Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 117

Archive 110

←

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

RNAS Longside (Lenabo)

First, my apologies if I've come to the wrong place to ask about this but Military history is not an area I know anything about. I have slowly and admittedly rather ineptly, been doing some expansion on the Longside article. Within what used to be the Longside Parish area was the Royal Naval Air Service base RNAS Longside (also known as Lenabo). It is mentioned within the RNAS article as being the most northerly but that's about all. When going through the links of bases mentioned, almost all seem to take you to either airports or towns rather than supplying info on the airship bases. Just a very brief search pulls up this information on SCRAN [1]. By the way, it's now forested but does apparently still have some remains. See here [2], [3] and [4].

I guess my question is: should I just include some info about it under the Longside article (which is really about the village rather than the far more extensive parish) or would it be better to have an article of its own? Could someone help advise me, please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries SagaciousPhil, this is the perfect place to ask. Is this station separate from RAF Peterhead do you know, or did the RAF airfield evolve from the RNAS base in any way? My gut instinct is that the RNAS site warrants its own article, (as does RAF Peterhead for that matter). If the RNAS base and RAF base are the same site, they could conceivably be condensed into one (separate) article.

For the article on Longside, I would probably retitle the Airfield section as Airfields, and include some basic information that you can pull from the RCHMAS, then create redlinks to both RNAS Longside and RAF Peterhead. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

PS. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on formats for villages/towns etc... but I would imagine that the Longside article should really describe the parish in its entirety. Longside doesn't appear to be significant enough to have 2 articles (1 on the parish, 1 for the village), so it should really describe the whole parish in this one article, hence my reason for including information on RNAS Longside.

I imnagine it's fairly rare that there could be separate articles on a parish and the primary village within it. The only example I can think of would be Durrington, Wiltshire and Larkhill, where both are in the same parish but Larkhill is a significantly separate settlement, but even that isn't quite the same. We do generally have separate articles for military establishments (ports, airfields etc...) though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for such a prompt and helpful reply! It looks as if Longside Airfield and Peterhead Airfield are one and the same [5] and used for WW2; none of these should be confused with RAF Buchan which was established in 1952 and closed in recent years [6] [7] and I think is something entirely different? - but I'm sure you guys know far more about that than I do! There is brief mention of RNAS Longside here [8] where it mentions the base being abandoned in 1920.

As to the Longside article: yes, I'll try including a short bit about Lenabo. The parish was extensive and many other villages etc that were encompassed by it have their own articles and I'm just adding bits & bobs as I come across them but seem to be expanding further and further out of the village itself, as although it has loads of history the 'hamlet' itself is pretty boring! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. According to the RCHMAS, RAF Peterhead and RNAS Longside are two totally different places, so I'd provide separate (limited) information and redlinks on both in the Airfields section. Interestingly, if I've interpreted this map correctly, most of RAF Peterhead falls in the neighbouring parish (but I'd still include some info in the Longside article). RAF Buchan is indeed a different place, but is in another parish, so no need to worry about that one. Scottish parishes do seem to be more extensive than the small ecclesiastical parishes of southern England that I'm used to! But as this is the main settlement (ie. the parish village), I'd still try and include general information about the whole parish. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you could stand it, there are quite a few articles (mostly squadron histories) that link to either Longside or Peterhead (settlement) articles. If you fancy changing these to RNAS Longside and RAF Peterhead instead, the extra redlinks might encourage someone to write an article on them! Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I see commons has a couple of photos - search for 'Lenabo' SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can create RAF Peterhead if you wish, as it's on my to-do list? Gavbadger (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Gavbadger - that would be ace! I don't suppose you also fancy having a bash at maybe a stub for RNAS Longside? If I say 'pretty please?' I'm just in the process of adding a short sentence or two into Longside about RNAS SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(E/C) Seems like fate - now seems a great time to! SagaciousPhil, I don't know if you're in Longside, but if you did a photo of the panel on the memorial would probably be a useful source (using this template) for either the Longside article or an RNAS Longside article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Consider them both done. Gavbadger (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent news, well done both. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you both so much for your help. I'm not actually at Longside but close enough that I did nip out and take some pics. Is this maybe reasonable enough (at least until the weather improves - it's biting cold there!) [9] SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine - quick work! If you did want to use any of that information in either article, that source seems sound enough and could be referenced in the article using the template above. I would if I have time, but I probably won't be online for a few days now. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Juan Manuel de Rosas

A Request for Comment regarding Juan Manuel de Rosas, ruler of the Argentine Confederation from 1829 until 1852, has been made. Anyone willing to comment, do it here. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, help is needed there. --Lecen (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Coats of arms icons in unit articles

(Sorry in advance for bringing this topic up again.)

So. Medal ribbon images in article have long been a sore subject here, but I have another images-in-articles dispute: Pictures of coats of arms being placed in unit articles (example)

Monkeybait (talk · contribs) (who I've notified about this discussion), various other IPs continue to add these images to order of battle lists while I take them out, and it's been a long slow revert-a-thon. My view is that these images do not serve a purpose in the articles and should not be included. Ribbon bars are a distinction in military symbolism because people know the symbols well, but not their names. When going to an article like 10th Mountain Division (United States), however, I think that people won't know or care about close to 30 little icons next to every battalion in the division. What do people think about these? —Ed!^(talk) 20:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They aren't coats of arms, they are distinctive unit insignia. I put them in because names do not give you the instant recognition the images do. Seeing "22nd Infantry Regiment" in a list of units may not cause one to see the inter-relationship between units as quickly as a small, unobtrusive icon. When you see that, one might immediately think "I have seen that before, I recognize that," especially with the name changes units undergo all the time. I can't see how this detracts from the articles. The insignia also can tell you a bit about the organization - for instance the fleur-di-lis on almost all Louisiana Guard units or the palmetto on South Carolina ones. An example of inter-relationships is that most Fires Brigades have a unit of the 26th FA (Fire direction unit, I believe) as part of them. You may not notice that in a listing of names, but if on every fires brigade article you see the little insignia, you might take notice that an element of that unit is always attached/assigned to them. As far as disagreeing about this for some time, this is the first I have heard about it. Monkeybait (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually given the amount of lineage shuffling the Army does, the images aren't always that much help. When I checked to the 10 Mountain Division page listed above, a fair number of the subordinate unit articles hadn't even been updated to show that the unit lineage was back in use (15th FA, 89th CR, 25th FA are three examples). While they may look nice, I'm not sure they do much more than that. Intothatdarkness 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think military insignia do at times need to be in the article (as mentioned above) but I don't think DUI, Coats of Arms, or CSIBs have recognition at all. SSI for division units and above are somewhat in the public awareness and may be appropriat in some places (such as here) I believe this instance runs afoul of WP:ICONDECORATION. —Ed!^(talk) 21:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Going by WP:ICONDECORATION (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons) it does look like they run against the MoS. The guide covers "logos, crests, coats of arms, seals and flags" and the key phrase is "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional information (what the icon looks like itself is not additional information unless the icon is the subject of the article) to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader". My reading is that in this case they are not adding information, they definitely aren't aiding navigation or layout cues. However if they do stay, they need appropiate alt text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree. I think the MOS leans against this use of graphics. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In what way? They aren't (that I've seen) over used--only once in a setion on a parent organization's subordinate units. They convey a wealth of information about that unit (state of origin for Guard units, combat experience for Active Duty units, branch, history, theaters of operation, affiliation to other units, deeds done,...), and so serve the encyclopedic purpose. And except for being told that a table or list was inappropriate because prose waas prefered, it wouldn't break up the flow of a sentence in a section that is nothing more or less than a list, whether orgnaized by bullets, graphics and line breaks, instead of commas. So what are you seeing that leans that way? RTO Trainer (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Although it is unlikely that consensus will change on WP:ICONDECORATION, I have no issue with the DUIs of the units displayed when listing out a Division's (or brigade for that matter) Order of Battle. Perhaps, if it is not already done, the Regiment's DUIs can be migrated to the articles that are specific to them. For instance, it would make sense to have the Unit Coat of Arms, Shoulder Sleeve Insignia, and Distinguished Unit Insignia in the infobox for the 10th Mountain Division; at the same time I can understand (although I may not agree) that per the MOS the Regiment's presently assigned to the Division should have their DUIs primarily on the article specific to the regiment, and not on the Division article page. This makes additional sense given that Regiments maybe reassigned into and out of a Division at the direction of higher headquarters.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've always been uncomfortable with this in part because our coverage of such things is patchy. When we have flag icons, we can happily use flags for everyone. However, for DUIs, insignia, crests, etc etc etc, we can practically only use some and not others - in some countries they are protected by copyright and can't be used by us; some countries don't systematically use insignia like this; some we just haven't created yet; etc. The result is that we end up with pretty icons for one group and not for another, which lends something of a visual slant to the articles, and doesn't feel appropriate to me. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we, as a project, have more work to do, so that those images are available (when not copyrighted) to the articles where their use maybe beneficial. Just because A has access to them and B does not, doesn't mean when beneficial A should not use them (IMHO).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert those articles. Since the consensus seems to be that a visual cue next to a unit's name is a retarded idea that clutters up a page with meaningless decoration, go ahead and revert. Then I can finish deleting those DUI images, as I have over the last few days done with other insignia images, since Wikipedia is not a place to just upload images - if they aren't used, then they need to go, since that is the consensus (or at least it was a few years ago. I don't know what it is now). --Monkeybait (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to go deleting the images. The have a place in articles that are specific to the unit to whom the DUI is authorized, IMHO. Again, although some people do not believe the images beneficial, others do. The consensus may have been against those people, but consensus can change.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Monkeybait's initial statements are spot on. The people who come looking for information on these units will have some reason to have done so. At least one reason that people not closely affiliated with the military go looking for information on a unit is because they've seen a DUI or SSI and they want to know what it was and what it meant. Those people will, in all likelyhood, never know to look for "Distinctive Unit Insignia." As for the military users, we expect to see those things that we are familiar with and to find the analogs for units we may have worked with, or even only heard or read about. The image next to the unit name helps to verify that, yes, this must indeed be the unit I was looking for, or clues to a unit's past history that we are trying to learn more about. As for copyright--U.S. Army insignia are never copyrighted. If other nations do, or if they don't use such insigina, then that a feature, not a bug, of that nation's heritage and not having them is appropriate, the converse is equally true.RTO Trainer (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Might I recommend we creat a page for the insignias. and have a link to it so anyone who needs to look it up and include it in a report, newspaperartical, etc, etc, they can find it easily. That is my opion and I have only been off and on for about a year or so and have made a articale which got merged (yet they still havent) so I may not take much priioraty so mabey we should just do my idea. Nhog (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There are articles about the Distinctive Unit Insignia and for Coats of Arms.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ok thanksNhog (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability question

I came across these two in my travels and am not certain that I see how they meet our notability guidelines for inclusion: Thomas Lowell Tucker and Kristian Menchaca. If I am way off base please let me know, but these two look like cases of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As they were POW's I was not sure if that would confer notability or something. What do y'all think? EricSerge (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO they should both be redirected to an article on the incident - it's notable, they're not notable aside from it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't look notable, is there an article on the incident itself? Ditto Bushranger. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This was the best I could find for a redirect. Mujahideen_Shura_Council_(Iraq)#Insurgency_in_Iraq EricSerge (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the incident where these soldiers were captured would be notable (it was very rare for Americans to be captured during the Iraq War, and the incidents of this received considerable coverage), but the men themselves are not independently notable. It would be appropriate to provide background on them in the article on the incident, however. May 2007 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq seems a broadly appropriate model. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Trending toward unanimity. Beside being captured, killed, & mutilated, which is newsworthy, did either do anything of consequence? Which is to say, the incident is notable, but they're no more so than, frex, the individual victims at Oradour-sur-Glane. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIO1E, merger to the notable event?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here is my start for June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. EricSerge (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion would be highly appreciated

I would appreciate a second opinion on terminology used in the First Battle of Warsaw (1794) article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I took a look for you - it's a good article with some interesting information. I cleaned up the usage a bit, as it had some awkward (but understandable) phrasing. Only a few edits, which you can see here. By terminology, do you mean the article name? I'm not sure what you mean other than the changes I made. Cdtew (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I fond the DYK page. My vote is to move the article to [[Siege of Warsaw (1794). See the talk page for my rationale. Cdtew (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to watch this page and did not notice your comments. The name of the article is only one, I would say a minor, issue. I am also concerned about the terminology used for the names of the belligerents, as I explained on the articles' talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The German book Helden der Wehrmacht

The book

• Helden der Wehrmacht - Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten. München, Germany: FZ-Verlag GmbH, 2004. ISBN 3-924309-53-1.

was flagged as a right wing publication. see Rechtsextremistische Publikationen Helden der Wehrmacht. Should it be deleted from our articles? Otberg (talk · contribs) already took the liberty and deleted it from a number of articles here. What is the correct approach? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't have problems with accuracy, I don't see the problem with it just because somebody branded it as "extremist" - either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In FAC

I'd appreciate it if someone would cover the last third of Arthur W. Radford. Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) needs a spot-check. In other news, I'm taking a break from copyediting, FAC and Template:WPMILHIST Announcements for the rest of this month to write some articles and some copyediting software. Keep the home fires burning, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Collage

Hey was wondering if there where any collages in the U.S. that are good in milatary history cant seem to find the time to look to much school work to do. thanks Nhog (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

look at Norwich University, which also has an online military history program. Rjensen (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks will look.Nhog (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Australian Defence Force Academy also offers a masters in military history through distance education: [10]. I don't know if it's open to people located outside Australia though. Some of the US military's universities may also provide teaching to civilians like ADFA does. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You know we maybe should write a artical about various collages that are good at or specilize in milatery history. It would be a good refrence and rescreah tool, as well as help peaole like me with these sort of searches.Nhog (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Notional versus real military formations

There is a bit of an argument going on about the notability and formatting of various notional British/U.S. military formations, mostly involved in the Operation Quicksilver pre-D Day Second World War deception. The designations of the imaginary divisions / corps / armies dreamed up by R Force and other staff departments of SHAEF to deceive the Germans as to where the invasion was to take place, has now been published. Editors have leapt into the breach and gamely created articles on these imaginary formations. The problem is, in my view, that because of the way Wikipedia is organised, these notional units, which did not actually exist, but were portrayed by staff cells from units like R Force and specialist signals units, can very easily appear as if they were real. Many of these articles have been placed in categories such as Category:Corps of the United States Army, and have had infoboxes added to them that set them in context of real divisions (Previous infantry division - 10th, notional division subject of article - 11th, next real infantry division - 12th) etc, and in my view are distorting their importance and vastly overestimating their notability. These phantasms of military deception are simply not notable in isolation from Operation Quicksilver, R Force, Ops (B) and the other staff cells/deception units that actually did the gruntwork. I would strongly suggest that these articles be reduced to redirects to the Quicksilver etc articles to avoid this type of confusion. Previous discussion has mostly been going on at User talk:ErrantX; recent changes to these formations, sparking this debate, can be seen at Special:Contributions/Graham1973 and Special:Contributions/Buckshot06, and I am about to invite User:Graham1973 to put his side of the story. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot. My suggested approach option would be to merge all the articles about individually unimportant deception units into a large 'List of Allied World War II deception units'-type article. Some of the deception units are individually notable (the First United States Army Group is the obvious example), but the individual 'divisions' attributed to this and other fictional formations were not. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just realised Nick-D's idea was the general consensus (as regards British formations) at an earlier discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_110#2nd.2C_4th.2C_and_5th_British_Airborne_Divisions.2C_and_the_58th_Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to congratulate Buckshot06 on successfully shifting the topic away from the real one, their rudeness and lack of courtesy, which I consider to be a very important issue since Wikipedia is supposed to be built on co-operation. I would have loved an invitation to discuss their plans before they started. In fact if anyone bought the issue now being discussed to my attention beforehand I would have been happy to make whatever changes were needed myself. In any case an article of the kind Nick-D suggests is being worked on User:ErrantX/Sandbox/List of Allied fictional units during World War II and should prove a suitable place for the information once it is complete.Graham1973 (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the other talk pages, your problem seems to be that Buckshot didn't ask you if he could make these changes before he made them. I urge you to drop this complaint and suggest you focus on the topic at hand, which is the best way to present this information. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The information would be better presented as a list on Phantom formations of the United States Army or on the FUSAG page. The patches and fictional narratives are useful, but don't necessarily need their own pages. —Ed!^(talk) 14:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps the lists could be further broken down by operation or theatre? That would allow them to be more detailed without being excessively long. I'd also keep the First United States Army Group for notability. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ranger Steve ^TalkThis topic is not and has never been the problem. It has been created by Buckshot06 for one reason and one reason only, as a pseudo-issue to distract from the real complaint.Graham1973 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet it was Nick who suggested moving the discussion here, a discussion that has come about because you reverted a large number of the changes (labelling them as vandalism) and accused Buckshot of incivility. If you have no problem with the changes then perhaps you should a) self revert all of your reverts of Buckshot's edits, b) cease to contribute to the discussion here and c) instead file a complaint about the incivility at ANI or another appropriate board (I would strongly advise against part c by the way, as it will not go anywhere). Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Graham, if you have a behavioral complaint about Buckshot then take it to WP:ANI. Regarding the notional formations, I agree that in general they should not have their own articles. They should be described as part of deception operations. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding merging US fictional Unit articles into the FUSAG article. I would strongly recommend against that on the grounds that not all such units were included in FUSAG. Ranger Steve ^Talk idea of including them in the articles covering particular operations is probably the best solution. I have both an Operation Wedlock (Cover operation for the Marianas Offensive) article & Operation Pastel article at planning which will incorporate this concept. All I want is time to complete those articles before anything is deleted.Graham1973 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#World War I 100th Anniversary

FYI, a discussion that might interest MILHIST editors, namely that WWI topics submitted to DYK from 28 July 2013 onwards can be stored for use on the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the war (28 July 2014). Comments welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Request: RAF experts needed for photo ID

At Commons, Fæ is currently uploading lots of old photos from the UK's Imperial War Museum. While helping to sort them over there, I've come across a photo of an unidentified Air Marshal in WW II. Any help would be appreciated. Please see Talk:Richard Peirse#Photograph. De728631 (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks a lot to Grandiose. De728631 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

This category still has over 20,000 articles in it. Could use some help in clearing it out. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Argentine Army enlisted rank insignia

This article does not display an insignias. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't even see that that file exists? I've looked here and at commons, but to no avail. It appears that it was deleted, per [11]. The deletion record is located at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 3/Images. Cdtew (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review of Artur Phleps

I am looking for a second opinion on the Artur Phleps article. My reasoning is explained on the review page. Thanks for helping out MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War lists

I have just renominated these lists for AL class review here. Any help with this would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer review for Audie Murphy

I have requested Audie Murphy Peer Review with the eventual goal of nominating the article for FA. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request input from military interested editors who are experienced enough at WP to help improve the article. If you click the above link, you will find the peer review by MarcusBritish has specified areas in which the military aspect of Audie Murphy's career can be enlarged and wikified. Medal of Honor experts would be helpful. Please assist if you are able. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisitions)

Should this be renamed to "List of the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisitions)"? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What's your suggestion? Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Military equipment of the Korean War

Category:Military equipment of the Korean War and most of its subcats has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_8#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Korean_War. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've added quite a few more 'catch-all' "If it was used in X at all put it here" categories under the same vein. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about merging several military structure and site infobox templates with the inclusion of airport parameters

There is currently a discussion about merging several military structure and site infobox templates with the inclusion of airport parameters

The infoboxes being merged are:

• Template:Infobox military test site
• Template:Infobox Burg

To create a modified version of Template:Infobox military structure which new name is currently being decided by a poll which everyone is invited to participate in.

The inclusion of selected parameters from Template:Infobox Airport into the new infobox is also being decided by a poll which would make a number of Airport infoboxes on articles being changed to the new military structure-esque infobox.

The discussion and poll is here

Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Gedo (Somali Civil War)

Hi all, I have some concerns about the Battle of Gedo article. I invite you to comment at Talk:Battle of Gedo#Scope. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC for Juan Manuel de Rosas: please help!

A Request for Comment has been made regarding Juan Manuel de Rosas, who governed the Argentine Confederation from 1829 until 1852. The discussion is on this link. Please take your time to comment. --Lecen (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Aviation Division

This looks like a list of Soviet aviation divisions. Should it be renamed as such? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine, although the list needs fixing to its manual of style. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian Air Force

A few more eyes would be helpful on the Hungarian Air Force article, where there appears to be an on-going edit war going on between IP editors about the number of helicopters operated, with none of the changes being backed by reliable sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dobroslav Jevđević/archive1

G'day everyone, the subject candidate for FA (disclosure: co-nominated by myself and PRODUCER) has been at FAC since 30 December and is the oldest of the MILHIST FACs. It currently has two supports. All comments will be quickly addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Aschaffenburger Schloss, edit.jpg

Should this be listed as a MILHIST FP? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Tigr

What is the difference between the GAZ-2330 and GAZ-2975 pages? The 2975 has information on the the design, history, and users, while the 2330 is just an overview with variants. Would it be better to merge the pages? (America789 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

Experimental formation orders of battle

I've recently resurrected and reworked 66th (2nd East Lancashire) Division, and I was casting around for a way to handle the order of battle section - many of our divisional articles have sections showing all the different units attached across a long period of time, which can get very muddled, or else a single snapshot which doesn't help for a formation that changed significantly. They also tend to involve an awful lot of whitespace, which is a bit ugly.

I've come up with a table-based format that I think works reasonably well - different snapshots to show the division at key points (and make the change of names over time clearer), and in a three-column layout to avoid excess scrolling. Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The units that change structure frequently can be tricky. One way around it is to just make an organization table for each iteration of the division and place it in the relavent part of that unit's history (see 45th Infantry Division (United States). Alternatively I've tried just explaining it in paragraph form with some success (see 1st Provisional Marine Brigade) —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Norman conquest of southern Italy

Hi all, I started a discussion on the Norman conquest of southern Italy article in regards to the introductory paragraph. If anyone wants to provide input they are more than welcome. Cheers, — - dain- talk    23:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Military equipment by conflict

A very large and well-developed category tree is up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Boer_War_weapons_and_Gulf_War_equipment.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Category:Rainbow_Codes might be of interest too. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

FLC review of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A)

I am searching for reviewers. It is the second time I have nominated the list for FLC. The first time it went stale and this time it is also not drawing much attention. I gladly appreciate your feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Help please?

Talk:Rhodesian mission in Lisbon needs the project tag fixed. It appears to be the DYK or previous name thingo, but I'm buggered if I can fix it. Any assistance gratefully received... :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The A-Class review was at an old title, so I moved it. Inkbug (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :o) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Henry E. Emerson

We have egg on our face with this article. Those that have experience with military biographies may wish to help us out. Details are in the recent talk page posts as well as User talk:PrimalHawaii who is a friend of the general. He was very angry at the help desk about a lame source that had an obit for a person of the same name. He is in fact alive and it would be nice to bump his article up to top priorty until we can mine all the recent reliable sources to expand it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

541st Medical Detachment, Forward Surgical (Airborne)

The article 541st Medical Detachment, Forward Surgical (Airborne), has been tagged for AfD, yet no discussion exists. Can someone please remedy this issue?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's odd - there seems to be a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/541st Medical Detachment, Forward Surgical (Airborne). Do you see that as a redlink in the AfD banner at the top of the article? bobrayner (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was a redlink at the top of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And still is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a known issue. Click the 'purge' (or '*') tab at the top of the article, and watch it magically turn into a bluelink. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with Mil Conflict Infobox question

Some editors have a question about who can be listed in as "Commanders/Leaders" in an Infobox in the article Eritrean–Ethiopian War. The Talk page discussion is here. The question is whether a country's prime minister (?) can be listed in the InfoBox without explicit sources stating he was a military leader. --Noleander (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Harsh FACs

We've only had one article promoted to FA recently (Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)). One just got archived for lack of comments (John Van Antwerp MacMurray), and almost all the rest need at least one more support: Russian battleship Rostislav, H. C. McNeile, Camouflage, Zaian War, British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War, Arthur W. Radford, Laura Secord, Andrew Johnson, Battle of the Bismarck Sea, Dobroslav Jevđević, and Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma. That's an impressive and diverse list, and partly the result of many years of outreach by Milhist editors. It's really a shame to fail at the final step, and see the FACs get archived for lack of interest. What can we do to solve this? What can the nominators do? - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit I could do more FAC reviews, but at the same time I've been heavily reviewing ACRs and GANs so far this year and my time at FAC has been more limited as a result. —Ed!^(talk) 17:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Air National Guard

There is a difference of opinion with regards to the federalization of Air National Guard units if they are federalized by the President of the United States. I contend that if federalized, the units are gained by major commands of the United States Air Force . Another editor believes that ".....they become an active part of the Air National Guard of the United States which is a reserve component of United States Air Force......". Which I believe is incorrect, as if they are brought to active duty (i.e. "federalized"), then how can they still remain reserve components of the Air Force?

I had information about the ANG chain of command which unfortunately was lost when my computer crashed a few weeks ago from the AFHRA last September or October, from which I based the information I posted. From what I recall, when an ANG unit has been "federalized" (i.e. the President decides, with the assent of Congress, that national security requires the services of a Guard unit), control and chain-of-command switch to the United States Air Force and itwould be used as would any normal Air Force unit by the gaining major command of the unit. There is no "active part" of the Air National Guard....

Can some other editors comment Talk:Air National Guard#Air National Guard of the United Stateshere... please ? Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good developments relating to Australian War Memorial images

The web manager at the Australian War Memorial has informed me that the AWM is making several significant changes to the images on its excellent collection database which include:

• All images in which copyright has expired in Australia have been marked with a creative commons public domain tag, including the post-1945 images whose copyright status on Wikimedia servers has been unclear given that the AWM could chose to enforce copyright in the US - see, for instance, this 1952 image which is used in the Battle of Kapyong article. This change should help inform the discussions over whether the Memorial would ever enforce the copyright which it at least theoretically retains over these images, and I think that it gives us much greater scope to use these images in confidence that the AWM considers the images to be in the public domain (note that this is my reading of the change, and not official advice from the AWM).
• More recent images which the AWM owns but are still under copyright in Australia are being marked with a CC BY-NC creative commons tag (as an example, this recent painting) - this still doesn't permit them to be used on Wikipedia (as this tag bans the use of the image for commercial purposes), but it provides much greater scope to use the images on personal websites and the like without having to worry about copyright violations.
• The AWM is also in the process of uploading larger versions of all its images - the size is being increased from 450 pixels on the longest side to 640 pixels

As part of these changes the AWM is changing the URLs of some of its images, but thankfully redirects are being put in place for all the images which are being moved, and they've received no reports of any problems. I should note that Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) and LauraHale (talk · contribs) played a role in encouraging the Memorial to make use of CC licenses. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI - United States Unit Citations

For those who are working on United States Unit articles, the United States Army's Center of Military History has released the permanent orders for unit citations that have been issued since 2007. Here is a link to the page, last updated in July 2012.

This is also applicable to the discussion I had started regarding SSG Salvatore Giunta, and I have listed applicable orders here, which brings more questions as to what unit citations he is authorized for permanent wear (link to old discussion).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy Edit Requested

Another editor has felt that Military history of Asian Americans doesn't meet GA, I humbly request others review the article, and so it can be taken to GAN again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you'll also want to address the comments by the reviewer on social context; I made similar comments at the peer review last year, and it is an aspect of the topic that needs to be expanded on. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I ended up working on it following the peer review's archive, see the changes here.

It is my opinion that adding content about the racism that was occurring is outside of the scope of the article, unless it precluded or effected military service.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Would a hatnote regarding the racism of the period be sufficient? Say a Template:see also?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean, to what end do we talk about the social context of Asian American service? Does the article go into not only anti-Japanese sentiment during World War II, but Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States, and how about the less publicized anti-Filipino riots that happened on the West Coast of the United States that were occurring during the same time of the Philippine Independence Act and the loss of American nationality during the 1930s? I am sure there is a huge amount of social context that can be written about the article, and I feel that most of it falls outside of the scope of the article, and removes its focus from the Military history which is its scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of literature out there on the issue to draw from, in terms of how Asian-Americans servicemen were treated within the U.S. military, how racial beliefs influenced both their recruitment and active military deployment, how their military dependants were treated, the impact on veterans etc. The examples I'm most familiar with run from WWII through Korea to Vietnam. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made some edits towards this for the World War II, and Post-World War II section, but most data I find is about racism towards African Americans after that period. I found this about MEDEVAC during the Vietnam War, and current allegations, but not anything significant regarding any post-WWII conflict towards Asian Americans, other than those surrounding the Chen suicide case. Any assistance in finding new sources would be helpful if others want me to continue to expand the article in these areas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• You could try "From Pearl Harbor to Saigon: Japanese American Soldiers and the Vietnam War", by Toshio Whelchel, and "A Companion to American Military History", edited by James C. Bradford, as a starting point for the broad issues in the Vietnam and Korean wars respectively. There was some work done on post-traumatic stress amongst this military group as well, summarised in "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Scientific and Professional Dimensions", by Julian D. Ford and Asian Americans: Vulnerable Populations, Model Interventions, and Clarifying Agendas" by Lin Zhan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchc2009 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 February 2013

Thanks for the sources, I was able to add to the World War I section due to the Bradford book, but regarding Asian Americans after World War II, he writes

Nor have the various Asian-American groups faced particular unique issues as minorities in the military since Vietnam.

I cannot see pages 889 & 891, that appear to focus on the World War II and Korean War periods. So if you can see those, and can gleam some information, please let me know.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The article has not yet been copy edited by a secondary individual, in preperation for another attempt at GAR. I have already ran it through Microsoft Word, yet that does not appear to be sufficient. A second eye on the article for copy editing purposes would be greatly appretiated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional opinions requested

Please see WP:RSN#Japanese American Veterans Association.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2013

MilHist folks - I am going to submit a proposal to the Wikimania 2013 to discuss cooperation with the US Military history and public affairs offices as well as discuss my experience as an Active Duty Airman editing on Wikipedia and balancing OPSEC with Wikipedia policies. If ya'all have any input, please let me know.--v/r - TP 19:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea; hopefully the proposal will get accepted. Kirill ^[talk] 04:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As it will occur in Hong Kong, perhaps contacting 7th Fleet or PACOM, or the Hong Kong Consulate to invite a Public Affairs representative would be in order?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything those PAOs should leap at the chance in engaging one of the largest open source intelligence sources in the world. They can let us know about their side, and we can let about our editing culture, especially WP:AGF & WP:COI.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

While you're at it, perhaps, the British and Portuguese consulates should also be contacted, especially given the rich British military history of the city, as well as the special administration region that is nearby Macau.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas, I think I'll do that. I started the proposal here.--v/r - TP 16:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible for this to be webcasted, or published on Youtube through the Wikimedia Foundation? I would like to see this, especially, the part about what the US Military's guidence is on editing wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania presentations have typically been recorded and made available for streaming/download, either through Commons or through third-party sites like YouTube. I expect that this year's arrangements will be no different. Kirill ^[talk] 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How to categorise military biographies

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_12#Category:Early_American_naval_commanders is turning into a more general debate on how to organise military biographies - should they be categorised by conflict, century etc? It's probably a good opportunity to figure out a scheme that works across services and countries - discussion is probably best over there, to keep it all in one place. Le Deluge (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Waka

The primarity of "Waka" is under discussion, see talk:Waka ; as one of the topics examined for primarity is a type of war canoe, I thought I'd let you know. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hand-to-hand combat

Are the last two edits vandalism? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The last was.. reverted it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs work doesn't it? I'd say the 14 Feb edit was in good faith but am dubious it deserves a place in the article - why this little skirmish when hand-to-hand combat can be well attested in better known actions? The Isandhlwana example is simplistic/over simplified too.Monstrelet (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC - FactCheck.org citation for inclusion in John Kerry Military Service Controversy

As an article of interest in this wikiproject, opinions from project participants are solicited for this RfC. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Herbert Ernest Hart needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Herbert Ernest Hart; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Horses in Warfare

The issue of a suitable lead illustration for the above article was raised in the form of an extended discussion last year but unfortunately bogged down in side issues and was shelved. It has now been resumed on the talk page and anyone who has a soft spot for the old cavalry might wish to take a look. Buistr (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Military result and undue weight

I have a question about the infobox result.
If a clear majority of sources, including respected historians, say that a battle or campaign resulted in a victory for one side, but a few other sources contradict or don't support this, what should the result be?
Should it be set to inconclusive or blanked, or is that giving too much weight to marginal or minority sources? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide an example perhaps ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is an example: [12]

The majority of sources, including historians like Glantz, support one result, but a few sources don't. Should the result be declared too controversial because of this and removed from the infobox? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you link to an "Aftermath" section per the infobox of Operation Trio. IMO it is unnecessary to put something "black and white" in the infobox when the outcome of many battles is a shade of grey. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it is not about the outcome being a shade of grey. It is a case of most sources supporting one view and a minority not supporting it (the ratio is about 5:1). How does WP:UNDUE fit into this? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino is probably a good example of this. There has been a lot of debate over it being a French or Russian victory, at outright, tactical and strategic levels. What really annoys me in these cases, where a debate has dragged, edit-warring may have occurred, IPs are reverting, registered members using all manner of policy to force the issue one way or the other, protection has been applied but continues soon-after.. and then an admin comes along and applies a "happy medium" which neither reflects either side fully. But in doing that, the "good faith" compromise does not accurately reflect historical opinion, it's merely a Wiki-result to keep the peace and is of no help to anyone. Not how an encyclopedia should work, and very amateur. And when the compromise has to be enforced through threats of blocks and bans, it becomes a dictated result, changing history and making Wiki a nasty place to be if you're a historian who wants to work with the sources available, not some admin and his backers grotesque POV to simply make his job easier. As DOES happen, and HAS happened and should NEVER happen in a mature semi-academic environment backed by WikiProjects and all manner of genuine researchers. In cases where there are a number of established historians on either side of a result, the best option would be to keep the infobox free of a firm opinion and use a section to describe the contrasting views. Let the reader decide.. Wiki does not have to be the Holy Grail that can answer everything.. be relaying facts and alternative views, it does a commendable job. When it tries to force a view, either out of nationalistic bias, or an over-zealous admin maintaining the peace, it fails to be an article worth reading and everyone's input is wasted. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the result can be removed in cases where there is no clear majority of sources for one side and the views of each side are opposite. However, the question is what if one view is supported by a clear majority of sources? If the result is removed, will that violate WP:UNDUE?

For example, should the Battle of Kursk not have a decisive Soviet victory in the result because a few historians like Frieser argue against it [13]? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Anon, I think you're paying too much attention to WP:UNDUE, when really you should be reading WP:CONS. In the discussion about the article involved in the RfC, for instance, you had a larger quantity of sources supporting one size, but a minority of more in-depth, quality sources on the other. In that circumstance, if you can't reach a consensus, then per Marcus, nothing should go into the infobox. If, on the other hand, it truly is a fringe minority that oppose the majority result without having some extra mitigating factor (like lengthy, quality, peer-reviewed research), then you turn to UNDUE. I'm generally with Marcus, though; an infobox is a convenience, and if making the truth convenient will distort it, it's preferable to out the convenience. Cdtew (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The one in depth source for the minority position is a Finnish language book. I don't know if more value should be given to such a source because of its potential nationalistic bias.

I am not only talking about the issue in that RfC, but in general. When there are sources of about equal value, does WP:UNDUE apply and should the result reflect the clear majority view? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Anon: I'm not trying to be cryptic, but you've answered your own question. "When there are sources of about equal value..." - this automatically takes you out of UNDUE and back into WP:CONS, in my opinion. Additionally, unless your concerns of "nationalism" can be proven (for instance, by a track record of the author to write thing that are considered nationalistic or which have low standards of academic research), I think your position is unreasonable, given that it appears to be a valid source that discusses the matter in-depth. My reading of WP:DRNC would seem to indicate that in this situation, there is a possible consensus. The consensus is: whatever was in the infobox before wasn't fully correct. If that's the case, step one is to remove what was in the infobox, and hunt for further consensus. Remember, consensus is not all or nothing. Cdtew (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

By equal value I meant that each source by itself is not worth more than any other, not that there is an equal number of sources on each side, if it is assumed that all sources are reliable and are of equal research quality. -74.72.51.111 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful of taking consensus for granted. If 50 American editors from Southern states claimed Gettysburg was a Confederate victory, and presented strong references, to only 10 Northern state editors, would that make it true? Consensus cannot change history. Consensus cannot make one religion or outcome or viewpoint more prominent that another, given that a handful of Wiki editors hardly represents a world viewpoint, in most cases. Consensus, despite people promoting its merits, does not settle everything practically.

Peter Hofschroer is a historian who wrote a number of books on the Napoleonic Wars, one calling Waterloo a "German Victory" another calling it "Wellington's Smallest Victory". Would you expect to change the result from an Allied Victory to German Victory based on those sources alone, despite support for this research? There are many call him nationalistic and ignorant of the British input and Wellington's skill and management of the Allied forces. So his opinions might be considered UNDUE in many respects, but his research will carry some relevance worth mentioning without pushing his conclusions into the realms of what is reasonable.

You need to consider many things when presenting research. Including whether that source includes its own citations or merely seems to be the opinion of the author, and presents doubts as to its accuracy or bearings. Sometimes editors will throw a reference into an article calling it "fact", despite there being no substantial weight within the source, which is why WP:V and WP:OR are important considerations, not just WP:NPOV. Any editor can mask a historian's publications behind "neutrality", or trying to make an article more balanced, but in some cases it introduces a red-herring or undue element that must be dealt with. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 05:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

our job is to report the consensus of scholars--done usually by reading reviews and footnotes & bibliographies. No southern historian has ever called Gettysburg a victory, so there is no need to count sides. As for Peter Hofschroer, the reviews are negative. I have not seen any other historians rallying to his more extreme statements. Instead the Journal of Military History said, re his notion that the Prussian army actually defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, "Such allegations certainly caused controversy and earned Hofschroer a place of infamy in certain circles on both sides of the Atlantic." (JMH (April 2005), p. 555). Thus in this case the Wiki system of consensus among RS works quite well. Rjensen (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How exactly do we find out the consensus among reliable sources?

Should the infobox result reflect the consensus among sources on the outcome of a conflict? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As any good researcher does.. read and weigh-up various sources. A lot of editors come to Wiki with one book in hand and that's all they cite and quote from. You need to have a selection of titles, find the opinions that are shared, find discrepancies, balance up the authors POV, then selectively filter what holds consensus and what appears abstract or unsupported. There are many approaches to doing good historical research. Mine would be to read a handful of books on the same thing.. e.g 3 or 4 biographies on someone, like Napoleon or Hitler, or 3 or 4 books about a battle, campaign or war, where there are many POVs and consensus is varies, but you can find the similarities and use them in citations. Infobox should generally give concise information that supports consensus of reliable sources. Anything controversial should be discussed in sections. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we violate WP:UNDUE by referring the reader to the Aftermath section. Populating the result parameter often lacks nuance where nuance is what is needed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Won't omitting the result mean that there is no consensus among sources? Should a few sources nullify what most sources say? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So consensus should be based on what the majority of sources have in common? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please Anon, read through again what people are saying. This dispute happens at regular intervals here and our standard consensus response is that an infobox is a short summary. If the situation is too complex to be covered in the few words available in an info box(e.g. there are many nuanced views about the result) then that must be reflected in the text and the info box point to the discussion.Monstrelet (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but when does the situation become too complex? If there are 20 sources that support one result and 3 or 4 that don't, is that considered too complex or do those 20 sources represent the consensus among sources? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

in my opinion, if 20 RS say "ABC" and 3 say "DEF" then the consensus is ABC, with a small minority DEF view that deserves mention. Rjensen (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mention in the article, but not in the infobox result, right? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree, that something like a 5:1 opinion would be a consensus, but not so strong that the minor view be neglected completely. It's when you get to something like 20:1 that you know the minor view is either highly controversial or just ludicrous WP:FRINGE theories. If there is clear consensus you'd put the major view in the infobox and discuss outside views in sections. In complex debates where the consensus is tight, like 1:1 or 3:2, you have to consider the sources carefully, remove infobox entries that may only favour one POV, and discuss alternatives in the right context in sections to alleviate bias. As I said earlier, Wiki doesn't have to provide all the answers, it can and should support various viewpoints where appropriate, but sometime it gets very complex and requires entirely separate articles, e.g. holocaust denial, moon landing conspiracies, etc. Controversy is best avoided, but in some cases is totally unavoidable because of the nature of the topic or conflicting evidence. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I'd go with 5:1 as a strict ratio. I think it bears reviewing what the majority and minority consist of. If you have 5 sources all deriving their information from the same source, then they likely should only count as one (1) source for the purposes of UNDUE, leaving you with a 1:1 ratio. If 5 articles have short, cursory descriptions, and one work has a lengthy description that is well-cited and is NPOV, then you should judge the ratio based on length or academic credibility. For instance, I have written a bio (of a dead person)(not yet on mainspace) where 4 short encyclopedia articles all said the person was born in X town, where one book-length biography that was well-cited said it was "Y" town, in which case I chose "Y" town for the infobox and cited, and mentioned the discrepancy in the "birth/early life" section. That, to my view, wasn't an issue of either UNDUE or CONS, but just plain WP:VERIFY. Cdtew (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear.. my ratio model does not relate to 5 editors of one POV opposing 1 editor of another, because consensus does not simply allow greater numbers to bully down an outside view. If refers to a group of x number of editors with say 5 or 6 sources that are notable, neutral, reliable, verifiable, etc whilst another group of editors argue but can only present 1 source, yet it is of the same calibre in terms of reliability so cannot be dismissed. There are situations this happens. Take the 9/11 conspiracy theories.. not the extremely crazy theories, but some of the evidence that is being presented that something was amiss, backed by scientists, engineers, firemen, pilots, etc, and to which no one holds the answer unless further tests are performed. You can't dismiss them all as "crazy", and though there are efforts to debunk these claims, which are contrary to the official report, there are still unanswered questions which pose serious questions. Those questions are published by respected individuals, and receive considerable attention, bringing them into line with notability guidelines, and so can't be dismissed by those supporting the official report simply on grounds of their POV being more popular. It's one scenario where the ratio of sources presented by opposing groups is very evident, and when such a situation arises in other historical debates, we have to tread lightly. Because much of history is based on conjecture, a lot of what we know today is based on what we can see, analyse, test and extrapolate patterns from, because there is nothing in writing to give us the facts.. e.g. how the pyramids built. Written records are unavailable for much of history, and a lot of the things we consider "fact" are actually nothing more than the result of historians finding as much evidence as possible, drawing conclusions, publishing those conclusions through academic channels, and in time those become established fact through public recognition. How much of history is now being rewritten because we can CT-scan mummies, and DNA test bones, and forensically test parchments and such, and suddenly we realise that Professor X. of University Y. was wrong all those years ago when he wrote his paper and came to conclusions which became "fact" until Laboratory Z. proved otherwise in he 21st C. I think that is what can make history so damn interesting.. reading a dozen books, and finding one that totally disagrees with the rest, and trying not in instantly dismiss that one, but to either figure where they went wrong, or grasp at straws and try to find others that agree with them, in order to give their view a more notable cause. An example of this might be that a very number of the survivors of RMS Titanic claimed to see it break in half.. yet their eye-witness reports were buried and largely dismissed until Ballard found it. If it was still undiscovered today, I would bet that the Titanic article today would make no significant mention of the break-up in a notable fashion, given the minority view that it did. Viewpoints can change, and we should always be prepared to reflect this in articles correctly once the facts are disclosed. Yesterday Richard III was a missing King. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that weight is not only determined by quantity and that minority views should not be dismissed.

What about NPOV? Referring to the RfC mentioned above, if Finnish and Russian historians have different views on the outcome of a campaign, should the views of other historians (American, British or German) be given more weight? -74.72.51.111 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV is about how an article is written, not your choice of references. All historians have some bias.. even their choice of history could be considered a bias in itself. Or that most historians start out with the study of their own country's history. Have a read of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2011/Editorials, it may give you some ideas on how to write neutrally regardless of how biased a source may seem. Where historians have contrasting POVs, but of equal merit, it is your job to write in a manner that does not favour one or the other. Like a political reporter should represent the pros and cons of all parties during an election, rather than take sides, a historian should do the same in conflicting historical views. You don't need to give less weight just because historians cannot agree on things, rather expand your research to see if there is more support for one of the POVs, or discuss both POVs with equal consideration. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly be POV to exclude a historian's viewpoint based on his ethnicity. If your point is that a battle is viewed differently according to different national schools of history, this is an excellent example of where the NPOV editor has a duty to point out this fact and to make some attempt to explain the basis of dispute. The reader (for whom we do all this) will then be forearmed with critical apparatus if he/she decides to follow up specialist literature. In this case, not trying to be too dogmatic in the infobox would be the order of the day. Monstrelet (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that any historian's view should be excluded. Everyone's view can be included in the article text, but I am talking specifically about the infobox result.

Given the potential bias of each country's historiography, is not it sometimes better to go by what historians from other countries, which were not involved in the conflict in question, have to say?

If the view that Finland won a battle is supported by ten sources and the view that the Soviets won is also backed up by ten sources, but most of the sources for the first view are Finnish while the sources for the second view are mostly American or British, should the second set of sources be given more weight (assuming similar source quality)? -74.72.31.237 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No. You need to take each source as a unique reference and determine its strength in its own right. Bear in mind, those 20 authors, whether Finnish, British, or American may have all used the same material and primary/secondary sources for their research, yet came to different conclusions. Eliminate any biased views, e.g. Finland won, because I'm Finnish and therefore we were the best, type historians, and anti-Finnish sentiments that show contempt for the Finnish position rather than impartiality. Many of the sources for Battle of Waterloo are British, French and German authors. In reality there should be no excuse to have the divide you described.. almost sounds as if one editor only sought pro-Finnish material at home, which is a conflicted interest or WP:OVERKILL because the editor wanted to emphasise the result they favoured and ignore other views, whilst other editors only sought outside views to add balance. The fault then lies in the editor, not their sources. Such an article needs considerable work to rebalance the references to regain a neutral tone. This can mean virtually starting from scratch, reviewing citations, scrapping WP:POINT-making entries, and re-establishing it as a thoughtful analysis of the battle/campaign/war. Simply working on the references is only half the problem.. if the sources are that awkward, then the entire article is bound to have issues buried within the text that need ironing out carefully. Deciding what references to keep isn't a question of the historians nationality, but that they genuinely support a NPOV, they used sources in-context, are objective and that there is no controversy regarding their usage. It means hard work from other editors to undo poorly written and badly referenced articles. If you are experiencing such issues, you do not have to tackle it alone, that is why we have WikiProjects, to ask for help from historians who may have little interest in the topic, and are therefore neutral-minded enough to help identify issues by reviewing the article for you and offering solutions. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. -74.72.31.237 (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In this specific case there is also a vast difference in depth of the sources. Naturally, the battle was important to Finns, but it was a sideshow to Russians and non-issue to Brits and Americans who couldn't care less what happened in that remote periferia of the war. This had lead to the situation that in Finland there is myriad of researchs, books, articles and memoirs handling the battle. In Russia there is couple of books handling the whole war with Finland and handful of articles about the battle. In Britain and USA, the whole Soviet offensive is handled with one or two paragraphs, and the battle -if mentioned at all- has been granted a single sentence. There exists very few editors working with WP who do have necessary knowlwdge of the issue to contribute, as has been witnessed several times when editorial guidance has been searched in these articles, generally in vain. I really hope more editors familiarize themselves to the issue and try to contribute to the meditation processes handling the article. --Whiskey (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, until now I never looked at the disputed article.. helps to maintain a distance sometimes. Yet I always felt that Anon IP was playing for an angle, given the unnecessary length of this discussion and near-repetitive questioning. Having glanced at it just now, I see there has been considerable war-editing from IPs resulting in page protection and such. Yet despite the disputes and lengthy RfC also, there are whole sub-sections of that article completely devoid of references. It doesn't help develop an article to dispute sources in one section and revert each other, when there are no sources in other areas. Someone really needs to get to grips with that page and plug those unref'd gaps before making issues over it. On a further addition note, speaking as a Brit.. no, I never heard of that battle or even of Finland vs the Soviet. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I was asking the same questions because I did not get clear answers.

Whiskey, I don't think it is fair to give Finnish sources extra weight because of depth since they represent only one view, which may be fringe. -74.72.31.237 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely true! And that is the reason there should be someone doing proper research from US or UK on the issue. So far the researchers has chosen the easy path and used only most superficial sources from Finland or Finnish second hand sources already translated to English, as the language barrier has been too high. You understand how frustrating it is when well known US writers don't get even the command structure of the Finnish forces correctly. (Perhaps the most famous example is infamous Finnish SW-Army which in reality didn't exist but Soviet sources put it to Finland, and many books written in US and UK as late as 90s and 00s had included it.) --Whiskey (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Monmouth Rebellion

I'm currently trying to improve the article for the Monmouth Rebellion. I've just added an infobox, however I'm not sure how to make this reflect the wider nature of the campaign rather than the specific Battle of Sedgemoor. Any advice or guidance appreciated.— Rod ^talk 12:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You might offer it up for peer review. Right now the article is long on the movements of Monmouth and short on those of James and his forces (why and how was Bristol fortified, for example). I suspect there's also politics in England to add (e.g. what were sentiments among populace and nobility concerning Monmouth before he came to England). Magic♪piano 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been working on your advice adding more on the context and the royalist forces.— Rod ^talk 20:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Needing help with AL class review

I an currently trying to upgrade the lists of ACW engagements to AL class here and need help with this. One reviewer suggested renaming the articles to remove "troop" from the titles; any thoughts on this? Plus any help with this would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at some sources, Frederick Dyer, Stewart Sifakis, Shelby Foote, and seeing if there is a particular term they use? I agree "Naval actions" would be the best wording for a list of sea battles, perhaps "Military actions of the American Civil War, 186x" as people tend to refer to land-based forces as "military" and sea-based forces as "naval", despite the fact "military" covers everything land, sea or air (which is not applicable here). Of course, if you want to be less ambiguous, this might not be suitable.. in which case I'd suggest leaving them as is, as "troop engagements" clearly refers to soldiers and cavalry, whereas without the "troops" the title is ambiguous again as to the nature of those engagements.. land, sea or both? I note Battle of Hampton Roads already in the 1862 list, which may be why there is some confusion over the title. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "military actions" would be better than "troop engagements". My intention with the articles is to include all engagements, both land and naval. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

I've posted a grant proposal at meta titled "Backlog pages for all WikiProjects". Summary: The Category:Wikipedia backlog page quantifies cleanup templates for English Wikipedia, but WikiProjects don't have similar pages to know what needs improvement. Because this is such a successful WikiProject, I'd appreciate any input over there on the idea of it. Please comment there if you think it will be a help to WikiProjects, generally speaking. It may or may not be funded, but even if it is not funded, perhaps the idea will flourish and benefit all WikiProjects thanks in part to your input (see part 3 towards the bottom of the page). Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Duplication across many Bismarck-related articles

There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Wdford (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned before, Bismarck and Ernst Lindemann articles are currently featured articles, some duplication therefore is intentional as they have to be self sustaining. Secondly, what exactly you consider duplication should be discussed on a case by case basis before major changes to the FAC articles are made. I am opposed to a generic go and change the articles type of message. Having said that, I am supportive of changes and additions to the other articles, since they are still on the lower end of the quality scale. Focus on these changes first and I think we are all in a better position to then assess what exactly you are proposing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see this as a big problem. A year ago I worked on the Titanic articles for the centenary and one could say the same about them. We got Sinking of the Titanic to FA, and it contains quite a lot of technical information about the vessel which is also found in RMS Titanic. But it is needed. Otherwise a reader would be switching back and forth constantly to find out how many lifeboats remained if 6 had been launched, or how many watertight compartments were still providing bouyancy if 4 had been flooded, or how much of the ship was submerged if 1/3 was lifted out of the sea, or how many officers were available to launch the boats, etc, etc. The article Wreck of the RMS Titanic does more of the same, necessarily. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with MisterBee and Rumiton - it doesn't seem in contradiction to policy, and ensures the articles concerned are self-contained, which helps the reader. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the US Army National Guard provide official certification for soldiers' decorations?

I'm working on improving Tulsi Gabbard and would like to be able to cite official government references to back the news sources' assertions that she has been decorated with Army National Guard medals. Is there such reference material, even if it's in paywalled databases? My searching has been fruitless but maybe I'm just not using the right terms in search engines. Thanks. Sumana Harihareswara 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I doubt that that info is available anywhere other than the Hawaii Army National Guard military personnel office. The individual states handle their own personnel records. The soldier has access to all her documents through a database called iPERMS as does her state's personnel people, but I'm not at all sure that that's a matter of public record.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks -- yep, that sounds like the situation. I've emailed a few of their PR people. I hope they'll be able to point me to obscure but technically public documentation, or email something into OTRS that I can cite. If not, I'll just find news reports and cite those. Sumana Harihareswara 02:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds right. Some documentation is created for an award, but such things tend to include the soldier's SSN. In passing, what the heck is the "Alabama Military Academy?" We don't have a page for it and my search on line resulted in a couple of youtube videos and a flashcard(?) reference.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Never heard of it. According to Alabama Army National Guard, it is at Fort McClellan. I have not found anything on the AL ANG web page yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there are any major awards/medals that come specifically from the Army National Guard. More likely from the Department of Defense or Army. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess it depends on what you consider "major" awards. Each state is authorized to create its own awards for National Guard personnel. They rank in precedence below all federal or international awards and are not worn in DA photos and such and are not worn by servicemembers that may transfer to the active component or to the Army Reserve, from the National Guard. They are, however, worth promotion points, some are worth as much or more than federal awards. The authorized state awards for each state is information that probably should be added to the several state/territory National Guard articles. RTO Trainer (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks; yeah, her awards almost all came from the Army; sorry for confusing things. (There is a special award she got from her colleagues in Kuwait, which means I'm going to have to get all Google Translate on kng.gov.kw sometime.) Sumana Harihareswara 02:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Brabant Revolution

Hello guys, I've done some work on the Battle of Turnhout (1789) and discovered, with horror, that the main article for the war (Brabant Revolution) is not only terrible, but largely in Italian. Could anyone with the relevant interests/language skills come and help sort this out? It's an interesting part of early modern military history and as such deserves some TLC. Any help much appreciated! ----Brigade Piron (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My Italian is pretty rusty-- so I use the Google Chrome browser-- it will translate on the run well enough to get the gist of it. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, Bing translation works better from Italian than most other languages. If you have the time and enough interest in the subject, give it a try yourself. You can easily see where it has wandered off into the bush. Of course, you will have to decide for yourself what to do with the Italian sources, being hard to check. Rumiton (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone code complex infoboxes?

Hey everyone! So, the discussion on the merging of some templates has now been completed, and I was wondering if anyone could code the template to incorporate the new changes, as well as move it to its new location. If an administrator or two could help in this task, that would be great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Update. So far trial and error has gotten most of the coding complete but its not the tidiest of assemblages and if anyone is on hand - or an experten from another part of wikipedia could be recommended - to advise/tweak/correct the template code that would be appreciated. It's at Template:Infobox military installation/sandbox if anyone cares to look it over. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on it, but there's a lot more that needs to be done before the consolidated template is ready to be a drop-in replacement for the other infoboxes. Kirill ^[talk] 03:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What else needs to be done? I might be able to help. — -dainomite   04:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a more detailed rundown of specific technical issues on the template talk page. Kirill ^[talk] 04:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alabama Military Academy

Split from previous entry. It's the Alabama NG OCS and it's at Fort McClellan. Are there fifty of these things?<gulp>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there are three places where US Army National Guard people can do accelerated OCS; I haven't done enough research to opine on regular OCS for sure, but I think there are under fifty Regional Training Centers for non-accelerated OCS. And I would say that the training program Gabbard went through is only informally known as "the Alabama Military Academy", except for stuff like this article. Sumana Harihareswara 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The Alabama page has "AMA" on the logo, but it seems unofficial.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You're talking for Alabama, it seems, about the 200th Regiment (Regional Training Institute). The answer is just about yes, every State ARNG I've come across except places like Guam have them. See the New York Army National Guard for example, with the 106th Regiment (RTI). They often appear to draw their heritage from US Army Reserve infantry regiments, though that is not certain in this case because the 200th Infantry/200th Coastal Artillery/200th ADA is a New Mexico ARNG regiment. Check McGrath, 'The Brigade' for a listing of regiments that may tie up with these units. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

See for another example in the Wisconsin Army National Guard, the 426th Regiment (Regional Training Institute) - http://dma.wi.gov/dma/arng/default.asp. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example: California Military Academy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gerald Evan Williams

G'day all, I struck this one while gnoming through the new articles tagging task forces. I proded it as the subject appeared to fall shy of WP:SOLDIER, and the only way I can see he gets over the WP:BIO line is the DFC and two oak leaf clusters plus Brit DFC. He commanded a bombardment group, so regimental equivalent. He was deproded of course, but before I go for an AfD, could I get some wider views, particularly from those who know their USAAF in WWII? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Three DFC from the US, Britain, and France. 75 missions when the normal limit was 50, I think. If this material is correct then he may well warrant an article even though some may feel he doesn't make our grade. It is well wriiten, sourced, has an image, not tabloid or promo material, etc. I see no harm in keeping it. Our standards may lower in the future for inclusion and it may be forgotten if deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say as the subject is not a flag/general officer, is not notable for a significant contribution to a battle, and has not received first or second rate medals for valor that he is not independently notable. I would actually propose, if taken to AfD, deletion or redirection to 391st Bombardment Group#World War II.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Defpro

Hi all,
It appears that defpro has gone down. About 170 pages cite it in one way or another - a variety of articles, naval, air forces &c but mostly weighted towards modern stuff, and equipment/procurement in particular. It might be a good idea to keep an eye out for alternatives or cached copies of pages &c. bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://defpro.com contains a number of crawled pages. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirm or deny?

The article on H-3 Air Base mentions underground facilities, but an anon posted on the talkpage that he was unable to find any evidence of such. Can anyone here do better? DS (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If the content is disputed and there's no source, shouldn't we remove the content until better sources come along? bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tag it, notify the author (Bwmoll3), give it a week or so to show signs of improvement.. if none presents itself, AfD due to lack of references and potential OR. The author will then be forced to add sources, or submit that there are none and allow it to be scrapped. Seems fair to me.. a week of leeway never hurt anybody. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Post-war"

FYI, the naming of "Post-war" is up for discussion, see Talk:Post-PC era -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Charge of the Light Brigade

Could I ask for advice/clarity on whether this should be written "Charge of the Light Brigade" or "charge of the Light Brigade"? Our own article appears to use both (although preferring Charge) as does a cursory skim though Google Books on the subject. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If referring to the Tennyson poem or title or film titles, then as Charge of the Light Brigade, but given that "charge" isn't a proper noun, the actual event at Balaclava was the charge of the Light Brigade, in the same way as you'd refer to the charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo, not the Charge of the Scots Greys. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the charge itself, so lower case it is: many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree - the "Charge of the Light Brigade" is itself the name of the event, and should be capitalised in the same way we capitalise "Battle of Waterloo" (rather than "a battle at Waterloo"). Andrew Gray (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

By that argument, every action within any battle is an event, with "Advance of..." "Attack of..." "Counter-attack of..." "Retreat of...", pretty soon every article would look like a Camel Cased mess. The charge of the Light Brigade is part of the Battle of Balaclava, which is capitalised by virtually unanimous consensus. And with the example you gave, because of the infinitive noun it would be "a battle at Waterloo", similar to "Smith was a lieutenant in the military", compared with "the Battle of Waterloo" or "Lieutenant Smith was in the military". There is no right or wrong, I suppose, it's a matter of preference.. just like the/The Beatles debate. Proper noun#In English gives details of how "Cuban missile crisis" is sometimes printed "Cuban Missile Crisis".. and then there's Pickett's Charge. Charge could have a lower "c" there too. Probably best just to set a preference, and keep it consistent.. caps don't change the meaning. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it applies in all cases, no. However, this is one where it's unambiguously the standard name for the event, and it's widely understood to refer to a specific named event - the fact that we're having the discussion without needing to clarify what charge it's about sort of demonstrates this ;-). The Charge of the Light Brigade, capitalised, refers to a particular event; the "charge of the Light Brigade" is a general term for any charge made by the LB. In most cases, we tend to use the former even though the latter also applies. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation applies to a proper noun, meaning the name is "unique". Given that some form of Light Brigade unit may have charged in other battles, then being "a charge of a Light Brigade in some battle", it is a standard military action, not a completely unique event. We're not questioning what the title applies to, because it is common knowledge to most historians, and poets.. I'm sure there are people who know about the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and nothing of Balaclava, or the Light Brigade. The Charge, capitalised, refers to the poem, the films, and only to the Balaclava event in common knowledge, but to your average man who knows nothing of the Crimean War, it was just a cavalry charge. By all rights, we might as well call the Scots Greys advance at Waterloo the "Charge of the Heavy Brigade" given that the Battle of Waterloo is more common knowledge than Balaclava. Within the context of an article on Balaclava, the event was "a charge" because during the instant the LB advanced, it was making "a charge", which is fairly routine so far as battle go, and therefore a common noun. It's only when the context is to look back on "the Charge" in retrospect as an infamous event, that it needs to be given proper noun status. That's how I perceive it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I find myself on both sides of this one. (I'm not indecisive. Am I? ;p ) I can see sense in both arguments, & don't really have strong feelings about either one. I would say Pickett's Charge (because it's a ref to a singular event) & to Cuban Missile Crisis (if only to avoid confusion about it being a crisis over a Cuban missile or a missile crisis in Cuba, which could be quite separate from the historical event in question). I tilt slightly toward Charge, following Pickett's, for the same reason mentioned above: there have been other charges & other light bdes; then there's The Charge. Harvey Two-Face ^{make up your damn mind} 23:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"It's only when the context is to look back on "the Charge" in retrospect as an infamous event, that it needs to be given proper noun status". So it should be capitalised, on that basis, no? describing the action it was "a charge", but in hindsight we talk about the unique event, "the Charge..."? (Just as an aside, it wasn't a charge the moment they advanced, it was only a charge when the order to charge was given, which was after the "walk", "trot" and "gallop" commands—it's designed to build up speed and to arrive en masse to create greatest disruption in the enemy ranks. The charge was only in the last yards). - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes.. you could say "charge" is a burst of speed in the last moments, but because the LB were advancing steadily directly on the guns the whole time, being shot to ribbons, the overall event is called the "Charge of the Light Brigade", otherwise Tennyson's poem makes no sense, as the physical "charge" was done under the guns, and it should be "Advance of the Light Brigade until the Order to Charge! was given" :) Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the differentiation brought up by Harvey and (get ready for pun on SchroCat's name) I happen to think "charge" is both capitalized and un-capitalized simultaneously while "in the box", and it only becomes one or the other when it's inserted into a specific context. To freshen things up, replace it with the above-linked example. "Pickett's men made a charge (n.b.: also a very slow advance under fire) on July 3, 1863" versus "Pickett's Charge took place on July 3, 1863". I think, regardless of military usage, when something has taken on a cultural or otherwise mass significance that leads to it being singled out by an identifier that instantaneously references the event and leaves no ambiguity, it deserves capitalization, as that's the definition of a formal name. Cdtew (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I think the only way I can best explain my view is by example. Anything discussing the event in retrospect, should be Charge, because of the unique notability of the event. If however, you were giving a description of the battle, you might put, for example, "Lord Ragland and his staff witnessed the charge of the Light Brigade from the heights of the battlefield". In that I use lower "c" because it is a contemporary detail, explaining events before they became significant.. no reports had been sent, no one beyond the battle knew of it, Tennyson's poem was unwritten.. it's describing the "charge" within the context of what happened during the battle, and by not giving is Proper noun status, which controversially is a grammatical bias, as it gives emphasis to the name of the event.. by only using "Charge" when the name is important as a historical event, should it be given Proper nous status. Before religion was founded, there were no gods (lower g) to worship, just as before the Battle of Balaclava there was no charge to praise. The Charge of the Light Brigade, and most significant military actions, are only raised to Proper noun status due to mass recognition, I doubt its something Oxford or Harvard can claim is a rule of how written-language works.. by that I mean, why do we use "September 11 attacks", instead of "September 11 Attacks", given that was also a unique event.. aren't "charge" and "attack" the same thing? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Crusader

The usage of Crusader is under discussion, see talk:Crusader -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Canadian ships, eh

This nomination at CfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion re service numbers in militaryperson infoboxes

A discussion regarding service numbers in military person infoboxes is taking place here: Template_talk:Infobox_military_person#Service_number_parameter. Interested editors are invited to participate. – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

148th Aero Squadron

Have just finished the initial creation of this article about this World War I United States pursuit squadron that primarily served with the Royal Air Force on the Western Front in France during 1918. I was fortunate enough to find an extensive written unit history of this forgotten squadron. It has no modern USAF counterpart. It would be appreciated if some interested editors could have a go reviewing and making corrective edits please. Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

FOIA documents as reliable source question

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Salvatore Giunta#February 2013. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal Devon Yeomanry

The Royal Devon Yeomanry article is confusing two different but related regiments: the Royal 1st Devon Yeomanry and the Royal Devon Yeomanry. The latter regiment was formed by amalgamation of the former regiment with the Royal North Devon Yeomanry in 1920. How do I go about splitting Royal Devon Yeomanry? In the meantime, I intend to replace the redirect at Royal North Devon Yeomanry with a new article on that regiment. Has anyone got any strong views on this? Hamish59 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Click on the link Royal 1st Devon Yeomanry under the title when it comes through, edit, remove the word 'Redirect' and move all information on Royal 1 Dev Yeo to that article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, Buckshot06, but I was thinking more in terms of preserving the edit history. Just chopping a chunk of stuff from one article and dropping it into another just doesn't seem right, somehow. Hamish59 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge, it tells you what you need to add to the articles and in the edit summaries. Gavbadger (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) The edit summaries for moving the text and making this redirect should mention where the text came from for attribution purposes. There are also template(s) that can be added to the talk pages for attribution. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have had a go at Royal North Devon Yeomanry. Much of existing Royal Devon Yeomanry article seems to be a copy of this from the MOD. WP:COPYVIO? So, I am going to create a new Royal 1st Devon Yeomanry then cut out the pre-1920 stuff from Royal Devon Yeomanry. Hamish59 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, how do I delete pages? I no longer need User:Hamish59/Royal North Devon Yeomanry. Hamish59 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You can ask for speedy deletion. (Speedy deletion criterion u1 is for pages in your userspace which you don't want any more). If you put {{db-u1}} at the top of the page, a friendly admin will usually delete it for you. If you use Twinkle, you can do this via the "csd" button. bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That is excellenet, Bobrayner. Thank you very much for the very quick reply. Hamish59 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully a final question on this subject. This image File:Royal Devon Yeomanry Badge.jpg has been named as Royal Devon Yeomanry Badge when, in fact, it is that of the Royal 1st Devon Yeomanry Badge. How do I go about getting this renamed? Hamish59 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Give me a sec and I will move that for you.--ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done, moved to File:Royal 1st Devon Yeomanry Badge.jpg.--ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, ukexpat. Hamish59 (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

HMS Eagle (1918)

Was wondering if this ship should be consderiderd a escort carrier or a light carrier. The main reason is she carried so few aircraft (that can be explained by the shorage of aircraft) but also because she has about the same lenght as a light carrier. One last thing she mainly preformed in teh role of a escort carrier but later in the role of a light carrier by going after shipping and such. Nhog (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to any particular bit of her career. For a time in the mid-1920s she was the largest carrier in existence. So neither "escort" nor "light" are appropiate for that part of her career. It's not until the 1930s that Britain builds much bigger carriers in contrast to which the unarmoured, mercantile build standards 1942 Design carriers are "light". The escort carriers of WWII are shorter and slower. Better to refer to her size or use in escorting convoys rather than a direct link to escort carrier. (By the way, I found Escort Group (naval) just now, it could use some attention.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

She was built on a battleship hull, and can operate with the fleet, so was a fleet carrier. Her size and her speed makes her not a light carrier (small displacement, comparable to a light cruiser or large destroyer) nor an escort carrier (slow speed, comparable to a cargo ship or corvette) ; but, as was the case with post-WWII era where fleet carriers became light carriers because new carriers coming online were much larger, relegating the older carriers to the light role, the era does matter. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks was working on a project and this issue came up. Nhog (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorting by rank

Do we have a sorting template that enables a table to be sorted by military rank (I'm thinking of something like {{dts}} which is used for dates), or do we usually do it manually? Chamal ^T•C 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any template for it. Kirill ^[talk] 12:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what I thought. Guess I'm doing it manually then. Thanks. Chamal ^T•C 16:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WWI ship losses

Over the past several months I've been working on shipwrecks in the period 1914-18. Assistance would be welcomed in expanding entries from book sources as I've been working with online sources. Members of this WP will notice that there are many military ships lost during WWI which do not have articles, to say nothing of the many more civilian ships. With the centenary of the start of WWI next year, maybe a few of the gaps could be filled? Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Escort Group (naval) needs attention

Escort Group (naval)could use some attention.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escort_Group_(naval) Thanks to GraemeLeggett for spotting this. Nhog (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge/reorganise with Mid-Ocean Escort Force? That one's in much better shape. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the Escort Group itself could benefit from more concentration on the group themselves - composition, naming, operations, tactics - leaving the broad history of the introduction of escorts to Mid-Ocean Escort Force. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI - New MoH approval

Emil Kapaun, will be awarded the MoH in April of this year. Please see this diff.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for 28th Aero Squadron

The 28th Aero Squadron article has been proposed for a merge with the 28th Bomb Squadron. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger of Grumman F11F Super Tiger into Grumman F-11 Tiger

I have suggested that Grumman F11F Super Tiger merge into Grumman F-11 Tiger. For the discussion, see talk:Grumman F-11 Tiger -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian Artillery regiments and batteries in World War 2

Mark Peel's biography of Anthony Chenevix-Trench says, on pages 43 and 44, that Chenevix-Trench served in the 22nd Mountain (Indian Artillery) Regiment in World War 2, fought in northern Malaya in support of the 11th Indian Division at Jitra, and was captured in the fall of Singapore. Peel also says (p.45) that the specific unit was the 4th (Hazara) Mountain Battery, which had recently been re-equipped with 6-inch howitzers.

However, we have articles 22nd Derajat Mountain Battery (Frontier Force) - discussing a unit that appears not to have served in Malaya or Singapore - and 24th Hazara Mountain Battery (Frontier Force) - discussing a unit that did serve in Malaya and Singapore. (Both these articles refer to the units as "the 2nd" and "the 4th" instead of "the 22nd" and "the 24th" - this naming practice is apparently explained at List of regiments of the Indian Army (1903)). Our article Battle of Jitra mentions, but does not wikilink, the "22nd Mountain Regiment" as having at least one battery in support of the 11th Infantry Division (India) at Jitra.

So, is 24th Hazara Mountain Battery (Frontier Force) the unit that Peel is referring to? Was this unit part of the "22nd Mountain Regiment", and if so, should Wikipedia have a separate article on the Regiment, since it already has articles on some of its component batteries? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't trust anything claimed on Wikipedia at this point re the Indian Army, as it's so grossly underdeveloped at the moment. The experts are at http://indianmilitaryhistory.org - Ravi Rikhye and Mandeep Singh Bajwa. Contact me via the emailthisuser to get Ravi's current e-mail, who can ask Mandeep. From the point of view of our standards, all the batteries should probably be upmerged into the article on the regiment, if their data shows that the 22nd Mountain Regt IA and these batteries had anything in common at all. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

German Military naming convention

The modern military branches of Germany can be found coherently under "German Army/Navy/Air Force"; however for older formations there is no convention on how to name the articles. Which i.e. with the East German National People's Army leads to three very different article titles:

1. Correct translation: Landstreitkräfte der Nationalen Volksarmee -> Land Forces of the National People's Army
2. German: Volksmarine
3. Wrong translation: Luftstreitkräfte der Nationalen Volksarmee -> Air Force of the GDR National People's Army (correct: Air Forces of the National People's Army)

The Wehrmacht and its branches are all left in German language, with the exception of the Army - which is cumbersomly titled: German Army (1935–1945)

	Ground Force	Navy	Air Force
	German Army (German Empire)	Imperial German Navy	Luftstreitkräfte
Reichswehr	Reichsheer	Reichsmarine	-
Wehrmacht	German Army (1935–1945)	Kriegsmarine	Luftwaffe
National People's Army	Land Forces of the National People's Army	Volksmarine	Air Forces of the National People's Army
Bundeswehr	German Army	German Navy	German Air Force

Therefore I would suggest to rename the following articles:

• German Army (1935–1945) to either Heer (as with the other two branches) or German Army (Third Reich) (as with the Army of the German Empire)
• Air Force of the GDR National People's Army to Air Forces of the National People's Army

As for the German Empire - I am open for options/suggestions on how to name them more coherently (but they are correctly named now). noclador (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Heer currently redirects to the current German Army - Deutches Heer. Third Reich redirects to Nazi Germany - so your alternative suggestion should be German Army (Nazi Germany), though the Nazi Germany article covers 1933 onwards. The problem lies that although Luftwaffe is a well known expression, while Heer (and Reichsmarine) is not - and therefore wins out on WP:Commonname. I suspect many associate the word "Wehrmacht" with the Army and not as all three forces together. Wikipedia is flexible - sometimes consistency is useful, sometimes not. As for the GDR air force - why not Air force (German Democratic Republic) or East German air force. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

German Army (1935–1945) was recently moved from Heer under COMMONNAME, on the grounds that in the English language, while Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe are commonly used to denote those forces in this time period, the same is untrue for Heer. Some wartime German language words have become common terms in English, like those mentioned and things like Wehrmacht, Blitzkrieg, Panzer, U-boat, etc. Heer just isn't one of them. There was certainly no appetite for overturning COMMONNAME in favour of applying a German-language term just because the other two forces happened to do so. (I realise it's not analogous, but for example Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, but British Army). Benea (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

as German Army (1935–1945) was moved after a discussion from Heer - I cancel that option out as it would be against consensus to move it again. I believe a move to German Army (Nazi Germany) would be wrong as Nazi Germany was never an official title. As for the East German Air Force - I think the best and most correct move would be to Air Forces of the National People's Army as this is the correct translation and it is in line with the other names: National People's Army and Land Forces of the National People's Army. noclador (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As Air Force of the GDR National People's Army was clearly wrong I was so bold and moved it to the correct Air Forces of the National People's Army. As for German Army (1935–1945) - I am holding off on this. noclador (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

JAG pages

This is a bit tangled. The dab page JAG describes the article Judge Advocate General's Corps as "the legal branch or specialty of the U.S. Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, and Navy." But that article is tagged as being US-centric, which is nonsensical if it's describing a particular branch of the US military. Either way, it's largely redundant with Judge Advocate General's Corps (United States) (listed on the dab Judge Advocate General). I suppose the intent is for Judge Advocate General's Corps to describe JAGs as a general concept, though I wonder if Judge Advocate General wouldn't be a better title for such an article. I don't know enough about the subject to be especially helpful in this cleanup, but I'm willing to help with technical aspects if anyone gets in touch. Just wanted to notify you. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the majority of the content can be moved to Judge Advocate General's Corps (United States), where it already appears to duplicated.

As for the article it can become a general article about military JAGs, of all nations, much as there is an Infantry article, which focuses on no single nation's infantry.

This would mean that the dab, and current Judge Advocate General needs to be merged into the new article, potentially under a "List of national judge advocate general articles" section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand Army article

In late January editor Retrolord undertook a fairly extensive review of this article "removing significant pro-NZ bias from article" and "made numerous copy-edits". Deleting such POV statements as "with distinction" may not be unreasonable (though similar claims would appear in many national army articles). It is less clear why recording the total population of NZ in World War I as a benchmark against which to measure casualties is particularly biased. However Retorlord's downgrading of New Zealand's participation in the original Long Range Desert Group from "made contribution" to "made minor contribution" does not ring true. Is there anyone with a better knowledge of the history of this unit than mine who could comment? Buistr (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, the LRDG claim, at least, seems honestly inaccurate (though I am a New Zealander, I should say). NZ contributed a full squadron eventually - T Squadron, if I recall correctly, and was heavily involved. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to revert it back then. I only removed the population metric as i felt it was being used to push the viewpoint that NZ sacrificed more than any other country in the war. Revert it if you must, we are all working towards the same goal, making it better. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If its a statistic that is cited to a reliable source it seems relevant to me. The size of a population during a period of national mobilisation would usually directly correlate to available manpower and hence potential and actual military strength. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Radford

This World War II admiral and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been up at FAC for four weeks and just needs another two people to look it over. Any comments would be appreciated! —Ed!^(talk) 14:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

USAF Air Divisions

It would appear that the Air Force Historical Research Agency has removed the fact sheets for USAF Air Divisions from its website, meaning the loss of a lot of linkable references. I found this out while trying to add a date of the factsheet for a reference to the 57th Air Division. Google's cache of the 57th AD fact sheet is dated January 30th. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's ODD. I wonder if it's being re-written. I've just sent an email to AFHRANEWS@maxwell.af.mil asking about it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Moll:
	You are correct.  We have dropped the lineage and honors histories
of air divisions from our home page for two reasons: one is that the air
divisions are inactive and have been for a long time, and we need to save
our webpage space for active USAF organizations.  A second reason is that so
many of the air division lineage and honors histories had errors.  If you
need the lineage and honors history of any particular air division, please
let us know and we will send you what we have.  Thank you.


Daniel L. Haulman, PhD
Chief, Organizational Histories Branch
Air Force Historical Research Agency

Can one ask them for lineage and honours for the Gulf War provisional air divisions: 15th, 17th, 1606th, etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You may also want to ask them to see about putting what was removed into a sepret page because that stuff could be usfull at a later date. Nhog (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy GA Nomination

The Peer Review process has been completed on Audie Murphy. It is now a GA nomination. — Maile (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This made it to GA. Thanks to those who helped. — Maile (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

More help for casual readers

I decided to day to have a look at the feedback on my watched pages. Now, I know there is an epic debate raging about how useful these are but one thing that did strike me is that some of our readers really struggle with how to read an article. I'm not talking literacy here but failing to notice info boxes, or not understanding the use of wikilinks. I decided to investigate help. It is clear that our help is designed for the serious student or would-be editor. The casual reader a) would stuggle to find it b) struggle to navigate it. We do have a reader FAQ (where I have raised the ignorance of wikilinks as a topic) but it isn't prominent. Is there no way our co-ordinators can lobby for the introduction of straightforward link in the header, so that casual readers can access reader help more easily?Monstrelet (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really - the coordinators of this project have no particular influence over such things. I'd suggest that you raise this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or similar. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WWI Centenary

Hi folks, just a quick note to say that a discussion has been taking place at the DYK talk page, regarding the centenary of the First World War and how to manage DYK nominations. A guideline has been put together at Wikipedia:World War I Centenary/DYK, the essence of which is that it will be possible to 'bank' DYK nominations in the year before the centenary of the beginning of the war. Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Eyes on an article...

...an IP is attempting to "de-nationalise" Republic F-84 Thunderjet by removing the fact that MiG-15s were flown by Soviet pilots in the Korean War, including using this somewhat odd edit summary while doing so. [14]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the IP may have a point. While I don't have any information on hand to back me up, I doubt that there wasn't at least one North Korean pilot with equal skill as Soviet pilots, just like I doubt that every Soviet pilot was highly trained. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for FAC review assistance

I'd be grateful if WP:MILHIST editors could look at my most recent Featured Article Candidate, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1. It has a very heavy military history slant to it (not surprising given the history of the place) so it is of major relevance to WP:MILHIST, especially regarding British military history. If anyone has any comments on the nomination, they would be most welcome. Prioryman (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Paddy/Brendan Finucane - non-controversial move help?

Paddy Finucane has been moved to Brendan ('Paddy') Finucane - I see no problem with the stated reason that the given name is preferable to the nickname - but latter is a bit of a orthographical mess and it is unnecessary as there are no other articles for persons named Brendan Finucane. Brendan Finucane was a redirect to Paddy Finucane anyway.

I don't think there would be any complaints if the article was moved to Brendan Finucane but it needs the requisite permissions. Anyone in a position to sort it? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! I agree with you that either Brendan or Paddy is the appropriate name, rather than combining both. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Yamato and Yamato-class

Could someone do something to these discrepancies?--84.249.89.206 (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for A-class nominations

An unusually large number of A-class reviews are open at present, and almost all of them would benefit from comments by additional reviewers. Editors who are new to A-class reviewing might find the FAQ at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class FAQ helpful, and editors who have nominated articles are encouraged to review other nominations. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I'll do a couple more, but I am unsure what is going on with the "Troop engagements..." list articles. They seem stuck, as several reviewers have looked at them and made suggestions but it's not clear what if anything is going to be done about the comments? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Color Sergeant

During World War I the United States Army used the rank Color Sergeant, which was immediately below Battalion Sergeant Major, but above First Sergeant, what would it's modern day equivalency be?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning, there's a little swagging involved here! Because a modern battalion sergeant major is a Command Sergeant Major, you might argue in favor of a color sergeant being a Sergeant Major, but in a wider sense, the rank, like Ordnance sergeant and Quartermaster sergeant, is just gone.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In Australia the equivalent would have been Staff Sergeant, not Warrant Officer. The rank now only exists here at the Royal Military College as a cadet rank. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You might add that bit to Colour sergeant, with a cite, of course.<grin>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As a tangential answer: The article Colour Sergeant states the British Army rank "has a NATO ranking code of OR-7". The article on Ranks and insignia of NATO armies enlisted states that this designation is the same as Sergeant First Class in the United States army. -- PBS (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, while no longer a rank, the term Color Sergeant is still used in the United States Marine Corps as a duty billet. Battalion sized units and larger have a designated CS to carry the unit's flag. There is also an official Marine Corps Color Sergeant who carries the Flag of the United States Marine Corps. We're on Color Sergeant number 35. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Tank identification

File:FLMM - M60.jpg

Some IP left a comment on the talk page of this photo saying "This looks to me more like an M48 than an M60, given the turret shape (particularly around the front of the turret near the gun)." I have no idea, way outside of any expertise I have. If anyone knows confidently, could you comment? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly looks like an M48 to me (compare with this photo) - the M60 has a much different turret (see here, for instance). The file should be renamed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It may well be a M-60; the M-60A-1 introduced the long-nosed turret that we're much more familiar with. I'd have to check my books to identify the exact model. See File:Kampfpanzer M 60.JPG for one example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought it could be a M48A5 with the 105mm gun, but the differences with the first of the M60's were not massive. Tough one. I'll be interested in Sturm's view once he's checked the books. Update: the three return rollers (rather than five on the M48) is I believe an indication it is a M60 hull, therefore the early model M60 tank which mounted the last of the M48 turrets with the M68 gun. Sturm, you might be able to confirm the return roller identification of the hull. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is more information on this tank. [15]. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Marcus. Pretty convincing evidence, that about wraps it up for M48A5, the M60 has it IMO. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Scope question

Would lists where many (but not all) of the entries are military personnel qualify for the project? Something like two thirds of the entries at National Hero of Indonesia would qualify for a MilHist banner, but I'm not sure the title does as it's not exactly a military title. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the "National Hero" title only limited to members of the military of Indonesia? Looking at the article it does not appear to be; therefore, I think it falls outside the scope of this WikiProject. That being said it might fall under a related WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It may also fall under WP:PRIZE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I didn't even know about those two. Alright, I'll avoid tagging it for MilHist as only a majority are (para)military — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Chach Nama

Hello, all! Haven't been active around here much lately, but thought anyone knowledgeable in the field of Indian history would be an asset. The articles about 7th-century Sindh, during a series of internecine conflicts and Muslim incursions, are in a fairly dilapidated or needy state. They all are centered around the Chach Nama, an Arabic/Persian chronicle of the events up to the Umayyad invasion of Sindh during the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. If you're interested, I've created a table of articles and needs at User:DCI2026/Chach Nama table. Thanks much. dci | TALK 18:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Kaliningrad defensive area

Please help with correct translation ru:Калининградский оборонительный район. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Project 1231

need help in the translation of ru:Опытный малый погружающийся ракетный корабль проекта 1231. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Does "Experimental Midget Guided Missile Submarine Project 1231" sound anywhere near useful? I let Google translate from Russian, then modified into "more friendly" English. It does push the displacement definition of Midget submarine, but the constraint of 150 tons lacks a citation.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

slightly more accurate "diving small ship" the rest is true Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Eduard Aframeev. DIVING MISSILE-BOATS Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:General of the Cavalry (Germany)#Scope

I have split General of the Cavalry (Germany) into two and created a new header article. There now exists:

• General of the Cavalry
• General of the Cavalry (Austria)
• General of the Cavalry (Germany)

Currently the scope of the article on Germany is defined in the first sentence and restricts itself to armies from the creation of the German Empire in 1871, but the list of officers holding this rank includes men who were held the rank prior to the creation of the German Empire. I have created section on the talk page: talk:General of the Cavalry (Germany)#Scope to allow editors to discuss what the scope of the article should be and by implication where Prussian, Bavarian (etc) General der Kavallerie prior to 1871 should be placed. If you read this and have an opinion please contribute to the discussion and/or the articles. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... I notice we're missing Inspector of Cavalry (and related Inspector of Artillery, Inspector of Infantry) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And Inspector of Panzers/General of Panzers / Inspector of Panzer Troops/General of Panzer Troops -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We have General der Panzertruppe, General der Flieger and others. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Translation needed

This appears to be a certificate (graduation?) from the Third Air Instructional Center, American Expeditionary Forces training school at Issoudun Aerodrome. File:Issoudun Certficate.jpg Can someone translate it so I can include the image in the article with a correct caption? Merci pour votre aide :) :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tiananmen and Chola

See Talk:List of wars involving the People's Republic of China, where an editor contends that Tiananmen Square was a war, and should be listed, also Chola Incident. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ever heard of Ottomar gern?

I PRODed the article Ottomar gern because it is not in English and I cannot establish notability, but I want to do due diligence. Per Google Translate, the claim is being made that he built one of the first ever submarines in the 18th century. If true, it's is a fact missed by every reliable source I can find on submarine history. Has anybody here ever heard of him? Andrew³²⁷ 06:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I never heard of him, either, but I can't rule him out. I do find the claims for gasoline engines, mines, & SP torpedoes as early as that extremely dubious, based on what I do know of sub developments in this era. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

He's mentioned in Polmar & Noot's book on Russian and Soviet submarines, which is referenced in the article. See for instance page 2 (it's viewable on Google Books here): "Konstantine Borisov Gern was responsible for several Russian submarine designs during the 1850s and 1860s. His first project...was designed during the Crimean War to improve the defenses of the Baltic port of Reval..." Seems legit to me. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I started throwing up flares about this article, editors have really helped out and now it has the potential of becoming at least C class. Thanks for the help. Andrew³²⁷ 05:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer to check potential hoaxer requested

Hello, Civil War history isn't exactly my forte. But User:Stephendcalhoun set off alarm bells in an article I watched, Hampton Roads Conference - seemingly nonsensical additions, referenced to empty searches of archives, and other claims involving an event that happened in 1864 somehow being listed in the "aftermath" of an 1865 event (not NOTED as an 1864 event at first, of course), sourced to a primary source of civil war letters that's offline written in 1910. Difficult to check, in other words, and he reverted both me & another user with delightful edit summaries like "undid psuedo-intellectual censorship". Some of his contributions elsewhere appear to be correct or harmless, so I suppose it's possible this is a misguided user. Anyway, can someone who is better at knowing if this user is mostly real contributions look through his contributions? There's some additions about CSA secret agents and the like... but maybe I'm totally wrong, in which case I'll apologize to the user, although I think his additions to the Hampton Roads Conference article can't be right. SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Stephendcalhoun&offset=&limit=500&target=Stephendcalhoun

Wow. Stephen D. Calhoun's 1993 book was written by a non-scholar; the guy is a government worker. It's title is revealing: The Marylanders: Without Shelter or a Crumb, A Saga of the Fascist Repression of a Family During the American Civil War. The bit about Fascist Repression is too much. The publisher is a local and regional press focusing on small printing runs. I don't think the book should be considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the link to the edit page and I agree thi needs to be looked at I am not that great on the subject but the way he worded the reasons why he undid the edit just seem to be geting writen in a wrong manner. Trying to be diplomatic with this so not the best explnation.Nhog (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Have read through the artical 3 times and it is setting off so many alarm bells and it also needs so much more info. It also needs more refrences.Nhog (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fort Hood Shooting casualty figure RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fort Hood shooting#Request for Comment. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Article move request

Can some registered editor move the article Directorate of Miscellaneous Weapons Development to its proper name, Department of Miscellaneous Weapons Development? To verify the correctness of the latter, check any of the cited article sources (eg The Secret War 1939-45; the very first sentence) or simply this Google Books search result (be wary of all the circular "Directorate" hits that a generic web search throws up). Thanks. 50.148.126.15 (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Y done. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I need help

I have for some time being trying to get this article up to FA status, but I am simply not good enough. So would anyone here care to give a hand? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Has it been through a peer review? If not, I suggest submitting it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it has, the fellow who did the peer review mentioned posting here to get help. The fact is I have gone as far as I can, now I just stare at the article and am stuck. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

DSC assistance requested

I appear to have a problem at the Distinguished Service Cross (United States) article. At the article there are over 50 references provided at the article, however the reference list only displays 20. Can someone attempt to debug the page and let me know what I overlooked?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done There was an unclosed {{cite web}} so none of the subsequent refs showed. NtheP (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

it looks like I need some additional assistance regarding this article. A brand new editor has re-added content without reliable sources, which was previously removed, twice. And so I don't appear to be engaging in an edit war, can someone else revert the addition?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnwuein appears to have quit, at least temporarily. His "good friend," User:Jacksonbbb, has picked up where he left off. I started a sockpuppet inquiry.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Quack! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your assistance regarding this matter. This isn't the first time an alleged Delta Force DSC recipient had to be removed from the list per WP:BURDEN (not using reliable sources to verify content). For all we know these service members may have been awarded the DSC, and it maybe classified, but if we cannot verify it, it can't be on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor has re-added the content again, citing a website wix.com

The website appears to be a self published source, therefore it is not a reliable source. I have removed the content again. I do not find any content regarding a "Ricardo Massa" at a .mil website. This appears to be a hoax.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a WP page where we can nominate Wix.com for non-reliability?Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN. The editor has added the content again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have created a discussion there. Here is the link.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Even by the standards of wix.com the source is dubious. At least the other entries on the page have quotes to other people. This entry is poorly written text with no supporting talk. NtheP (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the talk page. I do not want this to devolve into an edit war; that being said, the Johnwuein appears to be a SPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The cited reference seems to have disappeared from Wix.com--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Coast Guard Cross

Howdy folks. I know it has not yet been awarded, but do you think that this is ready for prime time: User:EricSerge/Coast Guard Cross? EricSerge (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought so, but as it is a cross, is there a pic of the actual tin that can be used? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have an external link at the bottom of the page that has a pic. The pic comes from someone's Photobucket account. Though US Awards are PD, I am not sure of the wisdom of poaching it for Commons. Charles McDowell of Foxfall Medals also has a pic on his site. I drew the ribbon using the mil spec. sheet. EricSerge (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One can use images from this DoD document, it should be in the public domain as it is a U.S. Government document.

Why has the Institute of Heraldry released a color drawing for this metal as they have with the Distinguished Warfare Medal?

Perhaps they can be asked for a release of such an image.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I will do that and then move it to the mainspace. I emailed the general mailbox for TIOH, let's see if they respond. EricSerge (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Coast Guard Cross moved to the mainspace. EricSerge (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hired armed cutter Swan

Would an editor who has access to The Times online archive check out the "Ship News" section for the issue dated 12 February 1799. If I'm reading this correctly, the ship mentioned as being an earlier vessel is one and the same as the "first Swan". Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the Times Ship News for that day:

"Plymouth. Feb 9th. This afternoon arrived a very fine French cutter privateer, of 16 guns and 70 men, taken a few days since in the Bay of Biscay, by His Majesty's Ship Anson, of, 38 guns, Captain DURHAM. She was formerly the Swan Revenue Cutter, in the service of the Customs at Cowes, commanded by Capt. SARMON, who, together with many of the crew, were killed in an action with the French lugger privateer which captured her. She is quite a new cutter, and had been at sea but a few months in the Revenue service."

Italics and capitals are as in the piece. Hope it helps, Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if you need a citation, the online archive helpfully generates one: "Ship News." Times [London, England] 12 Feb. 1799: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And... I forgot to comment on what it means. Given that the skipper's name is (nearly) the same as the one the article describes as active in 1793, I'd be inclined to say yes, the ship described in the Times is probably the first Swan, from 1793. However, the fact that the Times piece says that the 1799 cutter was a quite new ship in 1799, and is of 16 guns (rather than the 14 of the 1793 ship described in the article), I start to wonder. It's a difference of 6 years, and this piece says that the 1799 cutter was only in Revenue service for a few months... Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to spelling differences from that era. The tonnage is exactly right given rounding. It is not beyond possibility that an extra two guns were added by the French either. Not sure how to handle this new info, as we could be straying into WP:OR territory. BTW, we have {{cite newspaper The Times}} especially to handle cites from that source. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Could it be that the 1793 date is wrong, and that 1798 is the correct date? Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know about the Times link, cheers for that. I don't have access to the book used to ref the launch of the Swan as 1798, but I've fixed Ref 3 to the Royal Marque. There's 14 hits for Swan (a couple are for longer names), and some are indeed dated 1793. Of course, this is a copy of an original document, so I suppose the 3 could be a misidentification of an 8, but who knows. I think that if the first ref is reliable, we'd have to go with that. The 1798 Swan would almost certainly appear to be the one in the Times though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Colledge & Wardlow show Swan (10), 144 bm, purchased for Revenue Service 1792, transferred to RN 1795, captured 1795. No mention of recapture though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've used this website for work and done sufficient checks to know it's a reliable copy of original documents: [16]. On this page, the Swan is shown to have been captured in 1795, but the Master, Sarmon, returned shortly after. On this page, a new Swan is identified as being built in 1796. They also list it as being captured in 1796 and that Capt Sarmon was killed.

Annoyingly, on another page, there's also a reference to one in 1789... [17]. It may be that this was lost and replaced by the 1792 one, as there's a 1793 reference to a 'late Swan cutter' here.

So, it seems that a Swan, built in the 1780s, may have been lost and replaced by one built in 1792. This is the one that received a Royal Marque. After it was captured in 1795, a new one was built and lost to the French in 1796. This one was then returned to the UK in 1799 (as indicated in the Times). Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: The 1780s Swan was around in 1783 and apparently lost that same year[18]. Another, presumably its replacement, was lost in May 1792 [19]. It looks like there were probably 4 Swans, the last of which was lost to the French in 1796 and returned in 1799. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mark Satin: A-Class review

Hi, it recently came to my attention that the A-Class review for Mark Satin had not been closed properly, see Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Mark Satin. I have made this edit, which has fixed the immediate problem with the Article Alerts, but please would a MILHIST member with the requisite knowledge verify that my edit was correct, and that no more needs to be done regarding that A-Class review. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinions desired

Members of this WikiProject may wish to comment on a proposal regarding Category:Early American naval commanders at this CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeking help and input regarding Australian contribution to UNTAG

Hello all, the Australian contribution to UNTAG has come a long way in a few months. But some advice and assistance over the next month or two would be sensational. By way of background, in April 2012 The Chief of Army Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO approved a recommendation for the award of the first Honour Distinction to 17th Construction Squadron. This is awarded to units or sub-units to recognise service under operational conditions in security-related, peace keeping and peace enforcement and similar operations. The award will be presented to the unit by the Governor General on 11 May 2013. This is the highest honour to be awarded to any Australian Army unit for many years, and may attract a lot of media attention. I was hoping to use the next couple of months to get this article into really good shape. Any help to improve or nominate the article would be appreciated.AWHS (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FACs of life (and death)

• 12 Mar 2013 – Fusō-class battleship (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Dank (t · c); see discussion
  • This is one of Cam's old A-class articles that Sturm and I have significantly expanded.
• 05 Mar 2013 – Ranavalona I (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Lemurbaby (t · c); see discussion
  • Another great entry in Lemurbaby's series on Madagascar royalty. Fortunately, these tend to attract a lot of support, and this one may have four supports before long.
• 04 Mar 2013 – Kosta Pećanac (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Peacemaker67 (t · c); see discussion
  • I don't know why this series of articles on figures from the Balkan Wars, WWI and WWII tends to have a hard time finding reviewers at FAC. As Hawkeye7 has pointed out, Balkans articles are underrepresented ... and here we have a couple of guys working tirelessly to fix that. This isn't a long article, or a hard one to read.
• 20 Feb 2013 – Bob Feller (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Wizardman (t · c); see discussion
  • Oops, when this one got added to FAC, I missed that it was tagged for Milhist. (I really need to check Article Alerts more often.) We don't usually tag professional sports figures, but this guy was the first American professional athlete to enlist in WWII, and his fame created an important role for him in recruitment.
• 19 Feb 2013 – United States v. The Progressive (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Hawkeye7 (t · c); see discussion
  • One of the copyeditors who works at FAC has been making a lot of requests on this one, but he just switched to support, so it's probably clear sailing for this one now ... if a few more people will read it. This is an important installment in Hawkeye's series on the Manhattan Project and its aftermath.
• 19 Feb 2013 – History of Gibraltar (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Prioryman (t · c); see discussion
  • With all the brouhaha over Gibraltar articles and the Main Page, my first instinct was to avoid this one ... but I'm glad I didn't, it's quite good and quite readable. I supported with a few minor caveats; if someone could finish up on those points, that would help a lot.
• 11 Feb 2013 – Russian battleship Rostislav (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Sturmvogel 66 (t · c); see discussion
  • Reviewers of ship articles used to be easy to come by; what happened? We've done battleship articles so often that reviewing shouldn't be tough. And Sturm's articles are pretty low-maintenance.
• 04 Feb 2013 – Camouflage (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); see discussion
  • This one gets a lot more page views than some of the other articles we're reviewing, and it's not as technical ... I'd be grateful if someone would take a whack at it, the prose needs work.
• 02 Feb 2013 – Zaian War (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Dumelow (t · c); see discussion
  • Dumelow has been coming on strong recently and writing some great stuff, so I'm scratching my head at why this one has only one review. The Zaian War "was fought between France and the Zaian confederation of Berber tribes in Morocco between 1914 and 1921".
• 24 Jan 2013 – Arthur W. Radford (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ed! (t · c); see discussion
  • My understanding of the delegate comment is that we're getting close to promotion on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hideki Tōjō

Hideki Tōjō has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Hideki Tōjō -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Need input regarding recent edits on Audie Murphy

Audie Murphy recently made it to GA. I'm hoping to eventually list it here for an A rating, with the ultimate goal of FA. Good faith edits happened within the last 24 hours that I reversed out because of Paraphrasing issues found with Duplication Detector. The editor reversed my reversal, with comments you can read in their edit summary. And there has been more editing using that same source. My only goal is to improve the article until it gets to FA. If everything that has been done is OK, please let me know here. If I was correct to be concerned about the paraphrasing issues, can an editor make the necessary edits on that. I have no desire to get into an edit war and believe the person who made the edits has done so in good faith with the same goals I have. But I need an opinion from an uninvolved editor. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the sourcing being used is from Audie Murphy Research Foundation newsletters. I think the prose being used as sourcing was written by Spec McClure, who helped write "To Hell and Back". But if there is a problem with this as a source, please speak up. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Although reliable sources need not necessarily be accessible online, copyright concerns are definitely an issue if the content is copied word for word onto the article. Perhaps the best thing to do is to tag the content and invite the other editor to the talk page to discuss your concerns civilly. You can also ask a third party for source verification.

The editor may have the best intentions in the world, but maybe getting into legal issues that may not be in the best interest to the project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply RightCowLeftCoast. I would like to be very clear about this. I believe the editor involved feels they are making a good contribution. Their intent is not in doubt. As for discussing this at their talk page, perhaps a look at the editor's User talk page should be a clue as to why I didn't. This is not an editor with a history of acknowledging anyone's communication, as far as I can see. This editor doesn't even have the courtesy to sign their posts on talk pages. That's been an issue addressed on their talk page - and a recent post on the Audie Murphy talk page happened just that way, unsigned. I could spin my wheels forever on this one. I am not a military person, but I believed the initial edits that started happening a week or so ago were good for the article. After the obvious copyvio, and their reversal of my reversing out the copyvio, I started to have a sinking feeling about all this. It has occurred to me to just tag it for copyvio, even if that yanks the recent GA rating. I don't want to be counter-productive to the article, nor do I want its quality to be downgraded by a good-faith editor. What is going on right now, seems - from my point of view - someone's need to document every single minute of what happened in Murphy's military career. Maybe that's necessary, maybe not. Someone experienced in doing these kind of articles might know better. From my point, some of it is unnecessary and just padding the article for the sake of making it look more detailed. I don't think all of it really adds, but it probably makes the editor feel they have added overall content. And what's being added now, I can't verify one way or the other. I am really concerned about this. And feeling helpless. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Somali Armed Forces

As there is some disagreement over form and content of this article, more eyes on as third opinions would be valuable. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to expand on this. First, let me say that in researching conflicts in the developing world, the International Crisis Group is one of our better sources. It's researchers go places where few others tread, and prepare thoroughly authoritative reports on how to improve the situation. Now, User:Middayexpress has a difference of opinion regarding Matt Bryden, a former analyst with ICG, who is a Somalia expert. Mr Bryden left ICG in 2006, though it appears he consulted for the organisation for some time afterwards.

Where this comes in the SAF article is that I placed a couple of quotes to the effect that the TFG's control of Somalia and the tribal retainers of the TFG President from 2004, from an ICG report published in December 2008. User:Middayexpress removed the quotes, and an additional section I had added from the IISS Military Balance 1976-77 regarding the SAF, on the grounds of 'npov.' I am just about to re-insert these sections, but I would greatly appreciate some more eyes on the article. Especially, User:Middayexpress should be reminded that ICG reports are the very epitome of a WP:V source, better than some academic writing, and are not ascribed to any one employee. The difference of opinion regarding Mr Bryden regards Somaliland, and the quotes do not refer to Somaliland in any way - even if they weren't stating simple facts about amounts of territory controlled by the central government of the time!! Further, the bizarre removal of IISS data from 1976 simply constitutes vandalism, where we only have scraps on information on the SAF of the era that can be regarded as WP:RSs.

I am about to reinsert this data; would very much appreciate more eyes on this article. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The removal of the IISS data was an unintentional oversight, which User:Buckshot06 would've picked up on had he WP:AGF. It's ironic since he has made exponentially more unexplained removals of his own. At any rate, Bryden is a non-neutral source on Somalia and Eritrea; this is quite well-documented (e.g. [20]). He was also a consultant with the ICG well after his departure there. This and more is all explained in detail on the page's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that User:Middayexpress is a little too free with accusations of lacking WP:AGF; he's just accused me of it again when I removed a paragraph inadvertently doubled by him beforehand (though he may have liked one version or the other better, don't know about that). Far more important than any repeated accusations of bias on Mr Bryden's part, when there is not certain evidence that he ever authored any of the ICG reports in question (as I said, ICG reports do not list authors), is distortion of citations by User:Middayexpress. I have listed on the article's talk page three instances of him trying to tone down or distort citations, which may raise questions to other editors/readers about his own motives. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bryden didn't need to have authored the ICG material in order to have influenced their contents. He was still a consultant with the group, as he himself stated. And those "three instances" were actually me rewriting public domain material that was copied word-for-word. Talk about grasping at straws. Middayexpress (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained to you in detail, twice, Middayexpress, you distorted and changed the meaning of three easily verifiable sources, and the talkpage discussion will back me up. Should you wish to remain involved in editing Somali military articles after this particular discussion is finished, we're going to have to talk at length, or this may end up at WP:RFC. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. And threats are never a good idea, fyi. Middayexpress (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

G'day Middayexpress, could you explain for the rest of us why you consider www.dissidentnation.com to be a reliable source regarding Bryden's lack of neutrality? If this is "well-documented" surely there are also other sources? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the first link that came up. There are plenty others (e.g. [21]). Middayexpress (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War (1864-65) is now a FAC

The article about the Uruguayan War (1864-65), fought between the Empire of Brazil and Uruguay, is now a FAC. The nomination page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uruguayan War/archive1. --Lecen (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New River class frigate page

Dear military history enthusiasts: I have created a new page HMCS Nene (K270). I copied the infobox from another river-class frigate page, but I removed the data about the ship's specifications, because I have no idea which items would be the same for all ships of this class and which may differ. If anyone here knows what specifications should be in that box for HMCS Nene, please help. Thanks for the tip about the Navy photos - there was one of the Nene. Also, once the infobox is fixed, the article could use an assessment. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dimensions, displacement, crew size, and armament would be the same, at least. Not sure about things like electronics fit though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin help requested - Edit war at Audie Murphy

Requesting an admin for help. For the second time, I have replaced text for an entire section of Audie Murphy, and explained it on the article's talk page. Not only did Duplication Detector find copyvio, but comparing the Original source side by side with the Audie Murphy section "Holtzwihr, France", it's obvious. It's not like we can't look at the two. YahwehSaves has reverted for the second time. If you look at the article's history since yesterday, MarcusBritish responded to my concerns about this editor in the section above, and did a great deal of editing. It isn't just me who thinks YahwehSaves is taking the article away from GA level. But copyvio cannot be tolerated. Yet, this editor keeps reverting when I remove the copyvio and says it is not copyvio. Paraphrasing issues found with Duplication Detector And there's more than just what Duplication Detector found. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The original source was written in 2000 so of course it predates Wikipedia. That removes any concern about whether the source copied from Wikipedia. Not at all; it is clear that somebody here copied that source far too closely. Agree that swift action be taken. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Simeon Magruder Levy new article

Help with improving this new article, especially with more info and sources, would be appreciated. See project tags too. He was the second overall graduate and first Jewish graduate of West Point. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, great to see you back. - Dank (push to talk) 10:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a valid categorisation?

While doing some poking around, I came across Category:Anti-fortification weapons. This seems to me to be not quite ideal, although I'd like opinions from other project members on if this is actually a thing, or just things used for a similar purpose thrown together. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not ideal, bur I'm not getting Synth either. Perhaps a different name would clarify. I wonder if one or two items don't quite belong and that is where part of the problem lies. I've shifted one or two things to child categories (or removed duplication from child categories).GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

They look like bombs to me. K.I.S.S. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Most seem to be military engineer explosive devices (which would make a cohesive category) but there is an assault gun, a heavy artillery piece and several airborne bombs too, which don't fit. There maybe enough air-delivered weapons to make a separate category but the assault gun and howitzer no.Monstrelet (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd omitted to "shift" the Bl 15-inch howitzer. Its presence is duplication as it's under category:siege artillery, which is in turn in category:siege weapons which is in this category. I think we can just remove the Sturmtiger as not really fitting.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• On one hand, it's a valid category. They're a superset of (a subset of bombs, with enhanced penetration), projectile weapons such as the 38cm Raketenwerfer and emplaced munitions such as frame charges. On the other hand, WP is increasingly taking the line that Categories Are Bad and must be removed whenever possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty poorly defined, and could apply to a huge range of weapon systems over a long time. Essentially in WWI, pretty much anything that lobbed an explosive charge was used against trenches, which of course are a form of fortification. Flamethrowers, trench mortars, catapaults etc etc. Personally, I think it needs a lot better definition or (my preference) just get rid of it as it really doesn't add value. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy, please assume a little good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

New article Battle of Boulogne (1940)

Any comments welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! Might be worth clarifying what "they drove off a German assault in boats" means (I'm assuming it means the Germans assaulted them using soldiers in boats, but I was having trouble visualising this). Hchc2009 (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean about the "boat" sentence; the original source says: "In the evening of 24 May, about 1800hrs, the Germans made an effort to land from a boat on my right flank. Their party of infantry was a small one and we drove them back to the other side of the Harbour with Bren A.T. Rifle and Rifle fire, inflicting losses upon them." So there was only one boat (my mistake) and the Germans were in it. I have now amended. Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

James Ashworth (VC?)

There were reports in the British media at the weekend that James Ashworth is to become a posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross (but no official confirmation). An article has already been created, and seems to be in reasonable shape, and not getting too much attention at the moment. From what I can make out, the official announcement is likely to be on Friday 22 March, when the next Operational Honours and Awards list is due (it is not clear whether there is a press embargo in place, and at what time that might finish, so further reporting may folow from 00:00 GMT I guess). It would probably be useful to have a few eyes on the article during that day (and to keep an eye out for any earlier activity). David Underdown (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

More watchers needed at Vertical replenishment ...

... which is being persistently vandalised. DexDor (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Added to watchlist.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, There's now a sockpuppet inserting the taxobox.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI?

There is a proposal to rename "Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia" to "Australian honours system" at
Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia#Proposal to rename article to Australian honours system. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed from Australian editors

I'm planning to expand the article on HMS Nairana (1917) and need to fill out her post-war civilian career. The article references: Plowman, Peter, Ferry to Tasmania: A Short History, ISBN 1-877058-27-0, but there are bugger-all copies in the States. It appears to be fairly widely available in Australian libraries, so I'm hoping that some kind soul could scan the relevant pages and send them to me (my email is on my talk page).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, I see the Mitchell Library has a copy, so I could have a look next time I'm in there, which should be within a week at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed amendment of SOLDIER

In the AfD for Howard Troy Comer, Bushranger and Necrothesp have began a discussion regarding WP:SOLDIER. In it we have discussed an amendment to the SOLDIER notability essay (which IMHO should be a guideline), that is adding something in the effect of

Were awarded three or more highest, second-highest, and third-highest awards for valour (such as the Silver Star); or

For instance say that the subject of a biography article has received a DSC and fifty SSs under WP:SOLDIER the subject would not be considered notable, even if each event which lead to a medal awarding was verifiable (even though it is highly likely that such an individual should be able to receive significant coverage and be able to meet WP:GNG, but say that isn't the case).So this would apply to someone who was/is the recipient to one DSC and two SSs, or three SSs or more.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the catch is how to phrase it keeping in mind that winning the "second-level award...multiple times" is already point #2. I agree that somebody with a chestful of Silver Stars and DFCs is likely to be sufficiently notable for an article, but avoiding a camel's nose effect is something that is needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure we need to amend SOLDIER it just opens the door for long discussion at AfDs, nothing wrong with somebody gaining notability from a cumulative effect of awards and career without passing the strict wording of the guideline. In this case he should be deleted because the medalfest is offensive to the eyes and just tabloid and not encyclopedic :) Seriously if you make the guideline to prescriptive it opens the door for long arguments about the guideline rather than the individual. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically, the newly proposed wording could be seen as replacing criteria 1 & 2.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think #1 could be left alone. I suggest this proposed line be a replacement for #2. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think this is necessary. What problem is this supposed to fix? WP:GNG is the bottom line; if the subject has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, then it should have an article, even if all they ever won was a plain old Bronze Star for showing up in Kuwait for 6 months. If s/he doesn't have suitable coverage, it doesn't matter how many DSCs or QGMs the person won, they don't get an article. MILMOS/N is only supposed to point editors toward that conclusion, with the advice that certain classes of subjects tend to meet the GNG. If the purpose of the change is to make MILMOS/N a better tool in AfDs, I'm afraid we've lost sight of what the page is supposed to be. Parsecboy (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Parsecboy. SOLDIER is a guideline to help you decide if an article subject is likely to be notable, and not a prescription about what achievements are needed to meet GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it is, the #1, #2, and this proposed criteria are there for those who want to apply the National Defense Service Medal (as an example) as being a notable award per WP:ANYBIO, which is the bast notability guideline after GNG for biography articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I support this amendment, naturally, as I was the one who originally raised it. My rule of thumb for gallantry notability has always been one highest, two second-highest or three second/third-highest decorations for gallantry. These, I think, are suitably rare enough for all recipients to be presumed notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with Parsecboy and Graeme. I understood that if someone clearly met the WP:GNG then they were notable (in a universal sense) and could have an article, and that WP:ANYBIO (biographies in general) and WP:SOLDIER (military biographies specifically) were supplementary and might help get a subject over the line if it was a bit unclear whether they met the GNG. I don't see the need to amend SOLDIER either. I have had recent discussions with User:Dumelow at Talk:Walter Waddington who I consider may not meet the GNG, but he was a brigadier-equivalent, so SOLDIER helps get him over the line. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Like the other notability essays, WP:SOLDIER exists mainly to provide examples of the kind of people who usually have received enough coverage in reliable sources meet the criteria outlined at WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG. It's important to note that it in no way replaces these criteria (its an essay, and previous attempts to gain approval for it becoming a guideline were not successful), and there's no need to amend it to include arbitrary cut offs. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Nick - I've researched a chap (not for Wikipedia) who won MC DCM and MM (plus a Mention) in the First World War, so he would "pass" Necrothesp's rule of thumb. So far, other, than my own articles which appeared in The Ringing World and my local ringing association newsletters, and what I've put up on my own blog, I don't believe he's mentioned in any published sources (other contemporary mentions in bellringing newspapers - which don't report his gallantry awards), other than the basics in the London Gazette and the republication of his DCM citation in the standard work of reference for DCM awards. I'd find it very difficult to make a convincing case for notability at an AFD (quite apart from a massive conflict of interest). David Underdown (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Necrothesp's and my proposal was ever to sidestep verification requirements. It is my view that the WP:ANYBIO, notable award(s) aspect as far as military notability should be expanded a little.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussions of Vital articles

There are discussions at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded which may be of interest to this project pbp 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New cat for 2012 Tuareg rebellion?

In WP:UNCAT I've run across several new articles for battles of the Tuareg rebellion (2012). To my surprise, there's no category for the conflict overall, just the broader cats the parent article falls into. There are a number of battles now just found in Category:2012 in Mali that could go into a larger cat on the conflict itself. Is there a specific reason we don't have a cat for this? The Talk page of the article seems to have petered out in mid-2012 so not sure we have a body of folks to discuss over at the article itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone interested in writing a book review for The Bugle?

The March edition of the project's newsletter, The Bugle, should be going out within the next week, but we currently only have a single book review. If you're interested in posting your thoughts on a book, please do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2013/Book reviews. Reviews don't need to be for a recent book, and can be of any length. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah Weapons

Hey everyone, I'm not sure how large an issue this really is, but I was bumming around this page 9K52 Luna-M and saw an unsourced item on "500 Hezbollah launchers from Iran," an absurd contention, so I looked around. The page for the Iranian variant Zelzal-2 similarly has some unsourced contentions about Iran/Hezbollah. Not to say that there isn't any link in general, but it seems like someone was going around and making a point of stressing this subject and there may be other pages with unsourced speculation as well. Balkan shuffle (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced content can be removed per WP:BURDEN, if someone wants the content back in the article, it can be added with supporting reliable source(s).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Monthly contest

Hi all, I've just finished verifying and tallying scores for entries in the February article writing contest (rather later than the process usually occurs). There were a few entries that I removed because they would not have scored points in February, however some of those did rise a class earlier this month and would therefore be eligible as entries in the March contest. I haven't time to cross-check if they've been entered for this month, however, so those affected will need to do that for themselves. In future, if people can remove their own scoreless entries from the current contest around the turn of the month, that means the people verifying entries have less to go through. Tks for your understanding! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And ... as Ian and Graham have to cover FAC duties, it would be great if others would pitch in here. Just sayin'. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Syrian civil war

There is an RfC taking place regarding the Syrian civil war article infobox [22]. Participation would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Order of Precedence for table of military awards

What is the preferred method at Military History for listing military awards in a table? The military's website show this: This order. If you are showing the ribbon, the Pentagon has This Way, which is I believe the same thing. Does Wikipedia do it the military's way, or is it by order of when they were awarded? What is the preferred method at Wikipedia? — Maile (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally by precedence. There are a few ways people do so, sometimes by table and sometimes by reproduction of ribbon bars. —Ed!^(talk) 02:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, this is really good. That one for Norman Schwarzkopf is excellent. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Schwarzkopf article is a very fine example. I would think that following the service's order of wear would make the most sense. So, the Institute of Heraldry is a good guide for an Army officer, but for officers of the other services you would consult with the specific service's resources on order of wear. EricSerge (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Move of V-2 requested

Comment here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional opinions requested at RSN

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Single reference or Multiple references. As of this notice, there are only two active editors in the discussion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No additional comments have yet been received. There are presently only two opposing editors involved in the linked discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Still awaiting additional editors to comment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Guidance question from Admin or Sysop, please

As anyone who has read my posts here knows, we've had a problem with an editor at Audie Murphy. Those of us editing over there are trying to bring this up to a standard where it can be reviewed here for A Class. There has been ongoing issues with copyvio, sloppy edits, disregard for Wikipedia policy - all from one editor. And I mean every, single day. At the very least, I have to go through everything this editor posts and hope to verify what they're written. I'm not the only one spending time there because of a sloppy editor. What we get in return for our efforts is drama that verges on pseudo martyrdom from the editor in question. But no efforts at correction. Absolutely stonewalls at having to make a correction. Please see the Not in source section. We have posted the guidelines expected to be met to raise the article's level for the next review. And the response from that editor is a rambling stream that includes, "I'm not a professional editor and don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know." If you read further up on that page on the Holtzwihr, France section, this editor reacted to their repeated reversing of their own copyvio as if they were somehow being picked on. So, please, somebody tell me what avenues are open to getting this editor banned from editing that article? It's going to take a lot work to get this ready for a higher review, and our time is now taken up by intervening where this sloppy editor is dropping bits and bobs into the article. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This same editor faced AN/I in December for failing to sign posts, and also has a history on the Medal of Honor page for the same sort of edits that are being made at Audie Murphy. Just FYI. Intothatdarkness 20:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one!! Still doesn't sign posts. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There's the various AN boards that might be of some help if there's a demonstrated history of behavior issues/problems (which may be the case here). It's also possible that one of the more personable admins might be able to engage the user on his/her talk page and make some headway (although there's limited evidence that the user really responds on that page, either). One of the weaknesses of the "anyone can edit" model appears to be that it can be very slow to deal with those who don't follow the rules but remain reasonably civil (or simply don't respond). Intothatdarkness 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll check out the AN boards. This editor has already been blocked twice, both for disruptive editing and for sock puppetry, and it's done no good. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia:Competence is required is WP:JUSTANESSAY, but holy crap that editor is hard to work with. I used to try to engage them, show them the guidelines I was trying to follow, and try to help them improve their understanding, but they are not interested in feedback or assistance. I typically remove a page from my watch list when they are actively editing it. Once they lose interest I come back to it. I am using the "don't feed the troll" approach. I believe over a year ago assistance was asked for in sanctioning this editor so that they might pay attention to our community guidelines (I think, but don't hold me to the timing), but thus far the only thing they have been sanctioned for is sock puppetry (not signing in when editing) and not signing posts. Every time I see this editor has edited one of the pages I watch, my stomach turns as I do not want the stress of dealing with them. Am I a bad guy? I don't know maybe I am, but this editor seems to do more harm than good. (two cents laid on the counter) EricSerge (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

EricSerge, you have described my reactions perfectly. It makes me ill when I see it. And I did remove that page from my watchlist. However, as I'm trying to help raise it eventually to FA, I had to go back. We (not just me) worked so hard to bring this article just up to GA. And now it's turning into a pile of little cow-chips here and there. How do you raise something to FA if someone is determined to mire it in cow chips. It takes all kinds to make a world, but is a pathetic pattern of thought to do this to an article. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately the "don't feed the troll" approach doesn't work if an article is GA, because by the time you come back to the article you find its content reduced to sub-standard and another editor has revoked the GA, it feels like you've just gone out and returned to find someone's tossed your home, i.e. demoralising. In this case efforts are being made to advance the article in steps to FA via GA and A-class. The GA was credited only very recently, but recent contribs are diminishing hopes of getting anywhere fast, and even the GA status is at risk. Educating this editor is proving very difficult. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2I tend to agree, which is why I made mention of the slowness of the "system" to deal with the more passive/aggressive elements of the community writ large. The AN/I I mentioned happened in December 2012. It makes for interesting reading if you want to see some of the issues surrounding the difficulties that can occur when dealing with this sort of behavior. Intothatdarkness 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:YahwehSaves_refusing_to_leave_signature Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reading.. note that YahwehSaves did not respond and took a short block, although I admit to having mixed feelings over the way AN/I is handled more like a kangaroo court. There are a lot of people who are.. well, dickheads, to be blunt.. they use ANI for the sheer drama, and dig up minor inconveniences and trivial matter from an editor's history just to stir up all sorts of nonsense, making the whole experience entirely intimidating and disconcerting for newer members - experience vs greenhorn - it's rarely a fair playground, and little wonder some people choose to ignore all requests to comment. Personally, I consider not using indents very low priority to fuss over for too long, and use of signatures is all about community courtesy, but the fact that IPs can get away with many things and only registered members are ostracised for certain infractions makes Wiki a very unbalanced system at times. Someone coming from using an IP to being registered is in fact making a jump from anonymity to recognition, and the burdens it carries. I've already noted to YahwehSaves that his 2000+ edits since 2011 make him "experienced" enough to know how Wiki expects registered users to conduct themselves by now, and signing should be a matter of respect towards fellow editors.. otherwise he might as well have just stuck with using IPs to avoid taking responsibility for his edits. The question now is whether we try to integrate him into Wiki better (perhaps via mentoring), or we condone his lack of willingness to communicate properly and look for other solutions, which may appear punitive? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just venting here, not tooting my own horn. But anyone who has already posted in this section isn't going to disagree. I ran across the article at the beginning of Feb 2013, and noticed it was a mess and tagged for various things. The editor we are now discussing was part of the reason it was in that shape. There is an edit history at Audie Murphy of this editor doing his thing and constantly being reversed by one editor or another, which he reacted to by reversing them. And back and forth it went through the months. Why he didn't get stopped back then, is probably a statement on the imperfection of the WP process on policing itself.

I decided to clean it up, and wondered why it wasn't FA, or even been attempted at FA. I'm finding that out now, I think. So, in the process, I initiated a Peer Review on February 6, which was closed on with all items addressed on February 23. To be sure, much more remained to be done to get it up to GA level. I made numerous edits, as did others, and opened a GA review on Feb 26. That passed on Feb 27. By then, I had made a couple of hundred edits, with help from other editors. And I began to try and improve the article for its next higher review. I broke out the filmography and honors/awards sections into separate articles because of size. One section at a time, I was getting a feeling of accomplishment, however imperfect that may have been. Any editor who has ever really put a lot of care into something like this understands the feeling, "...this subject has done something that deserves respect...", so you put in a little extra effort.

On March 7, the editor in question began his edits, eventually, IMO, hijacking a credible article and turning it into a piece of crap (can I say that word here?). I've probably put in about 500 edits between all the Audie Murphy edits, and read through books and information beyond when I should have been spending my time. Others can speak for themselves how much time they have spent on this. Certainly, the main article's talk page speaks for itself. But...hell...the editor in question has turned a GA into his little p-patch. And nothing in WP policies will really stop this. Ain't it a shame this kind of willful destruction can happen, and we're so helpless? — Maile (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about that approach. What this is, is disruptive editing which breaches WP policies, particularly around copyvio. I appreciate that it easier to get admin action in ARBMAC-land where I mostly edit, but if someone with 2000 edits started trashing a GA I'd put a lot of time into I'd escalate pretty quickly, and if they returned to the same behaviour after a block I'd expect a fairly firm response from ANI. This is classic WP:IDHT, and I don't see any good reason to take it easy on people that are disrupting the encyclopaedia and should know better. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, can you please provide link(s) to where you are referring to in the way of admin action. I would like to take some steps towards getting this stopped, but I need links for where to go. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not looking at the disruption, only at what I'm seeing here and at ANI, I think we've got an additional problem, that hard-working, good-faith Wikipedians are being treated skeptically, or not heard at all, when they're talking about a problem that's significant to them. If you guys don't get the result you're looking for at AN/I, please come back here and we'll talk about options. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Right now, I've started a sandbox to compile data. If this goes up to ARB, I think there needs to be more than just the Audie Murphy page. Matt Urban is also full of this editor's revisions. And this editor has previously also edited under a sock puppet 75.79.31.20. I won't say "suspected", because that sock puppet is part of the Feb 2012 block log for this user. This editor seems to be fond of the military in regards to those who have won high honors...and baseball. I'll concentrate on Murphy and Urban, who has been tagged for verification since the month that editor began editing. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think, given the extend of this discussion is almost as serious as ANI it might be prudent to invite YahwehSaves to join in.. I don't think you can just go to ANI and say "well, we had this discussion at Milhist and..." as it doesn't represent the accused party. Arbcom don't deal with these matters until various channels have been used in a short space of time, without success, so no point jumping the gun. Leave a note with YahwehSaves, see if that provokes a response. He'd be stupid not to comment, and I have my doubts whether he will or not.. but even he can see where this is leading and the numbers against him, so you'd represent yourself better by making sure you offer him the chance to speak first. Because if he doesn't give a sufficient response, you'll probably have a stronger case with regards "non-collaborative attitude". By not giving him a chance to comment the result could look like mob-handedness. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a "mob" here, and the fact that some do is exactly the problem I'm talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe MarcusBritish has a good idea. The editor in question should have a chance to express himself in his own words, right here for the record. And whatever that entails. I'll put a notice on that editor's talk page right now. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. That's not what I'm getting at, and I wasn't talking about Marcus. It seems to happen a lot that people who need to go to ANI because they're having problems that are keeping them from being able to get articles through the review processes are met with suspicion; I think the suspicion is really directed at the review process itself. This is really unfortunate, because exactly the people that you don't want being discouraged, if you're trying to build an encyclopedia, are the ones being discouraged. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I never said there was a mob here. I said "the result could look like mob-handedness." A civilised society always gives both sides the right to speak before coming to a conclusion.. I assume Wiki members are civilised? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• For long term issue with an editor there is Wikipedia:RFC/U. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

At a glance

For reference, this is the disruptive edit history just on the main article of Audie Murphy and does not include what has happened on the article's talk page. This also does not include the 195 edits (so far) this same editor has made to Matt Urban, but that history is similar. Should YahwehSaves decide to respond on this project's talk page, this will give him a point-by-point reference on where the issues have been. For all others, it's hard to look at this list and not wonder why this wasn't stopped. — Maile (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Maile ol' chap, with regards to what Dank said before regarding legitimate complaints being taken sceptically, I can tell you that if you present this list to ANI it is probably one of those things that will be frowned upon and backfire. Simply put, it is now March 2013.. there are not many people willing to go back as far as 2011 per Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds, and may raise WP:DBF concerns against you. That's just my guess, not my personal impression, based on my experience with ANI in the past. A lot of issues can WP:Boomerang if the reporter appears too keen to represent someone in bad-light who is not actually a wanton vandal or aggressive person, which we have to admit Yahweh is not "hostile". There are gaps as long as 4 months between some of the issues listed, rather than week-in, week-out trouble. I understand the frustration here, and completely sympathise with it, but can I advise not to try to accelerate the point too fast? I'd hate to see you being run-down by admins who feel the need for a gentle hand in the matter. Just be assured that things will clear up before long one way or another, you don't need to worry about what happened in 2011 or even 2012, but how his edits affect you and the article's progression now. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. It's true that you have to be careful not to go back "too far", however far that is, on the theory that people can learn and should be given a chance to. This person hasn't learned, and when the problem is that they will pop out for a few months and then pop back in with the same behaviors, there's no way to share that information without giving an account that spans months. I'm not going to censure someone for going back a few more months than they needed to to make the point ... although Marcus is right, some at ANI will. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's why I pointed out that the bureaucracy here doesn't deal well with the passive/aggressive POV pusher or anyone who may have a consistent pattern of disruption but manages to avoid cursing or raising other "red flags" that bring down action. Intothatdarkness 20:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't care about any of that history if this editor hadn't seemed to have come out of nowhere and began disruptive editing like some kind of obsession. The history says there was already an established pattern. As far as who gets dealt with how at ANI or other places, sometimes it depends on who it is. If it's someone well-known in the community with zillions of edits, they're likely to go back to the beginning to zap the editor. That happened to some high-profile editors. On the other hand, other high-profile editors with something that seems like edit warring, nothing really happens. If it's just your average user who is following the pattern this one is, they'll go back in history if enough other editors come forward and complain. It depends on who it is sometimes, and certainly the more editor complaints the more the bureaucracy is forced to take notice. But in the end, maybe it's a roll of the dice. However, having this history listed here does make it a little difficult for that particular editor to deny or explain . — Maile (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Maile66 for notifying me of the discussion here. I was the first editor to become aware of YahwehSaves, probably through my patrolling new users' edits at the time. I templated his talk page a few times early on, and tried to give him some constructive criticism after the templates seemed to fall on deaf ears. He did not reply to my attempts at communication. But he is not altogether uncommunicative, he appears to focus more on speaking than listening. I will point out that his edit count since his May 2011 join date is deceptive, for two reasons. He does not appear to use "Preview" and makes many small edits to the same article in quick succession. He also exhibits this behavior on talk pages. I warned him about editing his own comments after they are replied to, and he seems to largely obey this restriction, but after making one comment he will often make a series of edits to it before anyone else can reply. I have largely ignored him because his interests are outside my fields of expertise and he is not overtly disruptive. I regret that I never detected copyvios from him because I am careful about those. I will offer that he seems to own books on these subjects, so some checking of offline sources for copyvio may also be in order. I will also agree that WP:RFCU is probably the best way to proceed from here, and offer my comments to that notice board when the time comes. Elizium23 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was staying on-top of his edits and checking his (and his sockpuppet's) edits for accuracy & correctness. After his mistakes, incorrect, &/or disruptive edits on various pages totaled into the hundreds, I notified some admins to take-over the task. He's violated multiple WP policies, even after being educated, and is destructive rather than constructive. Bullmoosebell (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, YahwehSaves is back. He edited over at the Audie Murphy talk page and put in a coding that made all the sections below where he inserted himself not visible. And he copied my online signature from somewhere and stuck it at the end of his post, rather than his own signature. At the very least, he can't write a sentence and make sense. I certainly don't appreciate his making his post look like I'm the one who wrote it. I've corrected that. I had to take his coding out to get back what was already there. I don't believe he coded it that way on purpose. He doesn't know what he's doing. So he just continues to completely screw up the Audie Murphy page. What stops this guy, anyway?— Maile (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm reporting now at ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This is beyond me. — Maile (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Good luck.. the replies are already from inbred cynics who care more about advancing themselves through being seen active on ANI, than advancing Wiki. ANI is repugnant.. better if a few MilHist sysops dealt with the matter. Probably more IQ in the pot here than on ANI. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For informational purposes, this is the ANI — Maile (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you can get YS to curse you'd get results...(and I'm only half joking with that statement). Intothatdarkness 16:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Resolution proposals have been offered at ANI for vote or comment. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

• May 16, 2011 - YahwehSaves made his first edit to Audie Murphy, 103 total edits as of March 19, 2013

• October 5, 2011 - Edits by suspected YahwehSaves sock puppet 75.79.31.20 began and total 4 edits to date, the last one on June 9, 2012

• May 18, 2011 - Monkeyzpop reverted YahwehSaves, noting in the edit summary, "rv possible good faith edits: improperly formatted, not cited, improperly placed"
• May 23, 2011 - Monkeyzpop reverted the May 21 edits by YahwehSaves, among which was YahwehSave's changing of the section "List of Decorations" to "Military Awards"

YahwehSaves reverted in part, by again changing the section to "List of Military Awards"

• May 24, 2011 - Elizium23 tagged the article for POV
• May 31, 2011 - YahwehSaves deleted some decorations listed
• Sept 26, 2011 - First edit by YahwehSaves since May 31
• Sept 27, 2011 - Monkeyzpop reverted same-day edit by YahwehSaves for "You can't do a See Also for non-existent links"

YahwehSaves made edits to remove portions of the lead describing Murphy as the most decorated soldier

Monkeyzpop reverted YahwehSaves

• Sept 30, 3011 - Monkeyzpop reverted same-day lead edit by YahwehSaves
• October 2, 2011 - Monkeyzpop reverted edits made by YahwehSaves
• October 3, 2011 - YahwehSaves reverted Monkeyzpop's revert

Monkeyzpop reverted YahwehSaves' revert

Additional edit by YahwehSaves was reverted by Elizium23 for "Peacock" terminology and fractured sentences

YahwehSaves reverted Elizium23

Monkeyzpop reverted YahwehSaves

YahwehSaves once again changed section heading to "Military Awards"

• October 5, 2011 - Suspected sock puppet 75.79.31.20 made first edit
• October 4-7, 2011 - Yahweh made several edits
• October 7, 2011 - Bullmoosebell made 7 separate reverts of YahwehSaves edits
• February 28, 2012 - YahwehSaves made first edits since Oct 7, 2011

Bullmoosebell reverted YahwehSaves with a warning

Suspected sock puppet 75.79.31.20 changed section heading on awards

Bullmoosebell reverted 75.79.31.20

• June 8-9, 2012 - Suspected sock puppet 75.79.31.20 made two edits (YahwehSaves last edit was Feb 28)
• June 13, 2012 - Bullmoosebell reverted both edits by 75.79.31.20

YahwehSaves made one edit and did not edit again under that name until October

• October 13-14, 2012 - YahwehSaves made edits that included once again changing section heading on the awards
• October 29, 2012 - Last edit by YahwehSaves until article March 2013
• February 27, 2013 - Audie Murphy passed GA review
• March 7, 2013 - YahwehSaves began editing again
• March 9, 2013 - Maile66 reverted copyvio edit by YahwehSaves

YahwehSaves reverted Maile66

• March 15, 2013 - Maile66 reverted the same copyvio by YahwehSaves

YahwehSaves reverted Maile66

In response to message on WikiProject Military History, Binksternet reverted YahwehSaves

• March 16, 2013 - Peacemaker67 reverted a same-day edit by YahwehSaves

Disambiguation help needed.

Greetings! We need expert attention to help fix incoming links to following heavily links disambiguation pages:

• Battle of Kharkov (19 links)
• Battle of El Alamein (18 links)
• Philippines campaign (19 links)
• Battle of Seoul (18 links)

Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Along the same lines as the above request, it appears that U.S. Army Lieutenant General Anthony Jones (joint author of the Fay Report into abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq) is mentioned twice on this disambiguation page: Anthony Jones, but I'm not quite sure. Can anyone confirm and/or change that page as needed? Thanx in advance... Guy1890 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fishing Creek confederacy

The article in the heading of this section is nominated for GA, in case anyone here wants to review it. ^King Jakob _C2 20:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)