhaps, I'll stay at Wikimedia Commons. Same old sh*t with each having their own favourite people(s) selected. What have I done wrong cause I've been outspoken several times, especially when Peacemaker67, get his nickers in a twist. Guess everyone loves him? But poor old me, ALWAYS forgotten. Adamdaley (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

...just as an observation? Complaining about not being nominated for awards is not a good way to get nominated for awards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting Des Fothergill. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Australian football. That's the real travesty here. SpartaN (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Adam, I understand your frustration, however, I would point out that there are many very deserving editors who also weren't nominated. You operate in a very niche area, where I imagine not many editors come across your work despite its importance to the project. Equally, I would point out that we had very low participation in the nomination phase for some reason, so potentially there was an issue with project members either not knowing about the nominations, or not wishing to engage in the process. Either way, it means that many deserving editors will miss out. (I can think of at least six or seven I'd like to have nominated but couldn't because I'd already nominated others and I didn't want to flood the nominations). That said, it is simply not possible to recognise everyone who contributes to the project, although I would argue that the nominations made this year are more diverse than previous years, with quite a few names that I suspect have not been recognised before. Regardless of all of this, I do not understand why you felt it necessary to say what you said about Peacemaker. It doesn't seem necessary, or warranted, no matter whatever past interactions you and he may have had. Merry Christmas, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought we were all volunteers working in our free time to make the world a less ignorant place. Is an imaginary barnstar that important at the end of the day?--Catlemur (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because the idea of making the world a less ignorant place is so unpopular. I once had a Wikipedia editor angrily deny my assertion that our mission was to educate. But it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is some hardcore cringe, no one wants to read someone whine about stuff like this. I've never been nominated for a single thing, getting awards is not the point of Wikipedia. Sure it's nice to get appreciation but with an attitude like this you're more likely to alienate people.★Trekker (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea there was some sort of nom process going on. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The response to the awards this year does seem somewhat underwhelming. Perhaps it's just been one of those years, and people can't find time or comfort in things like this? Hopefully, it's just a temporary lull and members will pick up the pace again in the new year. Either way, there are no losers here, only players. — Marcus^(talk) 15:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, we don't want to be like U.S. youth soccer ("football" to the rest of the world), where everybody gets a trophy. As for the voting turnout, it is the end of the year and near Christmas, so maybe "real life" is a factor as to voting turnout, thus far. I, myself found it hard to only vote for three. Kierzek (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I was concerned about the newcomer award. I had trouble thinking of newcomers. Are we failing to attract them? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's like the NASCAR Rookie of the Year - some years, you only get one guy who finishes 34th in every race, that's not good but (unlike the screaming that arose asserted when that happened) it doesn't necessarily mean the sky is falling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of MHOTY Awards

If I could take a moment to play Devil's Advocate and consider the nominations from Adamdaley's POV. Here are some interesting statistics:

• The MHOTY Award began in 2008, there have been NINE Award years 2008–2016 to date.
  • There are 11 nominations for this year's MHOTY Award. SIX of them are coords (55%), 5 of whom have served as coords before.

Comparatively, from five previous years:

• 2016 MHOTY Award: SIX coords entered out of 18 nominations (33%). Lead coord: Joined-1st place.
• 2015 MHOTY Award: SIX coords entered out of 8 nominations (75%). Coords: 1st, 2nd & 3rd place.
• 2014 MHOTY Award: SEVEN coords entered out of 14 nominations (50%). Coords: 2nd & 3rd place.
• 2013 MHOTY Award: TEN coords entered out of 16 nominations (63%). Lead coord: 1st place. Coords: joined-2nd/3rd place.
• 2012 MHOTY Award: EIGHT coords entered out of 15 nominations (53%). Lead coords: 1st & 3rd place. Coord: 2nd place.
• Since the MHOTY Awards began, EVERY (9/9) 1st place winner was also a coord during that year.
  • Most notably, AustralianRupert has won 4 times (once joined-1st) (4/9), twice as a coord, twice as Lead coord, but wasn't nominated this year.
• Since the MHOTY Awards began, EIGHT (8/9) 2nd place awards have gone to coords of that year.
• Since the MHOTY Awards began, SIX (6/9) 3rd place awards have gone to coords of that year.
• In almost every case, coords were nominated by other coords and most of the votes received were from coords.

I don't want to cast anyone in bad light here, or shame anyone... we all know and agree that everyone works hard to create, develop and built on what the project has acheived. However, let's consider some of the problems these statistics establish with the MHOTY Awards. There can be upto 14 coords, each is allowed to nominate upto 10 editors and then place 3 votes. It would appear, however, that even when coords nominate other editors (non-coords) to balance nominating coords, their limited number of votes weigh more in favour of coords, since coords are winning the lion's share of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. It looks like an example of inner-circle back-patting, because of the disproportionate number of coords who get nominated and placed most years, to the point that it's almost exclusively a coords Award with few outsiders. Perhaps, after this year's MHOTY Award, a new system should be devised which offers more balance and better opportunities for outside editors to receive recognition and placement in the top 3. I'm not saying coords should be excluded, but it is clear that the number of votes coords have combined forms a majority which leaves lesser-known nominated editors quickly falling into Runner-up. Some editors might see an online award as a trivial thing, but positive recognition has a psychological effect on everyone, and many of these coords who have been editing and nominated and winning year after year are hardly running short of self-motivation. I highly doubt AustralianRupert is going to spit his dummy out because he wasn't nominated this year... in fact, I know it won't bother him at all because he loves editing regardless. But Adamdaley has shown that a lack of recognition can have a detrimental effect, and we shouldn't ignore or dismiss that lightly... I don't entirely agree with his way of putting things, but I understand the message, and I think, looking over the pattern of nominating and voting objectively, that there is and always has been a bias towards and amongst coords, which is probably unintentional and until now hasn't been apparent. I think there is a good chance here to consider the issue and decide whether the MHOTY Award system needs to be rethought in order to reduce coord influence on the outcome of the Awards. There are many options... coords can't nominate coords, coords having less votes, cords can only vote for one coord and 2 non-coords, a separate "Coord of the Year" category, nominations need a second, etc. Maybe even point allocation voting, with everyone having to allocate points so the results come from a tallied total. It really depends if people agree that the Award is too internal and lacks attention from other editors. Maybe it's time to scrap it altogether and stick to barnstars. The ultimate question to consider is, has MHOTY Award ever been anything more than a poorly-received popularity contest? I mean, seriously... the most nominations ever received was 17 editors in 2011 – is that really representative of the most successful WikiProject, an average of 14–16 nominations are entered each year, and the highest 1st place total was 18 votes, and that was way back during the original 2008 Award. Is this the best response the project can muster from hundreds of editors who receive The Bugle each month? If so, is it even worth the effort? Food for thought. Note: Questions posed do not necessarily represent my personal opinions, but are framed to promote further discussion. — Marcus^(talk) 00:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I find it all a bit American so prefer not to be involved. I'm pleased to say that everyone has rushed to accommodate me by not nominating me for anything this time.... ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

All I would say is that the coord-centric process is probably because the coords are probably most familiar with who does the heavy lifting keeping the project running, who does the reviewing etc. But it depends on what we are intending to reward with this award. The newcomer one is straightforward, there is no expectation that newcomers will be helping run the project or even doing a lot of reviewing as yet. But for MHOTY, is it individual content creation effort in the year (and at what level), gnoming in the open task lists like Adam does, or making sure the project wheels keep turning, reviews get done, comments followed up and articles passed, doing B-Class assessments, checking monthly contests and handing out awards? Or all of the above? Because if it all of the above (which has always been my impression), coords do a lot of that work, so it is only natural that coords get nominated etc. I wouldn't agree with excluding coords from MHOTY, it is my experience in the RW that everyone appreciates recognition, even old hands. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree, recognition is nice and no-one should be excluded. But when we're fielding such a small number of nominations each year, with most of them being coords who have been nominated and won places in past years, in a way, we are already "neglecting" (for want of a better word) to include over 95% of MilHist editors. Certainly 15 or so nominations each year can't be covering more that 1–5% of the project's most regular and dedicated contributors. So why are we repeatedly throwing the same names in the hat each year, to be drawn again, for some unceremonial Award that seems to have become stale, possibly due to the lack of response since it began? I mean, does anyone else feel like this is similar to the way some companies pay all its CEOs a big bonus each year but the rest of the employees get nothing? I'm not suggesting it's an absolute form of cronyism going on here, but there is clearly a history of coord-centric favouritism throughout most of the Awards, which kind of taints the spirit of recognising project members on a broader scale. So my question is, how can the Awards be reshaped and improved to target more members, attract more outside nominations, and not result in heavy-handed voting by coords for coords? — Marcus^(talk) 10:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Awards and competitions don't interest me much but I can see how they can show appreciation of hard work. My problem is just one of perception. To me a military historian is a person who researches and writes military history. Whatever administrative or co-ordinating functions they do are secondary to the definition. I fully understand the need to laud the backroom work but its not "doing" military history. Perhaps an award based on amount of editing, not limited to a popularity contest, might be considered instead? That was, people gnoming away like AdamDaley would get their due and, if co-ords dominated, it would be because they are doing the work. If we also wanted a Military Historian award, we could limit it to work done actually on historical content? Don't worry about self-interest here - one look at my editing stats show I wouldn't be a blip on the radar in either competition. Monstrelet (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and well made: administrative contributions and content contributions are two different fields, and since the Award does not distinguish between the two areas, someone can be nominated and win a place for perfoming dozens of ACRs in a year, whilst someone who possibly spent more time and effort researching and writing two or three new articles never gets a look-in because they aren't as easily identified in the crowd of contributors, whereas coords see each others work all the time. So the question here is: is someone who mostly performs administrative duties for the project, reviewing and such, really a "militarian historian" vs someone who mostly contributes directly to article content creation? I hope @Adamdaley: considers what is being discussed here and offers his views with less pretension than his original post. — Marcus^(talk) 12:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Who even has the ability / visibility to see who's working hard on improving articles? Unless you happen to work on an article that someone else is also working on, or if you're one of the (probably few) people who watch article review nominations (which only represent a fragment of the work done), surely it's mostly behind the scenes? I think it's very difficult to make an informed decision. (Hohum ^@) 13:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel it important to reiterate that the process is open to all project members to nominate, and to vote, and within the process co-ords have the same status as any other project member with the same nominating and voting rights. Regarding self-selection concerns: we can only nominate those who we come in contact with. None of us are omnipotent, nor do we have unlimited time to patrol recent changes and tally everyone's contributions. I keep notes on the work I come across throughout the year that stands out to me (particularly focusing on newcomers I come across), but ultimately the main people I work with are other co-ords, who tend to be the same editors that participate in the key areas of the project. Hence, my noms focus on those that submit articles to the contest or to ACR or FAC, or those that review or assess, etc. I would hazard that other co-ords are the same. If we want diversity in nominations (which I believe we do), it behoves everyone (not just co-ords), to get involved and to put up some noms, and then of course to vote. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hohum and AustralianRupert that the logistics of trying to identify contributors and their level of commitment is hard, since there is no record apart from looking at editors' contribution history, and using some of the wiki-apps which help identify where they edit most or what pages they have created. This is also why I think the memberslist needs a massive overhaul, so that it can be bot-automated to help keep track of active members, so that when these Awards come around each year there is something reliable to look through as a reminder; to see if anyone catches your eye that you might have forgotten about but know has been very active. Perhaps having a range of Award categories might spark a more diverse range of nominations, along with the current newcomer's award, a creator's award, a reviewer's award and a general award for all-round efforts, for exampls. I don't know, maybe that might seem like too much effort for some people, since this year the newcomers award only has a few noms I do wonder if most people really give a damn at all or are simply trying to be polite by taking the effort to even acknowledge the Awards exist. Some feedback on why the Awards fails to generate much interest would certainly be insightful, as it really does look like a party where few people turn up and no-one who does wants to get up and dance. — Marcus^(talk) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm unlikely to encounter most project members, my knowledge of them comes from the review processes: DYK, GAN, ACR and FAC, wherther or not I review them myself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

On a different tack - MILHIST have set the bar really high - last years new MILHISTorian of the year put a shed load of effort in and the recognition was well deserved. Not everyone has the time or resources to match that level of contribution. Perhaps as our standards continue to climb lets not forget the wikignomes and the contributors who might not create A and GA class articles but nevertheless play a role in making this project one of the best on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs)

I honestly think the only reason the coords get all the votes is because they do the most visible work around here. Up until reading this thread I had never heard of Adam, though everyone says he does a lot of the grunt low-level tasks. Most of the people I recognize on the project in the MHOTY noms are coords. I haven't made up my mind on voting yet there because either I'm not familiar enough with their work (the non-coords mostly) or I feel they get the recognition they deserve and don't need my vote to help (who wants to pile on a bandwagon, after all?). In short, it's as if I don't see the point in voting. That said, I offer my congratulations to most of the people in that list for all the contributions they made. The only reason I cast a vote for newcomer is because I had personally worked with a particular candidate with positive results. I'm surprised I was nominated, as I spent most my time bumping around the African corner of the project, which is not very high profile. I think the fact that I was nominated (by AustralianRupert) does show that the coords are trying to diversify the awards. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Like, as if one vote ever made a difference. I thought Adam was a coordinator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If a non-coordinator did the same amount of work as they do, that person would likely be made into a coordinator. While you are right about the amount of work they do, they were made coordinator as a result of the fact that they put a lot of work into this WikiProject. But I do agree that it would be more "diverse" to include a nomination for people who put in a significant amount of "under the radar" work. Perhaps we could give a name for such a nomination and vote to include it for next year's voting session? SpartaN (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree here, but editors are not "made into coordinators" just for doing a lot of work. Each year there is an election, anyone can put their name forward, everyone casts supporting votes and the top 15 become coords. Votes are cast by editors who can judge for themselves if they feel an editor will be suitable. It's not always about how much work they do content-wise, but what skills they have to help administrate the project or motivate members. I was a coord back in 2012–13's tranche XII with hardly any articles written and I was not a reviewer, I simply provided a lot of active support here on the talk page and did a lot of article maintenance. In truth, editors who focus almost solely on content creation probably don't want to become coords as much as editors who like roaming for issues to fix, copy-editing, welcoming new editors, etc, since it takes time away from creation to help around the project and maintain things behind the scenes. — Marcus^(talk) 20:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Beside being eligable for the other two award categories, how about Military history gnome of the year? ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not particularly care about the awards, but I suggest a Milhist Coord of the Year award, and a Milhist Member of the Year award, which would replace the current award. Seems like it would make both sides happy, and would bring to light the work of non-coordinators. Kees08 (Talk) 01:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Milhist Coord of the Year would basically be the lead coord(s), which is derived from the September election, so I'm not sure that would be of much additional benefit. Not sure what the answer to this is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right. They are elected: "made into coordinators" is not to say they are not elected, but merely asserting that they are "made" coordinators by the community. SpartaN (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think isolating coords from members works either, because if they have to be nominated separately it might result in a small pool of choices should only a couple of names be selected, and if we said "vote from all current coords" without nominations it would seem biased because we can't also do a "vote from all members" given how many there are. I think we need to look at the way we nominate editors and the way we vote and balance it better. I'm not sure how nominating could be balanced, but voting could be more tactical, so instead of saying everyone has 3 votes, everyone could have, say, 5 points each that they can allocate amongst the choices. That would mean you have several ways of distributing your points amongst the nominations: 5, 4:1, 3:2, 2:2:1, 2:1:1:1 or 1:1:1:1:1. When the voting ends, someone adds up the points awarded to each candidate and that results in placements. It's a bit more complicated, but also less restrictive than the current format and allows for a different form of recognition. Instead of a blunt, "I vote you, you and you" which can result in favouritism, it requires voters to weight up their choices and distribute a limited number of points objectively, in recogniton of each nomination's efforts. — Marcus^(talk) 16:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Victory claim lists in fighter ace biographies.

I've just completed some copyediting on Heinz Schmidt (pilot) and noted with some dismay that the article includes a complete list of his 173 claims. I've looked at a variety of other top fighter ace articles, both Allied and German, and maybe about a third of them have victory lists appended. My question is if we should establish some sort of policy regarding the inclusion of victory lists? My inclination is not to allow them as I believe that they are far in excess of the appropriate level of detail for Wikipedia, being of interest really only to super-specialized readers who can get that sort of detail from books. I consider myself a specialist in the Luftwaffe, and all I'm generally interested in are claim totals and the total number of combat missions. What do y'all think about them?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's central to their notability but they also take up a lot of real estate. I think the best guidance would be that if an editor is willing to put in the work they should make the table collapsed by default. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My sense is it's too much detail. On a somewhat related note, what do we think of similar tables for U-boats (like this one)? I think it's fairly common, but if we determine that such lists aren't useful for pilots, it probably also applies to submarines. Parsecboy (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I'd say that list of sub victories are different, and more useful, because they list specific ships which are probably deserving of an article of their own. That said, I think that collapsing them could be a good thing for those very successful boats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say include them, but (assuming the MOS wonks don't squeal) collapse them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I can live with them, and don't think we should be prescriptive about their inclusion or exclusion, or submarine claim tables for that matter. Like LargelyRecyclable, I think they should probably be collapsed as the default though. We could add that to the biographical article guidance if there was consensus. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As previously suggested, a collapsed table essentially removes the problem. (Hohum ^@) 02:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I could live with that; the list for Heinz Schmidt mentioned at the start of this section is considerably longer than the article itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think they should be included (possibly collapsed) - IF we have a RS for the victory list, it is properly sources, and someone puts in the work. It's far from a must, but I wouldn't exclude them.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't like collapsed tables, for the reasons stated in MOS:DONTHIDE, which recommends against them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I just checked the visibility of the table per MOS:DONTHIDE. It is visible, but not collapsible in mobile view. This is acceptable according to "consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their reading experience is possible; it is recognised that it will inevitably be inferior." (Hohum ^@) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a collapsed table is a simple & tidy enough solution. I believe the victory lists serve a good purpose here, in making Wikipedia a central repository of online knowledge for people. As you say, the information can be gleaned from books, but for those without access to those books (many of them very rare, and/or not in English) it is no use. The whole point of thse articles has been to consolidate the information from a variety of sources into a single place - and the Wiki-links allow instant comparison with other pilots' details. So please keep them Philby NZ (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My take is that it is too much detail. I really do not need to see every kill.19:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus here to make a note in the bio article guidance about collapsing such tables. I'll make that change. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Before we do that, note that there are several FAs with such tables where there was no suggestion during the review that collapsing was necessary. Admittedly those tables are not so large that they're in any danger of overwhelming the article. I think any recommendation to collapse the table should be based on common sense; a table of 100 entries or so might well benefit from collapsing, one of 20 or 30 shouldn't be an issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I've amended it to read:

1. Where relevant, for flying aces or submarine captains, for example, it may be appropriate to include a table listing their victories, but depending on its size in comparison to the rest of the article, consideration should be given to collapsing it.

Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That'd work for me, tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Dietrich von Choltitz recordings

Another editor and I have reached a "agree to disagree" position on the inclusion of historian Randall Hansen's material on the son of the subject, vis-a-vis the potential veracity of recordings made in Trent Park of the subject. I added the matreial in October, it was removed on the 14th. I put it back on the 17th after some discussion and it was gain removed yesterday. Discussion can be found here and additional input would be appreciated. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Post Cold War Task Project

Considering that a lot of conflicts and developments took place since the end of the Cold War, is it perhaps time to create a Post Cold War task project? I created this a while back but lost interest at some point, nevertheless people keep working on this topic and subjects such as the Russo-Georgian War.--Catlemur (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. It's been more than 25 years since the Cold War ended, and since then, many major conflicts have happened, such as the Iraq War, etc. Kges1901 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What are you considering for scope? The breakup of Yugoslavia and the Gulf War come to mind, but how far forward from that point? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say "1990-present" would be the most logical scope. If we wanted to spin a specific date, 11 March 1990 (Lithuanian declaration of independence) would be as good as any. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say sometime around the breakup of the Soviet Union - present (all ongoing conflicts included).--Catlemur (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I hate to sound pessimistic, and certainly don't want to dissuade you from anything here, but I don't think the task forces serve much purpose anymore. Since they all redirect here (to this central MILHIST project talk page), most of the time these sub-projects get a brief "rush" when they're initially created, and then just dwindle off into distant memory... for example, in the last 3 years we've been in the WW1 centenary period, but there's hardly any talk about what WW1 task force members can do extra, no special goals, no hype – editors are still working on WW1 articles of course, but there's no special attention than usual being paid to it more than normal, it's just "business as usual". The best thing that task force pages are good for is keeping track of articles related to the project, but TBH they don't generate much interest in the way of group interest for any long period and are a pain in the arse to set-up. I think, if they felt more valid or functional there would be all sorts of task forces worth creating and promoting in niche areas of history to help kerb WP:RECENTISM, but I'm afraid they're little more than reference pages at best and editors just use each other's talk pages or come here for help. Good luck, either way. — Marcus^(talk) 12:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm with MarcusBritish on this one. I was originally going to say something along those lines but didn't want to sound so pessimistic. So thanks for breaking the ice for me, Marcus (or perhaps chilling the room). Anyways, task forces now are little more than organizational categories for maintenance purposes. I'm a member of the African military history task force and the WWI and WWII ones. Nothing ever happens there. I must admit I see little use in creating another task force. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I just say exactly how I feel, life's too short to beat about the bush... the major task forces of the bunch are probably WW1, WW2 and ACW, possibly Napoleonic too, but there's no focus on those pages, no community goals, etc. Even the four "Special Operations" focusing on major events and setting targets have a very low amount of activity on their sub-pages and are also little more than assessment tracking lists. I don't know if this happens all across Wikipedia in other projects or where it's just MilHist that is failing to realise its potential in creating task-forces and attracting members into working towards smaller goals within the project. Whatever the reason, I expect any new task force would also go the same way as those Dodos. Portals, which are also supposed to provide a central focus area for select topics, are similarly "dead zones" when it comes to inactivity amd just aren't worth maintaining anymore. — Marcus^(talk) 04:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the task forces are more organisational/category structures these days, assuming they ever were really a focus for effort (before my time, tbh). Having been very active in the Balkan task force for a number of years (in my little Yugoslav segment of it), the number of editors willing to get stuck into overall task force work is pretty limited. Narrowly focussed special projects even struggle to get traction now. I can see an argument that we might want to implement such a thing from a "categorisation" perspective, but its value from a collaboration perspective is highly dubious IMO. The question is, do we care that there isn't a conflict/period task force in our banner for post-Cold War information? Will it result in more concentrated effort on the subtopic it represents? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that taskforces serve next to no purpose other than categorization, in fact I did not aim any higher than that. That raises the question of what was the purpose of the last taskforce reform which created the Asian MILHIST taskforce among other things?--Catlemur (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The last taskforce reform created additional continent-based task forces to cover countries not covered by other task forces - for example, the European task force covers Swiss military history, etc. Kges1901 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is we either cover every historical period/geographic location with taskforces or abolish them altogether.--Catlemur (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

When the {{MILHIST}} project tag is added to an article's talk page with the appropriate task force/s included it lets that task force's page automatically track the articles assessment rating, and list it on its A-class, GA and FA tables for prosperity. Since we've determined that task forces are, to many editors, little more than ways of categorising articles, and there aren't many other options other than using actual categories, I suppose they stand more as an administration tool than a community tool, now, for those looking to monitor the status of region/period-related articles. — Marcus^(talk) 21:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And that is a very useful way of using them, until and unless they get revitalized, so I still think "post cold war" could be very useful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Well then I guess we can create it as a maintenance category. Historians refer to the present as "the Post-Cold War Era" but so many varied events have happened since...heck, it might even help to create a "War on Terror" task force, considering all the things that have happened since 2001. I wonder when we'll enter a new "era" in time, but I guess we won't know that a new era started yesterday until 15 from now. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically it's the "brushfire war era"; Yugoslavia etc. wasn't really GWOT, nor was the mess in the Causcaus, but both should be included.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If we go down this track, I suggest "Post-Cold War task force" would be the best name, as it encompasses everything since 1990. GWOT etc would be too restrictive. There is a bit of code to be written for the banner to create such a thing, a page to be created and populated for it, and there will be a considerable amount of going back over our articles and adding such a task force to relevant ones. But we really need a consensus to move forward, and I'm not seeing that quite yet. For me, it really comes down to whether the work is worth doing given it likely won't result in any "real" task force collaboration. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

So is that what Meta-Wiki is for, to create more "forum" like user boards for various Wiki projects and programmes to discuss things in broader, more informal, terms? I keep finding cookies for upto 20 different Wiki-related sites but only use this one and Commons because I haven't a clue what all the rest are for... Wikidata especially, makes no sense... — Marcus^(talk) 12:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Wikidata is a data mine where you slave away for the Google overlords. Until they collect enough data to ditch Wikipedia altogether.--Catlemur (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol, okay, thanks for that... although collecting data and putting it into context are two different things. I don't think even Google can make it possible to automate the latter, thankfully... the last thing we need is the entire world's knowledge run by an American mega-corporation which aids government spying and can manipulate data for propaganda campaigns. — Marcus^(talk) 14:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this "User group" really needed or just a time sink? Seems redundant to what is already available herein, but I am open to hear others thoughts on it. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Hi Marcus, thanks for the comment. Meta-Wiki is basically intended for cross-wiki colloborations, community wide programs etc. Simply to say, anything that involves multiple projects, or languages, can be taken to Meta-Wiki. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kierzek: Yes, a user group is definitely needed. Please see the discussion on Meta. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know how organized the other Military history projects are? I see no point in developing a new user group if its going to be dominated by English Wikipedia MHs. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good first step, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. Do you know the extent of military history projects on other wikis? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 and Indy beetle: The fact is that Military History Project on English Wikipedia is the strongest. However, other Wikipedias also do have pretty good warfare related projects (may their name not be the same). I've invited all the projects present on the other language Wikipedias, if you observe the meta-page, we've got diversified participation from different Wikipedias. Some examples include, WikiProjekt Imperialismus und Weltkriege and WikiProjekt Pazifikkrieg on German Wikipedia, Histoire militaire Projet and Terrorisme Projet on French Wikipedia, Progetto Guerra on Italian Wikipedia. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Russian ship Oslyabya

What ship is "Big Landing Craft Oslyabya. No trace of any vessels with a BDK pennant number on the List of active Russian Navy ships. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

BDK-101 Oslyabya

Seems to have pennant number 066 (see photograph) and is listed under that number. BDK is an abbreviation for "Bol'shoy Desantnyy Korabl" (Large Landing Ship). I think it used to be known just by the BDK number and the name was either appended or changed in 2006, see this Russian Navy page. I can't read Cyrillic but the name on the hull in this photo seems to just be "Oslyabya" - Dumelow (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I can read Cyrillic. "Большой десантный корабль «Ослябя»" It does indeed read "Bolshoi Desantni Korabl "Oslyabya" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Kids I went to school with said: "Well, we'll never use that." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Bronze Star Medal recipients

We recently (earlier this year?) decided not to track the Bronze Star in categories. Bronze Star Medal#See also is a section with links to lists of recipients. Two of the lists exist; four are redlinks. I'm not sure if these lists contradict our group assessment or not. I'm pretty sure they're being worked in good faith.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but isn't it excessive? If every combat infantryman badge recipient of WWII received the Bronze Star? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Excessive is an understatement. The six lists (assuming the other four get started will never be right/complete. Is it AfD time?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of lists are dynamic and will never be completed. If we keep it to listing idividuals who are notable it might work.★Trekker (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

<wobbles hand> I'd honestly say this is what lists are for, as the scope is well-defined and discriminate. That said, if there is an issue with size, then "Wikinotable only" would be the way to trim it. But I think the bigger issue here is, redlinks are expressly prohibited in see-also sections... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the redlinks should be removed until they are no longer redlinks.★Trekker (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this just replacing the category with unreferenced list articles instead? What is the notability of a list of people who have all been awarded a certain low level decoration? That's not the same as identifying each of the individuals in the list as notable. Nthep (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on the subject, I'm just pointing out what could be done if the lists are kept.★Trekker (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

All three now at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World War II Bronze Star Medal recipients. Nthep (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that while categories must be defining for the subjects, the contents of a list do not have to be individually notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Accepted, but then it's back to question 1, what is the notability of the list of recipients of a decoration that appears to be of the "coming up with the rations" type? Nthep (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Charles Howeson

Would Charles Howeson meet the threshold for notability for an article. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not WP:SOLDIER and there may be an issue with WP:1E, but given he was apparently quite wealthy and had a senior health role, perhaps there is enough there. Would need to gather up everything written about him in newspapers etc, but if there was enough from before he was charged with the indecent assaults, quite possibly could meet GNG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

He wouldn't pass due to SOLDIER (though quite close - one notch down), however he probably passess GNG for his post military business career, e.g. this coverage (pre-scandal) - [1] [2] [3][4] [5].Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Panzer ace

Input from additional editors on a large-scale discussion of suitable sources for the Panzer ace article on its talk page would be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of war diaries (i.e. primary sources)

What is the current policy about using these sources? WP:PRIMARY states the we should favour secondary sources, and that when we do use primary sources no interpretation or analysis of them should be made, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm currently working on the article about the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade. With this edit, I added summary information of the unit's movements in late February 1916. Later parts of the diary place the unit in the Ypres salient in June (of that year). There is a detailed account of events from June 2nd to June 16th - locations given and actions mentioned are consistent with the fact that the unit participated in the Battle of Mont Sorrel. Other sources (for example, the 1962 History, by Nicholson) only give summary details of the involvement of this specific brigade. Would a summary (i.e. not "analysis") of events, as described in the diary, be an appropriate use of primary sources? More generally, is it acceptable to use these sources to infer the participation, and the details of said participation, of a given unit in a battle or other event? 135.23.202.24 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically, as long as "dry facts" are what the primary source is citing (i.e. "X was at Y on Z"), there shouldn't be a problem with it. Primary sources can't be used for superlatives (i.e. "Company X was the best at drills") or for establishing notability, but for uncontroversial fact-checking, they're acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Bushranger, but just caution you against relying on them too heavily, as it is easy to stray into interpretation of "dry facts". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Diaries, journals, memoirs, letters and dispatches... there are so many primary sources that can indicate a person's involvement in a war/campaign/battle, it would be impossible and wrong to disregard them all. Policy does allow such sources to be quoted, without editorialising or analysis, to help reiterate a point taken from secondary material – using primary sources that amount to contemporary witness statements. But to go into detail you really need a secondary source that has used the primary source and analysed it so as to identify and identify any form of bias or political agenda the author may have had, before incorporating it into their publication. Secondary sources not only help you avoid bias or POV issues, but also to avoid claims that evidence presented from primary sources amounts to WP:SYNTH when conclusions are drawn that were not presented in the sources themselves. Given that many battles end with the commanding officer making a report and sometimes giveing "honourable mentions", and I don't see why we could not use those as sources to prive a certain individual or unit was in a battle, should we treat diaries as any less reliable as long as we're careful with the material and how it is handled? I think it's a tricky area to negotiate, and requires a lot of common sense and objective interpretation before being slapped into Wikipedia articles as "fact". — Marcus^(talk) 23:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

These aren't private diaries - they're official unit diaries, written (in this case by the commanding officer) mostly in a "X happened on date Z" fashion, with occasional appendices which are operational orders, sometimes messages as sent between units on the field, and rarely maps or hand-drawn sketches. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The war diaries are a vital WP:PRIMARY resource. If I could give the troops on active service advice, it would be to KEEP THE WAR DIARY UP TO DATE. No end of veterans have missed out on benefits through failure to do this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't use them very often, but it is a nice way of saying "[article subject] had this to say about event X". In this case, I'm referring to personal diaries. SpartaN (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the key things to be careful about with war diaries is the tendency of the writer to reflect his unit in a good light. They are great for movements of a unit, changes in command, casualties etc, but you have to be very careful when using after action reports when they include an assessment of what went right/wrong and whose fault it was. As Charles Bean once wrote about one CO, he was "always keen for a stirring story of his own command" or words to that effect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Param Vir Chakra needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Param Vir Chakra; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for German destroyer Z51 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z51; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for German destroyer Z32 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z32; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Military personnel category structure discussion

Please comment on this discussion on category structure for Military personnel by service and war. There are cases where both the categories for Category:American military personnel of the Korean War and Category:American army personnel of the Korean War are included on an article. IMHO, that seems redundant to also include the included cat. Please add a comment if you agree or disagree at the category discussion page here. Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

I started the WP:WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary and I am having difficulty with finding new members to contribute to pages pertaining to the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary.

I am of the opinion that the creation of the following articles would be beneficial: History of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, Notable United States Coast Guard Auxiliarists, Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary Interpreter Corps, Director of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary National Commodore, Missions of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary National Executive Committee, and the Coast Guard Auxiliary Association.

Expansion/improvements to these pages:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary and Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary would also help.

Any assistance to support this project will be greatly appreciated. COASTIE I am (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your efforts so. Regarding your proposed articles above, I'm not sure that Notable United States Coast Guard Auxiliarists is necessary. I think it would probably be best just to handle it through categorisation, rather than create an article. I'd suggest also that maybe the proposed articles on the commodore and the director should be lists, rather than articles, but only if the positions are covered in reliable sources. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Loop of redirects

I don't want to add to anyone's workload, but could I get a look at the problem raised at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 701#Loop of redirects? It looks like articles were converted to redirects without taking care that the target of the redirect did not contain a link (in this case, a template-generated link) back to the new redirect. Pinging K.e.coffman as one of the editors involved. I fixed one example. Another example that has not yet been fixed is Willy Unger. There seem to be quite a few. Thanks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I think I've gotten these with this edit: [6]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: yes, that's the correction I discovered was needed. But there are a lot of other letters of the alphabet that still have to be done and I'd like to know if it was only these alphabetical sub-pages that were affected or if there's a list somewhere of all of the articles-turned-into-redirects because of a collective decision (in case there are other areas where the problem has been introduced besides lists of recipients of this particular medal). Thanks, — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

G'day, not sure if there is such a list, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of the linkclassifier script helps to identify the looping links on each page, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm getting closer. I found a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Knight Cross recipients and the reference back to the RFC that indicates that only these Iron Cross recipients were being examined for whether they should be turned into redirects. Interestingly, the two cases I've already looked at were not on the list. But I can now presume that if I check all of the alphabetical subpages related to these recipients, I shall have closed the set. And some of these pages have already had the nolink=1 parameter set, as done by MisterBee1966 on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm). That linkclassifier script may help with checking. Thanks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Earlier, working on the list of notables form WW II, I went to one of the Knight's Cross lists, selected "what links here" then selected "redirects only" or similar words. If you see a bunch of pages names that are people's names, that's a good indicator. Hope this helps.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)