Archive 100

←

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

→

Archive 110

Was it he who was a Colonel at the Battle of Waterloo? If not, then who was the colonel Robert who was there? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I found this quotation "The Colombo Observer says four, including among them Sir Robert Arbuthnot, but the General, though he had been through nearly every battle ia the Peninsular War, does not seem to have been at Waterloo". - Kittybrewster ☎ 06:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a skim through several of my Napoleonic book indexes and his name never came up, not even in Wellington's own Dispatches, which were extensive- you'd think anyone who did all that fighting would get an honourable mention at least once. I note the article doesn't have too many common references or citations though, so not much to go on, really. Can't find any other Colonel Robert either. That's not to say it's not true what he did, just that no historian has thought to write about him - which is a shame, as it might make his military career appear more notable and help strengthen the article's referencing. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 21:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been historical coverage; the article as it stands is pretty much a direct copy of A.J. Arbuthnot's 1885 entry in the Dictionary of National Biography, which was itself only lightly cited. (Interestingly, though, it does cite Wellington's Despatches...). Shimgray | talk | 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, odd.. perhaps he just missed his name when producing the Index, which is an entire volume (XIII) in itself, and of course no computers back then to tag things for indexing. Do you have any volume and/or page number from his citation - as there are 12 rather large dispatch volumes, I wouldn't even know where to begin finding one name that was in every battle. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 22:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly not; the DNB (and the newer ODNB) just give lists of works used, nothing more detailed (they occasionally give volume numbers, but not here). The reference in the ODNB is "Selections from the dispatches and general orders of Field Marshall the duke of Wellington, ed. J. Gurwood, new edn (1851)". Shimgray | talk | 22:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arbuthnot,_Robert_%28DNB00%29 That's all I've found online so far, seems to be identical to the article, more or less. Looking into the Despatches now, though.. not sure if I'll find anything. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned here: [1] (see footnote p. 222) and bottom right here: [2] Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I did a bit of digging when I saw this question on the RD, and it seems that he was reported as having been at Waterloo in a few biographical sources in the early 19th century, but by later editions in the mid-1840s this had quietly been corrected. I guess it was an error that persisted long enough for a reference to it to survive now, hence the initial question. Shimgray | talk | 23:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

[3] - mentioned by Wellington for promotion here. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

[4] Item 4. claims he was at Wateroo, if thats what you need? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Military history editors. I'd just like to point out that this image of the French cruiser Jules Michelet (1905) exists as part of the Tropenmuseum donation to the Commons. I thought it would be useful in case anyone is interested in creating an article for it. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - here's an article - French cruiser Jules Michelet.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Disney bomb; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Mark Satin is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've marked List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1925–1939) as preferably being merged into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1925–1934) and List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1935–1939). It looks like someone may have started doing that, but didn't complete the task. I've also left a note at WT:WPAviation. Any help is appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Done! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Submarine operations, 1971 is actually about Pakistan submarine activities during the Indo-Pakistan war in 1971. Anyone know a better article title? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How about Indo-Pakistani War submerged Pakistani operations? The Pakistani emphasis should be there, as the article only focuses on Pakistani operations, otherwise it would need a section for both belligerents during the conflict.

Another suggestion is Pakistani submarine operations during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Or how about creating a larger article regarding Pakistani submerged operations, with a section regarding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Something like "Pakistani submarine operations during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971" sounds more natural than putting "Indo-Pakistani War" first, I think.

As far as a larger article, would doing it on the basis of the war (e.g. "Submarine operations of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971") make more sense than doing it on the basis of the country involved? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pakistani submarine operations during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971" sounds good to me. Actually I've been meaning to do something about the name of this article for a while but nothing really came to mind until it was suggested here. Good idea. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pakistani submarine operations during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971" seems a bit strained to me, & potentially POV. Can it be "Sub Ops of I-PW (1971)" (or "1971 I-PW")? This leaves open adding Indian Navy ops (if any) &, to my eye anyhow, is less...I dunno what the word is, just "wrong". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pakistan Navy submarine operations of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War", "Pakistan Navy submarine operations (1971 Indo-Pakistani War)" ? I was rather hoping someone would say that the Pakistan Navy called it "Operation ....."GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum I've found its close friend East Pakistan Air Operations, 1971. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, these seriously need to be merged into the main article, or renamed into something more appropriate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The battlebox also shows that 1600 pakistani sailors were killed in the sinking of 1 submarine. I would love to hear the arguement behind that, talk about sardines in a can. Completely bogus statement to be sure.XavierGreen (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A former head of the Indian navy is a recently registered Wikipedian, so I've asked him by email if he might like to comment here on his thoughts on this (his involvement in the 1971 war involved close attention to Pakistan's aircraft, rather than their submarines, but he's published some works subsequently on wider strategic issues etc.) Wikipedia's coverage of these wars is indeed rather fragmented, so far! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge 1000, thank you for your mail. I suggest that the title "PN Submarine Operations During 1971 Indo-Pakistan War" may be more appropriate. I agree that the casualty figure of 1900 is way off the mark - especially in the context of the single submarine (PNS Ghazi)that the PN lost. Even if one adds casualties from the destroyer and minesweeper sunk off Karachi by IN missile attacks, it is still exaggerated. May I add a couple of other observations? At para 4 "launch of Ghazi" should read "loss of Ghazi". At paras 7,8 & 9 the author is likely to confuse readers by mention of "missile" when he actually means "torpedo". Arun Prakash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.133.51 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• First question: Is it permitted to request a Peer Review of an article under-development in Sandbox that still needs much work?
• Second question: A work in progress banner atop my Sandbox article points to WP:Requests for feedback - is that any different to a PR, other than being open to a wider audience vs Milhist members (although I'm aware internal PR has changed lately)?
• Third question: Based on your two answers above, which would you advise most for an article still in Sandbox development - PR of RFF?

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 19:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My experience with RFF is that people offer more basic information than you'll need, Marcus. Anyone can bring any article to PR, as far as I'm concerned, but OTOH, they're likely to get more useful information out of me if the article is in better shape by the time I see it. I'll be happy to have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not so much a full-scale PR I need yet, more of a bit of visual feedback. As you know, I wrote Arthur Wellesley's battle record, which is now happily at A/GA standard, and I'm not pursuing FLA. I am now working on Napoleon's battle record, to contrast with Wellington's. I've only completed the actual battle record table so far, and am doing some extensive background reading before I even start writing the prose, as Napoleon's military career is far more complex than Wellington's, as anyone will appreciate, and I am trying to avoid reading material that is clearly pro- or anti- Napoleon to avoid COI or contradictions in referencing. The main difference between the two tables is that Wellington really only had one ongoing campaign - the Peninsula, whilst Napoleon had campaigns in/against Italy, Russia, Egypt, Prussia, Austria, etc, making the table a little more complex, and more involved. Whilst Wellington usually only faced one opponent, Indians or the French, Napoleon was up against a series of coalitions, and frequently faced two or more nations on the battlefield - six at Waterloo. All this has to be cramped into the table. The Wellington table is here: Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington#Battle record, which I'm happy with, and the new table in development for Napoleon is here: User:MarcusBritish/Sandbox/Battle record of Napoleon Bonaparte#Battle record. In terms of feedback, all I really want to know is if the Napoleon table is clear, not too hard to follow, etc - if it is, what makes it difficult to understand? By knowing this, then I can perhaps tweak it - bearing in mind that I don't want to make it too dissimilar from the Wellington article. (Ignore everything above the table - it's yet to be organised). Naturally, once I have the prose written, which may be a little while yet, I will seek a proper PR and then straight onto ACR/GAR again, skipping BCR this time round as I know it will surpass that. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any experience reviewing tables, per my standard disclaimer. Anyone want to take a look? - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay that's no problem - if you are able to tell me how it looks from a general readers view, rather than an editors, that would be helpful - I imagine the majority of wiki readers are non-registered and don't contribute, so a distant opinion would be as helpful from someone who can tell me if it simply makes sense on the outlook, as I can't distance myself from it, given that I made it. Once I've worked on the prose, I'm happy to hear your more editorial opinion, though - but it will be Brit-English. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mid, this has been officially felt with. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I see you called the first move "vandalism" on the talk page – let's remember good faith here, especially when in this case the name is a bit ambiguous (as the actual name is the long and convoluted version). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for USS Constellation vs La Vengeance is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As part of our efforts to improve the usefulness of the open task listings, we've now added good article nominees to the master list of content under review, which is displayed in both the full open task list (WP:MHOT) as well as the condensed open task list ({{WPMILHIST Announcements}}. As usual, comments or suggestions for further improvement would be appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why, but the article I had pass a GA review a week or so ago is showing on the list as a candidate, but is no longer on the Wikipedia:GAN#War_and_military list. I tried purging the page, but is still shows. Is that normal? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 00:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The various different GAN lists aren't automatically synchronized, so some delay in propagating updates is to be expected. Eventually, the old entries will be removed; in the meantime, you can always directly to remove a particular article if you so desire. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 00:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor has removed material from the Wiesbaden article, claiming "opsec violation". We don't appear to have a WP:OPSEC, and the material removed is in relation to military bases in Wiesbaden. Not sure whether or not the removal is valid, so over to you guys and gals. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If the closure information has appeared in print publicly, it certainly isn't an OPSEC violation. Personally I didn't see anything there that could really be considered any violation of operational security, but YMMV.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The presence of certain units doesn't seem to be a hush-hush thing - eg -the Base website lists contact numbers and the relocation of US Army Europe has it's own blog GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd say it's not OPSEC.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted the edit per the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, the information deleted is in fact publicly available on official .mil websites. I just ask that in the future any military "history" or discussion of current units/installations be as vague as possible. Real people with real families live on these installations. This information readily available on Wiki makes it easier for the "bad guys" and ideological/religious fanatics to target American service members and their families. Now, if I could only edit the .mil websites... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.113.155 (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw this out there, but military bases would not be difficult to find online in this age, even if Wikipedia and .mil websites excluded them. This is why they have security measures in place. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Most of the bombings in the 1980s and 1990s that targeted clubs and the like frequented by servicemembers happened before Wikipedia or Google or anything like that.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving talkback messages with people who have taken Milhist articles to FAC over the last 3 or so months. Please weigh in here with your quick impressions of the process: What kind of problems were caught at FAC that you'd like to see more attention paid to in our A-class reviews? Did FAC take more or less time than you were expecting? Were most of the people you dealt with well-informed and friendly? The goals here are to find out what people want (which is information people don't generally volunteer at FAC, they're just trying to get in and out), and to get people thinking about what's being said at FAC. Even if you're not planning to take any articles to FAC, the project as a whole could benefit from knowing what goes on there, because then we can better use our A-class process to catch problems that other projects have to go to FAC to discover. - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• FAC always takes longer than it should. The Manhattan Project has been going since June. It is unusual in that a very large number of changes were suggested and made. These changes were requests for additional information to be added, a consequence of it being an omnibus article. I think the article is much improved. However, a lot of this could have been done at the A-class review. Kenneth Walker was more normal; it still took over a month, during which 159 edits were made. I don't think a great deal of improvement was effected.
• As a rule, the FAC people are friendly, but much less so than at an A-class review. The same goes for being informed. I generally rely on the A-class review to double-check the facts. Getting reviewers who are familiar with the subject is difficult. The most difficult time I had at FAC was with Douglas MacArthur, which did not get promoted. There was an editor who was upset over some political issue that I could not fathom. I have since researched the issue writing up a separate article on the relief of General Douglas MacArthur. (Another article that I don't know what to do about.)
• I would suggest adding to the A-class review an image review along the lines of the ones conducted by FAC. Frankly, I find these incredibly annoying. If the links have rotted in the eons it took to bring an article to FAC, Big Deal. While I am very knowledgeable about copyright in Australia, I am not on sure footing concerning what is acceptable in the United States, where there is much less freedom. For example, what is the status of this image. Would this one be better?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

When a nomination takes a long time it is indicative of one of two things: either the articles wasn't ready or there is a lack of reviews. The latter can't really be helped, it may be that the subject just isn't interesting to reviewers, there's something wrong with the article so people don't bother reading properly, or there aren't enough reviewers in the first place. For an article that meets the criteria and generates interest from reviewers, a pass in say two weeks is possible. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, Nev. Most of our articles spend at least a month at FAC, and I don't think it's because they're all boring or unprepared. I think it's because FAC usually takes a month or more, and of course, for complex articles like Manhattan Project where a lot of people want to have their say, it's going to take longer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Saying it takes a month because FACs are just that long is missing the point. The two points I raised can be addressed to some extent. If an article gets enough support, there's no need for a nomination to stay open for a month. Nev1 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between an article being ready for featured status and being ready for FAC. In the case of Robert Oppenheimer, I could not get any reviews out of the Physics people, so, and SandyGeorgia simply said: "Take it to FAC!" And that was the right move; it got a very thorough review there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• There seem to be three frequent setbacks i find when putting articles up for FA class. Since all of my FA nominations have been regarding naval actions, I always hope naval enthusists and milhist people are doing most of the reviewing. Often times people are unfamiliar with naval terms and request that other words be used when there are no commonly used synonyms. A simple lack of general historical knowledge by reviewers can also sometimes be problematic. I once had someone refuse to support an A-class promotion simply because they could not come to terms with the fact that during WW1 ships fought to the end rather than surrender, they thought that the article Battle off Texel was inaccurate because no ships had been captured even though every source available states that all the German ships engaged were sunk. Unfortuneately there is nothing that the project can really do to prevent those sorts of things, and one simply must hope for the best in that regard.
• The area i most often have problems with is prose, ive had articles held up for inordinate amounts of time simply over minute sylistic issues. I find that the A-class reviews help a great deal in regards to sprucing up prose before a FAC, and i am greatly appreciative of all the comments regarding copy editing and prose that go on in the A-class reviews since it helps eradicate some of the harsher remarks that might prevent promotion in an FAC. XavierGreen (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has taken part in some recent (last few months) reviews at FAC of MilHist articles, I did take the time to read through some of the A-class reviews and I got the impression that though the reviews were good, issues were being missed either because the reviewers were too focused on military history matters (and not the bigger picture), or because there was not enough input. Possibly what is needed is a stage where fresh non-MILHIST eyes are brought to an article just before it goes to FAC. It is the difference, I suppose, between writing an article for a specialist military history encyclopedia, and writing an article for a general encyclopedia with a section on military history. You need the views of those less steeped in military history conventions and terminology to ensure the articles are accessible to a broader audience. Or at least that aspect of things should be addressed at A-class level. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed two annoying things. First, although the "reference each paragraph" seems an accepted convention, "reference each sentence" (which would mean a lot of repeated footnotes) may be unneeded, and it would be enough to reference each paragraph in general and each "red flag" sentence in particular. Well, that's how things are supposed to work in paper. In practice, I have been requested to add footnotes to many trivial and undisputed informations, and to many ideas explained in more than one sentence with the footnote at the end (such as "This man did not agree. He thought that things should be done in X other way.^[1]", turned to "This man did not agree.^[1] He thought that things should be done in X other way.^[1]"). Meaning: the rule is to cite every sentence; make people save work by making it explicit from the start. And second: to request to replace all minus characters when citing page rages with the "–" character, which does not even exist in the keyboard and generates a line that looks exactly like the minus character, seems really completely pointless. That's the kind of stuff that only a wikipedia user may care about, not any passing-by reader. Cambalachero (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens are usually for creating compound words. Ndash and mdash are available just be clicking them on the special bar with wikEd. Otherwise typing Alt+0150 (means hold Alt, press 0 1 5 0 on keypad, release Alt) makes an ndash, and Alt+0151 an mdash, or simply put "–" or "—" to get the same result. It's all about typography and has been in use for decades, personally I find it does help make for better grammar, as much as commas, periods, semi-colons and colons. I've noticed them more in texts than I used to, so they are common. See WP:NDASH or WP:MDASH for more info. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 02:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Marcus explained the dashes, so I'll explain the referencing. One reference per paragraph has been a rule of thumb for as long as I've been around—the idea is not to wind up editors or to comply with rules for the sake of rules but to make it clear where you've got your information from. Other than that, direct quotes and "red flags" should be cited immediately, and not just at the end of the paragraph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Here are my comments as a fairly frequent FA nominator:
  • FAC stills works well overall; the reviews are through and constructive and only high quality articles pass. They also help develop articles by bringing in editors with a much lesser degree of familiarity with the topic they cover.
  • The speed with which reviewers provide input appears to be slower than it used to be, but the same is the case for our ACRs. A barrier to greater participation is probably that many editors who are interested in reviewing FACs don't feel knowledgeable enough about military history topics to make useful comments. For instance, my two recent nominations of fairly 'hard core' and obscure military history topics didn't attract many reviewers, but my current nomination of a biography article has received an excellent response - my interpretation of this is that the biography article, while also about a relatively obscure figure best known for his role in Australian military history, is much more accessible for reviewers as it can easily be compared against FA-level biographies on people known for other matters.
  • Taking the above into account, the best way to help the process of getting military history FACs reviewed would be for editors active in military history articles to help review them.
  • It would be good if ACRs had a stronger emphasis on checking sourcing and image copyright details; we do good job on completeness and prose issues as well as identifying outright unreliable sources, but not such a good job on more 'technical' issues. That said, ACRs aren't meant to be FACs, so they should continue to have a more relaxed (though still demanding) set of criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with most of what Nick has said above. FAC does take longer than it used to. The days when you might be able to get an article from creation to FA in 3 weeks -- with DYK, GA and A-Class thrown in for good measure -- seem long gone...! However, longer reviews are the norm now at ACR as well, and have usually been the case at GA except when there's a drive on. I think though it's not just fewer reviewers at FAC but greater emphasis on spotchecks for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Reviewers and delegates alike seem less prepared to take things on faith than they used to, and that's probably no bad thing. I've said elsewhere that that it wouldn't hurt ACR at all to take a leaf out of FAC's book re. spotchecks and tougher image reviews -- not quite to the degree of FAC, since ACR is not (supposed to be) precisely the same thing, but more than we do now. Generally things are still pretty civil in a FAC review, at least in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for some help in decoding a lengthy feature that came with this cartoon of Davy Jones' Locker. The text was written in 1892, so it contains a lot of references to 19th century (and older) popular culture items, mostly naval in nature. For example, I'm not able to identify which ships named Howe and Royal George are referenced in this work, and I'm not sure if I linked to the correct Sultan. This place came into mind first, but let me know if you think another place may be able to help some more. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It refers to this Howe, which grounded in 1892. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Strikes me the text would fit well on Wikisource as well as in the image description....The Land (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Punch, the magazine source is on Wikisource, but as you can see work progress isn't far. Thanks for identifying the Howe. Royal George still needs to be identified, as well as anything that catches your eye as something that might be a reference. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be this one HMS Royal George (1756) sunk at Spithead. Fee-fi-fo-fum can also be linked.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The admiral commanding the Channel Squadron, Henry Fairfax was court-martialled over the Howe stranding but acquitted on the grounds that the charts were inaccurate - the point Punch appears to be making. This incident isn't mentioned in the article on Fairfax - a job for when I finish work perhaps to remedy that. NtheP (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks to your help, I've managed to reconstruct the events which inspired this cartoon. Thanks, everyone! I have nominated this image as a featured picture candidate. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe it was actually Channel Fleet, rather than Channel Squadron - just a note. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It was Channel Squadron, per Navy Lists and Fairfax's own service record. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Simon. Would you mind making a quick couple of edits to Channel Fleet to clarify dates-of-use of the term, based on your sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult identifying a cut-off date, or at least one I'm happy with. At some point during the tenures of either Sir Arthur Wilson or Lord Charles Beresford the Squadron became a Fleet, so between 1901 - 1905. The relevant section of Wilson's service record has been torn out, and I haven't got Beresford's service record to hand. I'll see what the relevant Navy Lists, as a published source, say when I'm at The National Archives at the end of month. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 20:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)Using NAtional Archives online records, I had previously added 'On 14 December 1904 the Channel Fleet was re-styled the 'Atlantic Fleet' and the Home Fleet became the 'Channel Fleet'.' Might be a helpful note. When do you think the 'Squadron' became a 'Fleet' in the 1600-1700-1800s period? Or were all these admirals listed at the fleet article actually, 'Commander-in-Chief, Channel,' without an actual nominated size-of-formation? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My 1600s-1700s-1800s questions stands, but I realise we've previously discussed this: User talk:Simon Harley#List of fleets and major commands of the Royal Navy. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the purpose of a page like List of World War II weapons of France to designate the country of origin or to designate what weapons the nation used? That page is in Category:French World War II weapons which seems misleading since many of the weapons aren't French. I would suggest that the title should be renamed to either List of World War II weapons from France or List of World War II weapons used by France depending on the intended purpose to help disambiguate. Neither the list nor the cat have descriptive paragraphs to define them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend you have a chat with Juubelimies (talk · contribs), as they seem to be the main contributor at the moment, and might shed some light on their contibs or the list in general - maybe point out what you posted above, see if they agree. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am using the French list as an example. The question actually applies to a whole class of lists & categories which is why I've raised the question here. After looking more, it would appear that usage is the purpose of the page(s) rather than an indication of origin (answering my own question :).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the French list completely lacks a lead section - the only thing I might suggest is you could add one to it, and any other similar list, even if it's brief - a sentence or two, simply to clarify that each list relates to usage rather than origin - that might make things clearer for other readers, and give those articles a more notable introduction, rather than just jumping straight into the list without any indication of what they are specifically about. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking your suggestion, I've written a small lead sentence to clarify. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well well well, back to the roots. Canadian Forces Maritime Command is expected to be changing its name back to Royal Canadian Navy, ditto for Canadian Forces Air Command / Royal Canadian Air Force, according to the The Chronicle Herald. Nothing "official" yet (will be tomorrow) so I haven't moved the pages to the new titles yet. Should MARCOM and AIRCOM be merged to Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force respectively?I wasn't sure if it's the right place to post this, but since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force is a redirect to here... Is there a better place for discussion about the Canadian Forces? Cheers, CharlieEchoTango 19:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I notified the WikiProject Canada about this discussion. Amqui (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! CharlieEchoTango 19:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Command articles can not be moved since articles for Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force already exist. The Army article could be moved. I don't think merging is needed either. Just add text saying for example "The Canadian Forces Maritime Command was renamed Royal Canadian Navy on 16 August 2011." -Fnlayson (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The titles would be misleading then, as "Maritime Command" and "Air Command" won't exist officially anymore, or so it seems. Perhaps renaming to Royal Canadian Navy (post-unification) or something similar would be more appropriate, if a merge is not. CharlieEchoTango 19:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No longer being the current name does not mean the Command articles have to be stripped down to redirects. Historical articles are OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure to follow. Are you suggesting to start new articles? Or to include future developments on the RCN/RCAF pages (which would be both historical (pre-1968) and current (post-2011), while the Command pages would become historical (1968-2011))? This would be confusing, in my view. CharlieEchoTango 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, only update the Royal articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the Royal pages, IMO you need to explicitly mention the Command pages for anybody looking for that era; I'd say hatnote them "For Foo Command, see". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gotcha, but I disagree, because the context is significantly different. The new Royal Canadian Navy will be in effect the new name of the Maritime Command, but the entity is not being re-established in itself, so it's really a symbolic change. We would have a portion of the article dealing with the pre-unification Navy and a portion dealing with a post-unification Navy, with the latter essentially being a duplicate of the Maritime Command article except for the historical portion between 1968-2011. Same goes for AIRCOM / RCAF. CharlieEchoTango 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree of adding the new information about the Royal Canadian Navy of 2011 on the old Royal Canadian Navy article. The old RCN was a distinct organization, while the renamed Maritime Command RCN still a "command", a part, of the CF. I think we should rename the old RCN into Royal Canadian Navy (1910-1968) and rename the Maritime Command into Royal Canadian Navy (post-1968) while saying in the article that it beared the name of Maritime Command until 2011. One article for each different thing, not one article for each different name. It would be very confusing to have an article for 1910-1968 and post-2011 and one article for 1968-2011 especially that we are not going back to the RCN of before 1968, just adopting the same name. (same thing for the Air Force) Amqui (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

♠(edit conflict twice! Popular subject, I see ;) @CharlieEchoTango. That was my sense, too. What I mean is, since there will still be dedicated pages for the Commands, shouldn't we point directly to them? Or do you mean section linkouts (the "main article" kind) are enough?

I was replying to Fnlayson when I e/c'd with you, I fully agree with Amqui, he said it better. CharlieEchoTango 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

♠I disagree with Amqui. The two aren't distinct organizations; it's not like RCN & RCAF disbanded in 1968, just renamed. WP already has pages on the current identifiers of units that historically were totally different in name & mission, but puts all the history in one place. Sometimes I wonder about that...but not in this instance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

They are distinct organizations. The Royal Canadian Navy pre-1968 wasn't part of the unified Canadian Forces, this one is. The new role is a continuation of the Command (1968-2011) with a different name, so it should be the same article to avoid confusion, IMHO. CharlieEchoTango 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In 1968, sure RCN wasn't disbanded, but it was unified with the other commands to form the CF. Which is still the case of the new RCN while the old RCN was a distinct organization. If we are to have the new RCN in same article of the old RCN, than we should merge the Maritime Command article as well because the Maritime Command and the new RCN are exactly the same thing with a different name and there is no point of having only a portion of the history in a distinct article just because it beared a different name, but I really disagree with this solution because the old RCN and the new RCN are really two different things. So here's my view : we have two different articles one of the Canadian Navy when it was by itself and one of the Canadian Navy under the CF whatever the name it has (in fact, exactly as it is right now, we just have to adjust with the new name). (same thing for RCAF) Amqui (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion, per Amqui and others (see Talk:Canadian Forces Maritime Command)

• current title → new title
• Canadian Forces Maritime Command → Royal Canadian Navy
• Canadian Forces Land Force Command → Canadian Army
• Canadian Forces Air Command → Royal Canadian Air Force
• Royal Canadian Navy → Royal Canadian Navy (pre-unification)
• Royal Canadian Air Force → Royal Canadian Air Force (pre-unification)
• update articles accordingly
• fix redirects
• add hatnotes

CharlieEchoTango 21:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We should use dates instead of "pre-unification" it is more intuitive and common. Also, maybe we can argue if the old RCN or the new RCN deserves to be the main article ? There is also the possibility to use a disambiguation page for the article named Royal Canadian Navy with Royal Canadian Navy (1910-1968) and Royal Canadian Navy (post-1968). (same thing for RCAF) Amqui (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates are fine too, suggestion amended accordingly. As for a dab page, I disagree. The current article takes precedence over the historical article, in my opinion. Much like Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets (1972-96). Hatnotes will take care of the disambiguation. CharlieEchoTango 22:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion. Use the official names of the renamed services. What exists in these articles now is historical information, and create a section at the beginning of the article with information about the current service. I suspect there may be a new emblem, etc. and then leave the historical information in a "History" section that chronologically documents the previous timeline of the RCN and RCAF.

Also make note on the Canadian Forces Maritime Command page and Canadian Forces Air Command that the designation of the service was changed on (whatever date it becomes effective) and place it in a historical context. In this way the "New" RCN and RCAF will be at the top of their articles, the historical information following, and the CFN and CFAC will be articles documenting their service. I hope this helps. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I take no position on merger versus retaining separate articles, but as I suggested at Talk:Canadian Forces Maritime Command, I think the better name for what is now at Royal Canadian Navy is Royal Canadian Navy (historical). The dates make it seem as though the article is part of a series or something (bear in mind that not all readers are familiar with our naming conventions). If there were a Royal Canadian Navy (1867–1910) (note that's an en-dash, not a hyphen), then the case for using years might be stronger, but as it stands, it would be too vague. "Historical" makes it clear from the title that the article is about something other than the current Navy (or what will be the current one once the change occurs) and that the difference is temporal. -Rrius (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

However, naming conventions and common use on Wikipedia seem to be with dates (as seen with the Winnipeg Jets). The reader that is not familiar with that will find the current RCN first as it is the article with the full name and see the hatnote to refer him to the historical article, also we would include a "See also" note in the Historical section of the RCN, in fact as it is right now "For history before 1968, see Royal Canadian Navy.". Amqui (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"'For history before 1968, see Royal Canadian Navy.' IDK if I'd be thrilled with it, but I could live with that. I think I'd title the dab'd article "pre-unification" ("historical" has a funny sound somehow) & add a 2d hatnote for the non-RCN years, to save readers interested in a particular era from having to search the "historical RCN" page. I also agree, dating the page leave the impression it's covering only the era in question, & not a period-specific organization. I wouldn't expect the average reader here to know the difference. (I'm not sure every regular would. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I aslo prefer "pre-unification", it is more specific. Amqui (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Canadian Forces Land Forces Command → Canadian Army is  Done (over redirect) CharlieEchoTango 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  The new name isn't official yet... anyway it is a matter of time I guess... Amqui (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, but I was seeing increased activity around these articles on my watchlist with IPs and others changing the names, I figured I'd move this one since it's non-controversial. The other ones are not decided yet so we'll see what the consensus is. It'll be 'official' tomorrow though, so no big deal. :) CharlieEchoTango 01:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  I think it makes more sense to use qualifiers like (historic) or (19xx-1968) to distinguish the historical articles from the renamed modern articles. (pre-unification) sounds a bit esoteric, especially to the casual reader who may not be intimately familiar with the topic. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer merging the articles under "Royal Canadian Air Force/Navy". The main reason the articles were separate was because of the different titles more than anything else. I do agree we should wait until after the official anouncementsy a good idea at this point to make any moves or mergers, and move protection is probably needed for now. - BilCat (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

At this stage I don't think move protection is needed. I reverted the good-faith moves by Vale of Glamorgan until consensus is reached. If it happens again, then we'll see, but hopefully all of this will be resolved soon. As for merging, I'm not fundamentally against the idea (in fact I originally thought it would be the best solution), but it's going to make huge articles and require a lot of work (for example RCAF/AIRCOM ranks are not the same, history is pretty much duplicated and overdetailed in some places). Not that they don't already need work, but still. I don't think forking the old RCN/RCAF and the new RCN/RCAF is such a bad idea in this case, they are different entities after all (pre and post unification). CharlieEchoTango 02:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with using years is that it makes the article slightly harder to find and makes it harder for readers to be sure they've arrived at the right article. For as useless as "pre-unification" would be to readers who don't arrive knowing that the Canadian Forces are unified or when that started relative to what they are seeking information about, it is better than bald years.

In any event, I've skimmed the articles, and I agree with others that a pure merger of each of the related articles for the three branches would create overlong articles, but I think we could re-purpose the "pre-unification" articles as "History of the..." articles. There would perhaps need to be some swapping of information, and Canadian Air Force (1920–1924) should probably be merged into what is now Royal Canadian Air Force to create History of the Royal Canadian Air Force, but it doesn't look as though the effort involved in going down this path would be terribly difficult. -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just compared the CAF (1929–24) article to RCAF, and the only two things are in the former that are not in the latter:

1. That CAF's Inspector-General Sir Willoughby Gwatkin was the person who began the campaign to add "Royal" to the name
2. The list of heads of the CAF, which is already included at Chief of the Air Staff (Canada)

I've also looked at RCAF and CFAC, and RCN and CFMC, and it looks as though my suggestion of re-purposing the old RCAF and RCN articles as "History of the..." articles would be easy to accomplish. Basically, all that would be necessary is to cut the text of the History sections of CFAC and CFMC, paste them into RCAF and RCN, and leave an appropriate summary at the first two articles. Then all that would be necessary would be moving the pages and tweaking the section titles (e.g., the level 2 heading "History" is deleted and its subs jump up a level and "Symbols and uniforms" becomes "Pre-unification symbols and uniforms"). Using this "History of the..." rubric would also bring the Air and Naval articles in line with the Army. -Rrius (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Having "History of..." articles would be a good way to keep the lenght down. We might also consider having separate aritcles for the insignia, either collectively or individually by era. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully support Rrius's brilliant proposal. We could also include an additional fork for 'Structure of...' to further simplify the main articles (RCN and RCAF), as is also done I believe with the Canadian Army article. In this fork we could combine various other articles such as List of Canadian Navy ships (the current ones in Structure of..., the old ones in History of..., or something along those lines), etc. As it stands right now the whole thing is somewhat of a mess with loose forks. A consolidation effort would be welcome. CharlieEchoTango 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A rough example of what I think would be ideal, expanding on Rrius's proposal :

This gives us a clear system of forks that can be organized in a template very similar to {{Canadian Army}}. The same thing could be done with RCAF. In my opinion this would be ideal, although it involves significant moving around of content, compliance with attribution being an immediate red flag. Maybe I'm overthinking the whole thing, though. Any thoughts? CharlieEchoTango 05:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This would also work, but incur a lot of work. If there is any motivated people willing to do it I support that idea. If not, it is way easier to keep it as is with "pre-unification" or something in the title of the old RCN. I don't really understand why it was two different things deserving two different articles until now, and suddenly just because the name changes it becomes the same thing and should only have one article (because that's what they are doing, only renaming, not going back to the previous RCN organization) ? (same thing for RCAF) Amqui (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No matters the way we go, we need an admin to rename the current Canadian Forces Maritime Command into Royal Canadian Navy. I did move the old RCN to Royal Canadian Navy (pre-unification) just for the time being and Royal Canadian Navy currently redirects to Canadian Forces Maritime Command, it will be easy to change if there is another decision taken. By the way for the article "History of the..." we already have The Creation of the Canadian Navy that we could use. Same thing for renaming the current Canadian Forces Air Command into Royal Canadian Air Force. Amqui (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Before going out and creating a bunch of sub-articles (or forks, whatever you call it), maybe we should improve the current articles. Because seriously, the article about the current Canadian Navy had a "citation needed" for a non-important detail in the second sentence of the intro and two external links for other wiki articles in the third, and that's only what I saw while adding a hatnote for disambiguation... Amqui (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And just a note about Rrius' suggestion, we cannot only cut and paste information from article to article, as we need to respect the history of the articles and the contributors, that's part of the cc-by-sa license. Amqui (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There's also the issue of categories namely Category:Navy of Canada, Canadian Forces Maritime Command and Category:Royal Canadian Navy the latter being pre-1968; Category:Canadian Air Force, Category:Canadian Forces Air Command and Category:Royal Canadian Air Force; Category:Canadian Army and Category:Canadian Forces Land Force Command Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, bots will be able to rename categories once we know how we carry on with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amqui (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The name changes are now official[5]. I still think Royal Canadian Navy (pre-1968) and Royal Canadian Air Force (pre-1968) are better than "pre-unification". Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the option from the above debate so we can finally carry on. When the preferred option is identified, we can carry on on selecting the details (i.e. pre-1968 or pre-unification, etc.).

• Option 1 - Merge articles (merging old RCN with the current RCN/MARCOM and merging old RCAF with the current RCAF/AIRCOM)
  1. My preference, but not a strong one. I could live with a rename to "RCN (pre-unification)" (less thrilled with a year range). If there's a "History of", doesn't it effectively merge anyhow? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC) (yes, it would merge in a way... Amqui (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

The problem with this full merger solution is that the articles are going to be huge. Ultimately, forking/splitting is probably necessary, which brings us to option 3 (thus also addressing what Amqui says in Option 2, except, not improving them later but now). It also puts RCN/RCAF in line with Canadian Army. CharlieEchoTango 16:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Rename articles (renaming old RCN into RCN (pre-unification), (pre-1968) or (1910-1968) and renaming MARCOM into RCN and renaming old RCAF into RCAF (pre-unification) or (pre-1968) and renaming AIRCOM into RCAF)
  1. Amqui (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I have no preference for the name we choose for the old articles, while creating article "History of the..." is a good idea, we might consider it later when the current articles are improved from their current state.
  2. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC) technically, the pre-1968 and post-1968 services are different due to unification so they should have their own articles. I prefer (pre-1968) or (xxxx-1968) as disambiguators since using years is clearer for readers who might not be familiar with what unification was or when it happened. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Using old articles to create "History of the..." articles (renaming old RCN into "History of the RCN" and MARCOM into RCN and renaming RCAF into "History of the RCAF" (also merging older Canadian Air Force articles) and renaming AIRCOM into RCAF)
  1. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC) By far the most straightforward option, and the most consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. Article names that are disambiguated with references to unification are potentially confusing/less helpful with readers that are not already quite familiar with the topics, and date references are only slightly better. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. Two birds with one stone. Would address both the naming issue and to some extent the content quality issue. The fact that the 'old-RCN' is different from 'new-RCN' can be made pretty clear in the leads and history sections. If this option is chosen, I'm willing to do some or most of the required work over the next day / few days. CharlieEchoTango 15:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. - Most straight-forward option, and keeps the 2 largest articles on each force, and their histories, relativley intact. Attribution can be noted on the talk page for licencing purposes, so cuts-and-pastes can be done where necessary. - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. - We'll need 'History of the..' articles anyway. Good on User:Rrius for taking a look at the actual articles. However, CF Air Transport Command and CF Air Defence Command were separate armed services/military formations, and can stand by themselves as independent articles - they deserve articles and should have them. However, as they are unreferenced stubs at the moment, they should be merged in to the History articles, with the redirect left for recreation at some later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

     How CF Air Transport Command and CF Air Defence Command are more different from the old RCAF than the AIRCOM/new RCAF is ? In fact, the AIRCOM/new RCAF is those two combined, so it is more the same thing than them and the old RCAF. Either we have one main article for the Canadian Air Force (old RCAF, Air Defence Comd, Air Transport Comd, AIRCOM/new RCAF), either we have separate articles for all of them, it makes no sense otherwise. We can easily say in the main article that the Canadian Air Force where divided into two different commands under the CF in 1968 at the unification and were later amalgamated together to form the AIRCOM in 1975. Amqui (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

     It doesn't really matter where they are merged as they are fairly small. I say merge them into the 'History of' article, and we can mention them in the brief history that's going to be at RCAF as well as in its lead. Much like what I'm doing to RCN right now. The detailed stuff goes in History of, as any fork would do. Thus they will be in both articles, but more detailed in the 'History of'. That way RCAF summarizes what the RCAF is (both its old version and its old), and the other article goes more in depth with regards to history. Standard fork. CharlieEchoTango 02:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

     Exactly, it doesn't matter where they are merged as long as they are. What I meant is that they cannot stay as separate articles. You are on the good track CET. Amqui (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  5. - This seems the most sensible to me and it gets my vote. That being said, I am willing to do approximately none of the work (and it seems there will be quite a bit of it). I mostly just correct spelling errors. --Dcook22 (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that with Option 3, we also have to take care of Canadian Forces Air Defence Command and Canadian Forces Air Transport Command because if we have only one article for RCAF before 1968 and the AIRCOM/new RCAF, then these commands should also be in that single main article, and their history in the "History of..." article, as it make no sense to have one article for 1924-1968 and 1975-2011 and having separate articles for 1968-197 (especially that CF Air Defence Comd and CF Air Transport Comd are way more similar to the AIRCOM/new RCAF than the old RCAF is similar to AIRCOM/new RCAF). Amqui (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, they should be merged into it. Amqui, based on this comment and this comment, are you willing to consider changing your "vote" from #2 to #3? I agree it incurs a lot of work, I'm ready to do it over the next few days, starting as soon as we get consensus (now, perhaps?). I believe this way your concerns would be addressed. Best, CharlieEchoTango 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would happily volunteer to merge in CF ADC and CF ATC, being specially interested in military units and formations. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! And as a sysop, your help would be needed for some of the moves outlined above (the follow up on Rrius's proposal) since they are over redirects (MARCOM to RCN and AIRCOM to RCAF). Let's wait for Amqui's response and I think we'll be ready to go. Once everything is in place, I'll get to work. CharlieEchoTango 19:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

CET, go for it, you don't need any consensus to start improving the current articles of Navy or the Air Force. I didn't really look at the english version of the Air Force to be honest, but the Navy one needs a lot of work. For example, the main article of the Navy like that doesn't need the whole rank structure in detail, it should be kept general if we want them to become Good article (note that they are on the french version). Anyway CET, happy to see that you are back ! Amqui (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Amqui, although I'm not going to be very active on frwiki! I'll start working on the articles now. Buckshot06, if you're available to move Canadian Forces Maritime Command to Royal Canadian Navy, and Canadian Forces Air Command to Royal Canadian Air Force, it would be great (and then merge the two stubs to RCAF and what not). Cheers - CharlieEchoTango 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Creation of the Canadian Navy should also be merged into History of the Royal Canadian Navy, I'll strip down what is duplicated later. CharlieEchoTango 20:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

CET, one of the things you learn as a mop-holder is not to rush. As far as I can see, the discussion supports the decisions you've proposed, but I would prefer to wait at least 12-18 hours for any final inputs. If there are no more, I'll gladly make the moves you propose. I will start merging the stubs though. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, further input is welcome, of course. I started moving stuff around a bit, if anyone has serious objections, than we can easily revert to the previous state of the articles. In the meantime I'll keep on working on RCN (creating a summary of the history, etc) and on History of RCN a bit, the moves are not urgent, of course. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

For the clean-up crew - most of the articles that point to Royal Canadian Air Force need to be repointed to History of the Royal Canadian Air Force for the links to make sense. Same with articles pointing to Royal Canadian Navy needing to be repointed to History of the Royal Canadian Navy. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the links, but not all the links as the new RCAF article also include the old RCAF, only links pertaining to history specifically should point to the "History of the RCAF", links talking about the RCAF in general should point to RCAF even if they talk about RCAF before 1968. Amqui (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin go to {{Country data Canada}} and change the information under military ensigns so that it reads Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force, Canadian Army instead of Canadian Forces Maritime Command (etc.)? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Courcelles (talk · contribs), [6]. CharlieEchoTango 22:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Various sources mention a female Viet Cong sniper platoon commander who allegedly tortured soldiers from South Vietnam and from the US — some of her antagonists called her "Apache"

Is she notable enough for a biography-stub? Is she notable as a famous interrogator or practitioner of torture? Is there any other reason why she might be notable? Apart from this interview (4:00 minutes into) [7], my other references about her are the same as those found in the few sentences about her in the Carlos Hathcock article.

If someone has any other notable references about her (especially in print), then please sound off.--Ønography (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A stub has been created.

• Input I have received so far, " As for an article on "Apache", she's definitely an intriguing character. An article could be written, but I do not believe there is any source revealing her name, date of birth, or any other personal data of that nature. From what I have seen we can say she lived, she was Vietnamese, she lead a platoon, she was a sniper, she tortured Marines, and Gunny Hathcock killed her. I am not even sure without rereading the source material if the date of her death was given. She's mentioned in both of Sasser's books which mention Hathcock, Chandler's book, and both of Henderson's books. There might be a few magazine/newspaper pieces about Hathcock that mention her. If you feel you have enough to get something started, go for it; I'll try to help if you need it." (received @16:16, 17 August 2011)--Ønography (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

She seems as much an urban myth as a person that we could write a solid bio on but here's a couple sources I found that are accessible to the casual reader: [8] [9]. It seems she's only mentioned in sources in as a person of interest killed by Hathcock. While the persona makes for an intriguing war story I'm unconvinced we have the material to warrant a biographical article. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about this for the reasons listed above. I'd especially want to see references that are de-coupled from Hathcock.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of the linked articles are also contemporary to the release of at least one of the books about Hathcock, and nothing else. I'd really want to see something either independent of Hathcock or something contemporary (as in late 1960s) about this person before I'd consider her notable (or even real).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

could someone have a look at the recent move of (the content) of Rotterdam Blitz. not worried about where it ended up but attribution now lost. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I addressed it a few hours ago and all is well. Thanks for the heads up! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Coming across this, I notice most of them aren't linked. Is there any prospect for them getting their own pages? Anybody want to take that on? (Also posted at WPSHIPS.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What I try and like to do with such articles is wait until our Russian colleagues create an article that we can translate and build upon. Note in this case that only one has an article on Ruwiki - ru:АГ-21. I suggest you start by GoogleTranslating that one.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't given any thought to how it might happen. Now you mention it, tho, can I request one of our Russian-speaking colleagues post a similar request on Russian WP? If the pages don't already exist there, I daresay they'd be welcome, as well as here. (Not to mention the other interesting stuff that might come to light in the process. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Sukhoi Su-33 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class review for HMS Eagle (1918) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Northrop YF-23 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Cheers! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Does there exist a WP guideline as to how different portions of the same airfield's history should be presented (single/multiple articles, single/multiple articles for different parts of the airport) ? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so. A common sense approach seems the best option. For instance, even though RAAF Base Williamtown and Newcastle Airport (Williamtown) share runways, air traffic control and probably other odds and ends and the tension between the civil and military uses of the airport are steadily increasing, they have fairly distinct histories and should be covered in separate articles. Conversely, the small civil aviation facilities at RAAF Base Tindal don't seem to warrant a separate article. Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this issue needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes a separate article is justified (RAF Lympne and Lympne Airport), sometimes the same article can cover both civil and military use (RAF Penshurst and Penshurst Airfield), to name just two examples. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've come across San Antonio de los Baños Airfield, covering a Cuban airfield's history during World War II, and San Antonio de los Baños Air Base, covering history from 1950s-1960s onwards. I feel strongly we shouldn't have two history articles on one base, and they should be merged. Thoughts ? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, a continuous history is easier to follow for the reader. And keeps the editors from needing to include overlapping text, such as background for newer period article. There should be some solid reasons for splitting. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated List of United States Navy ratings for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lockheed Have Blue; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for SMS Kaiserin; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (X–Z); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Ap Bac; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of these articles have been reformatted to reflect their current units, history and lineage. Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that medal bars are being added to soldiers' bio articles (see [10]). I reverted that addition because it was unsourced, but as a project do we have any consensus on the value of these types of sections? EyeSerene^talk 08:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they have any value. Honours (for UK/Commonwealth personnel) and gallantry awards tend to get (or should be) listed in the infobox and should also be referred to in the text of the article. These "medal bar" tables just seem to be an excuse to add images of the ribbons. If editors want to add details of other decorations e.g. campaign medals these can be added into the main text but a lot are non-encyclopedic e.g. the 6.5 million Victory and British War Medals issued for service in WW1 NtheP (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded that they are of no value to the articles in question and I have also noticed they appear more and more in articles. Does WP:Biography have anything to say on the subject. (dropped them a note about this discussion)Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Obviously one major issue seems to be a lack of sourcing, but even properly sourced I tend to agree with you both that they add little of value (almost WP:TRIVIA in fact). Taking up an entire screen or more doesn't help, especially when the bio itself is quite short. EyeSerene^talk 10:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We dont normally have a problem with listing the gallantry awards and citations but I dont see any need for images, they are being used for decoration (even the large table format is a bit over the top), as Nthep mentioned standard campaign medals are not really notable and dont need to be mentioned, the temptation with a table and images is to list everything. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

To create a table or list with images of the medal bars seems to be a case of decoration. If something is to be made of the fact that the individual received many awards then surely a picture of them with a chestful of ribbons or a photgraphy of the medla group is appropriate. I have also seem the same effect in unit articles with streamers and awards listed with matching images (more extreme example). In infoboxes too, I seem to recallI have found.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above that they have little encyclopaedic value. If somebody is notable for an award, like a VC or an MoH, then much will be made of it in the prose, and other significant awards (like Richard Dannatt's Military Cross, to give an example from my own work) will get at least a mention. In my experience, these types of sections are common in American biographies (probably because the images are PD) but less so in British and Commonwelath articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's pleasing for me to see the consensus above as I've had various heating discussions in the past with people who like to list every medal, even service/campaign medals that are not notable in themselves, as well as honours and decorations, in special sections. I see no value in these sections as wars/campaigns, plus high honours including gallantry awards, should be noted in the infobox and detailed/cited in the main body. The worst I find is the images that often go with such lists, which I'm afraid suggest nothing so much as a children's picture book to this reader... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the best place for an encyclopedic treatment is in the article text. Part of my concern was the edit summary in the diff I linked at the top of the thread ("...it is being done for all Australian Soldiers in Wikipedia"). Consensus so far is unanimous and though obviously that could change, if it stays this way perhaps we'll be able to nip this in the bud. GraemeLeggett's examples seem to fall into the same camp, though might be different enough that they merit separate discussion.

Assuming consensus doesn't dramatically change in the next few hours and days, might it be worth explicitly adding something about medal bars to our MOS? EyeSerene^talk 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur about the ribbon bars adding little of value.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to thoroughly disagree, based not only on my experience as a contributor who makes these kinds of lists, but also with my education in marketing a webpage. Here are my concerns:

1. As much as you'd like to wish readers care about the prose as much as our friends at FAC, they don't. People prefer organized lists,tables with short bits of information, and yes, images. The list of awards is as much of an inroads to the history of the article's subject as is their biography, because it's a shorthand reference point of that person's accomplishments. In fact, studies show people tend to gravitate to lists and (useful) images much more than they do to walls of prose. Because they don't care enough to read it all in the biography section to find the tidbits they want. (source) Moreover, visual representations of lists such as the awards also increase readership (source). I've experienced this countless times as other contributors try to turn entire sections of my prose into bullet points...again and again.
2. I would contend a complete list of decorations a person has won is just as important (or unimportant) to their notability as is the high school they graduated from. If an article is complete without a person's list of accomplishments, I would contend it would be complete without the less interesting "early life" and secondary education details we often require for notable people that are not directly a part of their notable accomplishments.
3. I am concerned this creates a slippery slope that seems to be against general consensus on Wikipedia overall as it is. Many of our famous athletes, musicians, entertainers, and other notable people have entire sections of awards and some people's awards even have articles of their own. Are we going to try to say those lists are notable everywhere on Wikipedia except articles under our rules? I think people on other projects would oppose a move like this pretty strongly on their own pages on the basis that it requires them to find an alternative to their lists, when the lists seem to work efficiently as is.
4. When it comes down to it, these awards are some of the most important details to our readers, especially military-minded people. After all, people have committed suicide over their decorations, strict laws exist governing award displays and thousands of people have articles on Wikipedia who have no notability outside of the awards they have received. A lot of WikiProjects have cases like these. It's the reason awards tables are often so easy to cite...the military (and military people) have such a demand for the information that it's often the one detail about a unit/person's history that gets the most thorough coverage in official histories.

That said, it sounds like the problems we keep having revolve mainly around citing this information. I would say awards must adhere to the same strict BLP requirements as any other detail, and be removed immediately if they are not cited. If we would rather limit these decorations to non-illustrated lists, I would support that, as well. But I strongly oppose limiting mention of decorations to the prose. —Ed!^(talk) 18:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be some justification for setting out a separate "awards" section in that it relieves pressure on the infobox to hold a long list, in the same way that for a British regiment it is easier to list the battle honours separately on the page and link from the infobox (as for instance in the Royal Norfolk Regiment). In articles, while the prose is unfinished, a list of awards can help in the same way as a timeline for a company for identifying points that need to be turned into prose. So there may be occasions when a separate awards section is helpful, but would you have it as the defacto standard? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying from my experience in website design and advertising, these lists are some of the most useful parts of an article because the average, uninvolved reader is usually turned off by walls of text, and the awards do create a sort of "timeline" of the person's accomplishments. While I think images to have utility, I can also see the argument that they seem superfluous by themselves. I would support awards lists like this with minimal illustration, but removing awards sections entirely forces us to cram the awards into the prose, and people don't want to search through prose to get to that information. It says enough to me that the awards tables are some of the most eavily edited parts of my articles (bots notwithstanding) that people gravitate toward the lists as quick ways to get the information. —Ed!^(talk) 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I realize for the who haven't served in the military the colorful ribbons don't mean much and seem more appropriate in a children's book however I also have to say I don't agree with removing these ribbon bars either. For people in the military those "unnecessary" ribbon bars represent an important piece of military culture and a piece of the service members career. To remove it, IMO, would be like removing all the pictures from the article and leaving nothing but bare text. Also as Ed more elequantly put it. --Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point that's being missed is that we do have a place for lists of decorations "won" (to use Kumioko's wording) by service people for extraordinary acts, and high honours recognising excellent service, and that is the infobox. There is no need for ribbon images when one click on the decoration's link will show them not only the ribbon but the medal itself. There is also no point in listing service/campaign medals that are conferred to everybody on active duty in the war or campaign, i.e. for being in a certain place at a certain time, such as the 1939–45 Star or the Africa Star -- these don't command much if any weight in histories or biographies because of their ubiquity. To respond to the comparison with awards for pop artists and so on, aside from there being few military people with so many notable honours and decorations that they'd make the infobox very long, I think most of WP would take a dim view of images of Oscars or Grammys next to each movie or pop star's award listed. The one situation I could see some reason to modify our current standard is where multiple grades of notable honours have been awarded and hence could justifiably be included in the infobox, with the year of the award, e.g. Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (1961), Companion of the Order of the Bath (1955), Commander of the Order of the British Empire (1953), Distinguished Flying Cross (1946), Officer of the Order of the British Empire (1942). Currently we don't generally include the years of awards in the infobox, and the OBE/CBE wouldn't be listed in this example (Air Marshal Valston Hancock if anyone's interested) because the KBE subsumes them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as the list of awards, Wikipedia's lists have always included awards notable enough to have their own articles, in addition to other awards. It seems to me the precedent remains that at least a list should exist of the awards. I'd also be inclined to think a photo of each decoration isn't necessarily essential; but at the same time, something that often seems to draw people to articles and talk pages seems to be identifying the ribbons seen on a subject's dress uniform. It's nice and neat to omit campaign medals from biographies when there are only one or two campaigns in a person's career, but I've been dealing a lot with early 1900's career individuals who have 6 or 7 campaigns under their belts; and people do like to see and know what awards those individuals won, as opposed to assuming and often being wrong about eligibility for awards. —Ed!^(talk) 04:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree that Campaign medals are not important enough to display nor do I agree that the Infobox is the only place appropriate to list/display the awards. Keep in mind that the display of awards is not specific to individuals but to units, bases and Ships as well. For example, USS Missouri (BB-63) is a featured article that lists all of the (as indicated above less important) campaign ribbons prominantly displayed in the awards section. So whatever is decided here will undoubtedly ripple over to these other articles as well. Also quoting above about "these don't command much if any weight in histories or biographies because of their ubiquity". Lets be a little clearer that those official biographies and histories are mostly printed on paper and they have limited space. I suspect there are many that would "like" to include the whole history of each person but due to limited room they have to be more selective. We don't have that problem and additionally people come here to find out information that may or may not be easily found in written texts (ie not all books are available everywhere with the information). Also, if we aren't going to display the full list of awards then we shouldn't display any of them. The military sets forth an order of precedence that should be followed and if we skip around then we lose credibility. Additionally, it will start to confuse people because well be missing images and they will ask why or simply add them in. It would be a terrible shame in my opinion if we decided that only certain ribbons should be displayed because it will devalue the usefullness of displaying anything and will degrade our credibility. --Kumioko (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above regarding Leroy Petry for some of the issues surrounding unit award ribbons. And honestly, I don't see why not listing every campaign ribbon or basic training ribbon would undermine our credibility. And let's be honest...there are some military awards given out just for showing up. And I've seen enough errors in the unit section regarding campaigns to wonder how accurate we will actually end up being if we start trying to list every award an individual earned. After all, unit awards are often more publicly listed and thus should be easier to verify. Sadly it doesn't seem to work that way.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Being an online encyclopedia doesn't mean we shouldn't be selective in what we present -- WP is not a grab-bag of information or a home for listcruft. Concerns about displaying "only certain ribbons" are easily overcome by not displaying any images of decorations in articles that are not specifically about those decorations. I'm also curious to know what evidence exists that we are in danger of losing credibility by not displaying every service medal in a soldier's bio. The argument that books would include this info if they had the space doesn't hold water in my experience. As you might imagine, I've been through many full-length bios of airmen to source WP articles, and I'm struggling to remember one that used the half a page necessary to list all such medals; they give space to the decorations for gallantry, and other high honours, as do we. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your right they don't because they are limited on space. I can see that there is likely no chance that I am going to win this argument but I just wanted it noted that as a member of the military I strongly oppose the relegation of the medals and ribbons earned as just image cruft and non notable. To those in the military who received them they are, in many cases more meaningful, than listing what High school I attended or that i was the school footbal star!. To not list them just reflects that although some may be very good researchers and writers they lack understanding about the importance of these decorations in the military culture for individuals and units/ships. It has the same effect if we remove the ranks and simply say they were Officers or Enlisted...I mean what does the rank really matter anyway right, there is no cililian equivelant. Sorry if that offends but thats how I feel. I'm not going to bother arguing it because I'll probably just make myself into the bad guy endlessly contesting my feelings about the display of ribbons but I hope this demonstrats that not everyone is going to agree that these are "just images or needless awards" and that some will find it quite a bad decision if its done. What may end up happening is that we will be forced to make an image off line and add a picture to each article that displays the ribbons in a photo image instead of building a table with the awards. --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Kumioko, but it's also worth understanding that there are different levels of military awards, and not all of them are equal or equally valuable. Typically in the military it's the valor awards that are held in high esteem, while the others may or may not be. I'm not trying to offend, either, but I've been around the military for a long time (over 20 years) and have met more servicemembers (officers and enlisted alike) who feel the same way that those who feel that every ribbon is valuable. Comparing ribbons to rank isn't really valid, IMO. Finally, how are we to verify EVERY medal a person may be entitled to? As Ian pointed out, most discussions limit medals to those awarded for valor. Those are easy (for the most part) to verify. Others may not be.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of notability I do agree that if we can't verify it then at the least we should add a citation needed tag and at worst we remove it from the article (and possibly leave a note on the talk page). But in general if its mentioned then it should be there. On the issue of holding Valorous awards in higher esteem I agree with that to a point too. Again though there is a measure of added respect, acknowledgement or whatever thats given to those that have been in a given campaign (Iraq or afghanistan for example) against those who haven't. I also agree with the comments below that indicate that there is some cultural and nationality differences in play. In the US for example they might be a bit more important than in the UK (I am not familiar with the UK I am just hypothesizing). --Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This "problem" for want of a better word seems to be dependent on what nation is involved. See Bernard Law Montgomery who is entitled to three campaign medals for WWI and six for the WWII, but they are missing completely from his list of awards. Where as James Jabara has 17 campaign or similar awards listed. As a compromise how about only listing those that would result in Post-nominal letters? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok strike that last bit just realised it only seem to be UK an Commonwealth countries who use that system.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment re featured article and award images. Missouri went FA in 05 was last reviewed in 09. The big ribbon table appeared in late October 2010 replacing a single image and prose text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good research. That was just an example though. After reviewing what it looked like befire, personally I think that it looks better than it did. --Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To add my two cents to this topic, I think a separate section for awards near the bottom of the article, that is well referenced, either in bar format or as a list is valuable for those who want to quickly know what a notable unit, or military biography subject was awarded. These should be avoided in the infobox, except for maybe the most notable ones (especially if they directly contribute to the subjects overall notability (such as a medal of honor or victoria cross recipient). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the medal sections particularly useful. Important awards should be covered in the text and I tend to agree that campaign medals are non-notable, but at least part of the issue is the rather startling visual impact of running into a mass of large coloured icons that are meaningless unless one wants to look them all up. Where articles are short the contrast is even more jarring; it comes across as a decorative image gallery. In order of preference I'd rather see 1. no listing at all with significant awards covered in the text; 2. a selective text-based listing, explaining what medals were awarded and why their award is notable; 3. the previous but in a table and without images; and 4. the image gallery plus table. If we have to have 3 or 4, collapsing the section might at least reduce the visual clutter. EyeSerene^talk 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with EyeSerene, Ian and HJ. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already voiced my opinion and it seems clear what the outcome will be but you should be prepared for the backlash that will undoubtedly generate when these ribbon bars start disappearing. Bear in mind that we aren't talking about 2 or 3 hundred articles here, but a few thousand. --Kumioko (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that without the ribbon bars we are going to end up with scrolling lists of awards such as is seen on George S. Patton or people will simply take the time to construct a ribbon display and then take a picture of it to upload and attach like this. Either way I suspect most of these articles are going to end up with a ribbon display of some sort in the end anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is yet another alternative to the display of ribbons on articles: Ross A. McGinnis. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You make several good points as well, Kumioko. We don't want to ignite edit wars, regardless, so compromise should be sought when possible. Smaller is better than bigger, links are better than in-text descriptions, and 1 image is better than 20. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I do like the display format at McGinnis, but can it be shrunk down? IMO, the division patch caption is making the whole thing larger than it needs to be. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am fine with either displaying it as it is displayed when worn or in table form like McGinnis but they should appear in appropriate precedence order whichever format is used. to answer your question though. In some cases the images can be shrunk but when you start adding devices like stars and palms you run into a problem because the devices cannot be adjusted as far as I know. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In a separate but related discussion on the Talk:Audie Murphy (it can also be seen on many others such as Louis H. Carpenter) there is a discussion brewing about the placement of displays for ranks. Since the decision about how to show ribbons will bare on how these are dealt with I thought it prudent to bring it to attention here as well. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be unnecessary to list multiple recognition of the same rank by sub-organizations. Perhaps a footnote can be added, in place of multiple Captain or Major rank recognitions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for some work, there are a number of articles in Category:Military history articles needing attention to task force coverage which should be retagged as belonging to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Latin American military history task force. I've done a few this evening, but there are still quite a few left. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gordon Paiʻea Chung-Hoon. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the above article is FA and a new editor has added info in from a BBC website that covers an individuals action during the operation. The info seems worthwhile to add: a Polish chap winning his countries version of the Medal of Honour/Victoria Cross.

However the website states its the uploaders own translation of a text that is apparently available. Since the editor does not want to talk about it, and i dont want to break any 3RV rules, is the source considered reliable thus not compromising the article?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be surprised to see Peoples War qualify as a RS and I can find no mention of the award? Unless I am missing something.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I must admit i only glanced the top of the website, saw what it said and formed my opinion. Using the search function none of the information added to the article, bar the mans name and he spoke French, appears in the BBC article. Going off what the editor has just typed on the discussion page it would appear it is based off a documantry he saw.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm greatly concerned about NPOV violations at August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids, including title NPOV issues. Could someone from the wikiproject check it out as well as proposed move and rename options? In particular I am concerned about the definition of air raids as used in the article from a Military History perspective. I'm seeking any kind of assistance I can get on the article possible and there are numerous comments on the articles talk page about the move, merge, and NPOV issues already. Thanks, --98.112.224.106 (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The peer review for If Day is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Sukhoi Su-37 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Battle of Nam River is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Around the 28 day mark, with one support and one (other) comment. Your thoughts wanted! Thanks Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on galley for quite a while and while checking what linked to it, I ran across row galley (essentially an American term for a gunboat). If I'm slightly hesitant to that being a separate article, I'm outright skeptical about articles on individual row galleys. Vessels of this type were built in the hundreds and hundreds by Sweden, Great Britain, Denmark, Russia, Prussia and other powers during the late 18th and early 19th century. And, yes, usually of the same size and armament. As far as I know, they were generally so numerous that they were assigned numbers rather than individual names.

It's most likely a much better service to readers to summarize the information in individual vessels in row galley. That is, if anyone can actually define it more precisely than "pre-steamship-era gunboat used against the British in North America".

Peter ^Isotalo 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This has come up countless times before and now it is being discussed in a an article review as well. What should be OUR policy of dates, especially when a great deal of American writers insist on only using M/D/Y under the belief in WP:DATE that the first major contributor's "style" should predominate, from that point on and ad infinitum, apparently. Excuse the flippancy, but two articles have now emerged on Zeppelin airships (Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin) that features the New York Times articles cited in M/D/Y and the London Times in D/M/Y, rather than being consistently one style throughout. The rest of the article is uniformly in an US-centric style for dates and presumably spelling conventions. The date convention I understand is to use military style dating (again D/M/Y) for military subjects, US "popular" style, M/D/Y for US civil subjects and the "international" style (again D/M/Y) for all non-US subjects. Please comment and is it time for a clearly-set out statement to appear in our own style guide, to use in instances such as creating a new article, or updating a current article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

Yes we need a guideline and it should indicate what you have outlined here! - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See similar issue (names removed): You have been making changes in many volleyball articles with this note: consistent date format (int'l). According to WP:DATE, both the format that I was previously used as first major contributor is correct, and I haven't found any int'l format. What about this? (user name removed)

There are two conflicting guidelines, one is "first contributor", as you mentioned, and the other is that date format should be selected according to context. The August 21, 2011, format is distinctly North American (United States and Canada, although in Canada, there is an either/or in effect), and thus suitable for articles relating to North American subjects mainly. Many articles appear to have been created by editors from North America, and my theory is that they, without giving it much thought, have applied the format that is natural to them, even to articles with no relation to North America. With two conflicting guidelines, one obviously has to yield, and a decision without much thought – my perception, I admit – is worth less that a conscious decision, at least in my world. I could add that most of the articles I've edited recently are small and stubbish, and so there is no distinguishable first contributor.

When there is "international format" dates in an article relating to a North American subject, I of course apply "consistent date fmt (us)".

When it comes to my edit summaries, I admit that there wasn't always inconsistent date format in an article I edited, by interpret it this way: I'm applying consistent date format. ;-) Maybe there's some room for improvement here, the "entry assist" function in the edit summary field makes you lazy, picking the best alternative. I'll see what I can do. (user name removed) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

My personal understanding is that a topic/region association trumps "I got here first" for date formatting. If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. (italics mine). I believe that the latter condition is to stop edit-warring on articles where there is no national association to the topic (i.e Novel should go by the rule of first, while a Discworld novel should be DMY). -- saberwyn 23:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems a lot of text considering there is already an established WP guideline on the subject?! The aircraft project can not set it's own MoS rules, even if we did it would have to be fixed at GA/FA level. US format in numbers is very confusing to British readers and even August 22, 2011 is confusing (why is the month more important than the day?!!). The principle is very simple, national tied articles have the date format fixed in the national style, no national ties follows the creating editor (unless they were completely wrong!). Same goes for citation style (follow the creating editor). We should not be getting bogged down with this rubbish. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholehardedly with you, now look at the real reason for this issue being brought to this forum: LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin and LZ 129 Hindenburg articles, that are being edited by primarily one editor who has edited and advocated for only a US-centric style, using wikilawyering and seemingly resistant to any change in style. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

I find american dates confusing so whatever we have it has to include the month written out. I have to agree with Nimbus that we should not create our own rules but in the case that Bzuk cited a fairly dubious connection with the United States (number of visits) was used for a European subject which should really use the non-american format. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the situation, the Graf case appears to be one arising from ambiguity in the MOS term "strong ties to a particular English-speaking country". The editor identified that the Graf had a tie to the US over other English-speaking countries whereas, I believe, others would understand the Graf article had strong ties to Germany (non-English speaking) and therefore a different rule (eg first format used) should apply. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Graeme is right. The Zeppelins are strongly German, the style used by the article creator should be used (if it can be clearly deduced, sometimes it can't). I create articles on Japanese motorcycles, they are written in British English (as allowed), after fixing carburetor/carburetter etc. many times I had to apply a language template to the talk page. That might be an option for the Zeppelins. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the fun part, the original author obviously wrote the Graf Zeppelin article as a "foreign"- based article, replete with metric information, foreign word identification but a M/D/Y dating, which has been used ever since as the reason for continuing to call this a US-linked article. Similarly, the Hindenburg article started even farther back in 2002, also has metric information but the darned M/D/Y format. So what to do? The MOS guide is sufficiently ambiguous that clever folks use it to their advantage, don't we need to at least make a clear statement of how things should go concerning the national origin of articles and how they should be written? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

I can sum up my thoughts on this issue thus: does it really matter? Now, 1/2/11 is ambiguous—is it the first of February or the second on January—but if the month is spelt out (as it always should be by my understanding of MOS:DATE), is it really a big deal if the day comes before or after the month? Although the mdy format is only really intuitive to Americans (and some Canadians), there's no ambiguity with the month spelt out, so it's not really worth arguing about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the last comment may lead to the "solution" to the dilemma of how to write about the Zeppelin articles when there is a consistent writing of the article to conform to an international subject with spellings, measurements and other formats written in one style while the date format is written in a US-style. Since the "principal editor" continues with more "related" to the United States than any other English-speaking country canard, screen the article for the first elements of a German-related article, leave the dates in place (unless the "original" editor changes the format) and place a caveat note into the edit file as appears in the Concorde and other articles that explains the use of a particular format. FWiW, there are two date formats in the article and for consistency, all dates should appear the same to a reader. Bzuk (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

Please see this discussion regarding conflicting file names. I am attempting to improve the article of the discussion linked by adding a recently uploaded into Wikicommons. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Folks, anyone interested in following up on the message at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions#Navy support to Rongelap Atoll in the late 1950's? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting close to a 3RV situation with an editor who insists on adding a line about the Seventh Cavalry to the article's lede. The line in question is "The 7th Cavalry Regiment is America's "Immortal" Cavalry Regiment." There's no source for this, and it's really a POV-type statement that I don't think belongs in the article lede. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I know I ask a lot of people on this page, but I'm in a bit of a quandary. The article was proceeding along a normal GA review, when the reviewer was blocked for violating a topic ban related to a previous block. This may be appealed, I don't know. Unfortunately, I really need the article to be reviewed before the 28th for the WikiCup (that and having such a thing hanging is not good). Presumably an indefinite block is good enough reason for someone else to usurp the review (here); I think it's pretty close, I was waiting on the reviewer for the last word on passing. If someone could do this, that would be great! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Request a second opinion by changing |status=2ndopinion in the GA nominee template on the talk page. Then add a line after the Spanish Civil War entry on the GAN page to request a Second Opinion. The instructions are at WP:Good article nominations#Second opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The peer review for James Cook is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a stray line of text "German campaign (Napoleonic Wars)" at the top of the article that seems to be connected to the Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars. I can't figure out what exactly is wrong. Could someone from this Project take a look and fix it? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That was being caused by a problem with Template:Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars which Dwalrus (talk · contribs) has now fixed. The War of 1812 article has way too many campaign boxes - the normal structure of these would be for it to only have one which links to the overall articles on each of the theatres of the war, which in turn have their own campaign boxes. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Chester A. Arthur is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinions are requested at Template_talk:Campaignbox_Texas_Revolution#Inclusion_criteria on whether the template should include naval skirmishes or not. Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Coming to the 28-day mark on this FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1st Provisional Marine Brigade/archive1. It has one support and a few comments right now. Could use a few more eyes. Thanks very much! —Ed!^(talk) 20:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. Recently I have been going over some of the better quality articles I worked on half a year or so ago, making improvements on them with new sources I've located and a more honed technique at identifying what content to seek out and add; I've redone the Development section of the Avro Vulcan entirely in the last 24 hours. I have been considering placing the article through an A-class review for months now, and finally feel it is getting to the point where it is in a suitable state to benefit from greater critique and analysis. If anybody has the time to look at it and note improvements/changes that should be made, or edits the article themselves with that goal in mind, it would be greatly appreciated. I'd also like to hear people's opinions on whether the article is worthy of using up project resources on such a nomination or otherwise. Kyteto (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've provided some comments on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far, is there any more input people wish to make? Kyteto (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on where people are unhappy with the biological and historical use of the symbol † to denote extinction or killed in battle. Since this has the potential to affect quite a few of your articles it might be worth a look. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The {{Navy}} template needs a flag added for the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service so that {{navy|UK|RNAS}} does not display the flag of, and a link to, Royal Navy. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Mark Satin is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Rupert Downes is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been advised that I should notify WikiProject Military History that there is a potential merge proposal. WikiProject Espionage from a stand-alone WikiProject into WikiProject Military History. All year (except for 10 weeks while overseas), I've tried to get WikiProject Espionage revived, but it has moved much. Sven Manguard, suggested he talk to The ed17 about it and now he's advised me to come here for a consenus. To see what the coordinators and users thought about the merge? I basically told him I know a couple of coordinators on WikiProject Military History, and have worked with AustralianRupert and Nick-D on some Military History articles and I am very active in this WikiProject.

First I would like to say that since I've made the effort to get WikiProject Espionage revived, that I should have a very small roll (above normal users but less than a coordinator) in the WikiProject Military History to what goes on within the WikiProject. Adamdaley (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Adam, I'm not really too certain about the best way to handle this, but one idea I have is to maybe merge it with the Intelligence task force. What does anyone else think of this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was my idea when I advised him to come here. I believe that they cover the same area. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the project is to be merged here, then absorbing it into the intelligence task force would definitely be the right approach. I'm not certain, however, whether the scopes are really compatible; "espionage" covers a range of topics far greater than military intelligence alone. Perhaps we should rename the task force to "intelligence and espionage", so it covers the full scope of both groups more explicitly? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a merger along the lines of Kirill's idea as well. – Joe N 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

fwiw espionage is one component of intelligence. I think the more pertinent point is that intelligence as a discipline is far broader than purely military applications, although the majority of assets used tend to be military or directly supported by military.

There is a grey area around intelligence support to central government decision making or policing intelligence activities that don't really fit into MilHist. There is also the commercial intelligence world, both licit and illicit. Some of the providers in that world could fit under the MilHist banner, being founded by former military, or working closely with the military to the extent that can be evidenced. Many will not readily fit into the project. Something like Control Risks would fit in the former category, the Economist Intelligence Unit into the latter.

Espionage per se fits easily into the Intelligence TF, but I think it risks losing a large segment of the intelligence domain.

ALR (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• I feel it is a "yes". I know it will take time to sort out whatever needs to be sorted out. Can leave messages on my Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone agree? What will happen? Hello? Adamdaley (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just to let everyone know, I was the one of the people who suggested this idea. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 13:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since ALR has had his say, I don't know what to do about the situation. I can only be helpful doing little bits here and there. Must say, there's not much faith or belief I could do something positive with Wikipedia, therefore I'll just continue doing it. Anyone want to talk to me they can on my Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be some value in looking at the scope of the espionage project and broadening it out to intelligence in the round. One of the issues with the domain is there are so few people editing WP who actually understand intelligence as a discipline that it's inevitably going to be in a weak position.

ALR (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tried googling the above expression. I found only one hit (The mention on wikipedia of "sitting duck" exercises did not "hit" on google):

"Washington Monthly Washington Monthly - Ben Bradlee and His All : ... might seem to be a sitting-duck exercise, like asking whether the Soviet Union ... assessments of the costs and purposes of specific military programs. ...

Wikipedia claims that one manner the exercise has been conducted, was by ordering a soldier not to move, and then firing rounds around the outline of the soldier's head. (The exercise was conducted by commandos of FSK of Norway.)

If the mentioned exercise-name is not in widespread use, then I would like to know what category of military training that such might belong to.

(The exercise has in Norwegian also been called "silhouette shooting"(?)) — and I am not sure if that expression ever was in widespread use, in that context.)

If the "sitting duck" name of the exercise has notable references, then I think it should be included into the article about the expression Sitting duck (combat).--Narant (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)#Before FAR. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the last day for Cup entries, which I do understand is not something that everyone agrees with as a concept. However, this article needs a new reviewer anyway – it seems unlikely that the current reviewer will be allowed to complete the review. It would be of great help to me if someone could complete the review, which is almost there (it was the original reviewer's intention to pass without many (if any) further points). Bonus marks for doing so today, but having such an important article reach the required standard is in any case an achievement, whether or not it happens today. It's here. I ask MILHIST because it's quite a long article and I'm sure given the off-putting reviewer situation that it will be a while before anyone outside the project decides to take a look. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I think the see also section of the article Soviet–Japanese War (1945) is not appropriate. Do you have any opinions ? Talk:Soviet–Japanese War (1945)#See also section). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered this category, which was created in 2008. Since there is already a category for South Carolina Civil War regiments and a seperate subcategory for SC Union regiments, should this category be merged back into its parent category? Wild Wolf (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In the articles Leroy Petry there have been efforts by another possibly well meaning editor to add unit citations to the award section of the subject's article. Per AR 670-1 if the unit member was not assigned to the unit during the prior which the citation was awarded for, then the unit member only wears the medal as an organizational item, and not as a permanent medal to wear. I have also raised this issue in the Salvatore Giunta article as well.

Rather than carrying out two separate discussions, I would like to know if there is a consensus within this editing community regarding this issue, which may or may not have farther reaching implications to other articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone awarded a unit citation of any sort may wear it in perpetuity per AR-670 as explained in Chapter 29, Table 29-1. The only personnel who wear them on a temporary basis are those later assigned to that unit outside the time frame for the award. Nobody who was simply part of a unit that once was given, for example, a PUC would be cited as having been awarded one. When a reliable source cites a person as having been awarded a medal or ribbon we should reflect that in the article. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Granted, each member of the unit would not be given an individual document stating permanent wear; however, we can verify, using reliable sources, based on dates individual is assigned to a unit, and dates when a unit is awarded the citation, whether an individual subject is entitled to permanent wear of the unit citation.

My point being that individual subjects biographies should only reflect those unit citations that the subject can wear permanently, not that worn temporarily. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that show that the awards as worn in the picture are temporary ones? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a reference stating that is is temporary, however, does anyone else have any references showing that the wear of the unit citaitons are permanent? Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the editor who is adding, or re-adding content, to provide a reliable source to support its addition. Therefore, the burden should be on the addition of the awards on the subject bio, rather than on the removal of said awards. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say holding him hostage to the outside possibility that the awards are worn in a temporary status is beyonde the reasonable burden of evidence, more so considering all his previous time in one of the most heavily awarded units in the Army and that he now resides in a rear echelon support/medical unit. That said I wouldn't be up in arms with the caveat of (worn) or (authorized) or some such was added. Either way I think I've made my position fairly clear and I'll wait on the input others. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside of Leroy Petry, what about SSG Giunta, who has now departed the Army via ETS (end of term of service), choosing not to re-enlist. Should his article continue to indicate him being entitled to wear unit citations, even though he is now no longer a member of the unit which he was previously a member of? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If the RS used to add the citations makes clear the time frame for the award then the article should reflect. If it doesn't indicate a time frame the reasonable assumption should be made that there isn't one. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So you would support removal of the citations from the Giunta biography? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The three PUCs were awarded once in WWII, and twice in the Vietnam Conflict to the 503rd.

The MUCs were awarded once in Vietnam, and for service in Iraq in 2003 per this source. SSG Guinta did not join the army until November 2003. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming nobody has a WP:SYNTH complaint, if he is no longer authorized to wear them the question becomes whether or not citations previously authorized for wear and not individually awarded for permanent wear should be included and if so in what format. They are not individual awards nor are they authorized for permanent wear but he still "earned" the right to wear the at some point in his career by belonging to the unit in question. What do you think? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say, personally, that unit citations earned while the individual was assigned to that unit should be tracked, while heritage awards should not (unless there is an official source from the U.S. Army that indicates otherwise). Just my $.02 on the question.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. My principle concern though is that people will start removing any unit citation that isn't clearly awarded while in unit under the logic that it "could be" a temporary award. What becomes the new onus for retaining unit awards on bio pages? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is the linked Army Regulation that is the determining factor here. SSG Giunta was not a member of the unit at the time of awarding, and therefore is not entitled for permanent wear of the unit award. Yes, as an organizational item, he was allowed to wear it at some point, but not being retired, and not a member of the organization/unit, he is no longer entitled to the wear of those items. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the reason why I brought up this topic here, after seeing how it would impact other articles, after I started them up on individual pages. There needs to be a community consensus on unit citations on individual biography articles.

So is Intothatdarkness saying the unit citations should be kept? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...I'm in favor of keeping them only if it's possible to track when they were awarded with relation to an individual's service in the unit (which isn't possible or simple in many cases). To keep things simple, I'd say get rid of them except in unit history articles. That would allow someone who's interested to possibly track them on his or her own. While it's possible to match unit awards with an individual's service (in terms of permanent versus temporary awards), I think it might prove too difficult over the long term. Hopefully that makes some sense...Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you want all unit level awards struck from bios unless an RS can be supplied that specifically demonstartes it was awarded as a permanent award for being in a unit during the time frame for the award? TomPointTwo (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think that makes it easier for everyone.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wild about that but I see exclusionary logic behind it. MILHIST would have to set up a guideline that can be linked and pointed to for this because it will affect a pretty staggering number of articles and will no doubt agitate a pretty significant response. It should also be noted that the rules that apply to the Army's unit level awards are not the same in the other services (Marine Corps for sure). We'll need a much larger consensus first. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the reservations. I was just kicking an idea out there to try to make things easier for non-specialists to understand and possibly use. As you note, each service has different rules (the AF uses a much different system, for one example).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have provided links above indicating that SSG Giunta was not a member of the 503rd during the awardings of the 3 PUCs and 2 MUCs; the only one that is close it the MUC for 2003 service in Iraq. However, he joined the army in November 2003, meaning he wouldn't have finished OSUT until 15 weeks later. Which would be well into 2004, before he can be assigned to a unit, let alone go to Airborne school.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you've put in that leg work (good on you) the general consensus developing so far, here, is to remove the citations. Still, as I mentioned before, this has ramifications far beyond a few articles and to establish that a base for precedence really requires an extensive consensus we don't yet have. My suggestion is to wait a bit for more more input here and then canvas other projects. BLP might not be a bad idea. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I shall wait until 7 August, and if no objection is heard by then, can we presume consensus has been formed? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Claudevsq has removed the discussion tags in the Leroy Petry article, they have been reverted accordingly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As no objection was made, the unit citations have been removed from the article regarding SSG Giunta.

Is there a consensus regarding the unit citations on the SFC Petry article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2011

I like to see a canvasing for consensus so a standard SOP could be developed and pointed to for all articles involing this but I don't have a problem with moving on the Petry article now. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also like a canvass, administered by a MILHIST Coordinator, for fairness sake. After that, based on what the consensus is within the community, we can remove or keep the Unit Citations in the Leroy Petry article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

With no canvass created, unless there is objection by 20AUG, I shall remove the Unit citations from the Leroy Petry article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to state that if the references say that they have the awards, personal or unit, then they should be displayed as such in the article. We should not be taking it upon ourselves to make the determination that they should or should not have an award. We should be be writing what is in the references. --Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

However, there are conflicting references, one reference is an image, thus all the awards he is wearing. This includes awards that were personally awarded, and some awards that are organization items, that cannot be worn upon leaving that organization/unit. Then there are references that only list his individual awards, and do not list one in particular that he is wearing (JSAM). With conflicting references such as these there does not appear to be a consensus what to do. The above consensus until the above reply was that unit citations should not be included in an individual subject's biography unless he is entitled to wear it as a personal award (being a member of the unit at the time of the awarding). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What I usually do when I run into a situation like that were different references conflict I put them in the article and then add a note explaining the conflict. If you want to see an example I did this several times on the List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients list. Again, IMO it is not our place to try and decide whats right and whats wrong when we have conflicting references, just to tell the story. --Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

However, there is a majority of editors who had previously stated that non-permanent unit citations should not be included in the list of individually awarded medals.

Is wearing a medal or ribbon sufficient to verify that the subject is actually entitled to wear said ribbon? Also, one of the references only mentions one unit award for the subject in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The unit awards are bestowed to units and the personnel in those units. And how do we know if its permenant or temporarily worn? We don't, normally. Its true in some circumstances units allow members to wear a ribbon or award for actions the unit recieved the award for when the personnel were not in the unit. Unit awards are bestowed upon the units largely because of the actions of the individuals in those units working together as a unit. The units don't normally just get these things for being present. So IMO, if a Unit is awarded a citation its no different than an individual award, its just an award given to a group, it is in fact more meaningful in many cases because it requires many people working together as a group. And as such when they leave the unit they have to take it off. This is why some of the unit awards like the Presidential Unit Citation are displayed before some personal awards when worn by the servicemember. If they weren't that important they would be at the end of the stack, but they aren't. If the majority of editors feel that strongly that we shouldn't include unit citations in articles then they should also realize that by doing so we are not presenting an accurate representation of the member to our readers and as such those articles should not be promoted to the grades of GA and higher because those articles fail the B class checklist due to missing information and potentially POV (means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources). I realize that we cannot put everything in the articles but since awards are frequently clearly visible in images, are frequently well documented and we are cherry picking certain awards and decorations to display while not presenting others then that is "potentially" POV. Additionally, it opens the door to editors and readers in general to mark those articles as disputed because they do not present the accurate picture of the awards and decorations that the service member rates. This is especially true if we are displaying an image of the individual wearing them but then in the article we say they rate 8 less ribbons because we aren't counting unit awards. Pretty soon we won't count campaigns, then someone will argue we shouldn't count things like Insignia (like the Navy Seal trident, jump wings, aviation wings, etc). Then someone will say why are these people even notable for a "ribbon"? --Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all services treat unit awards in the same manner, so that also complicates the issue. Also, I find the contention that not listing unit awards somehow creates an inaccurate representation of an individual to be a bit wide of the mark. Since unit citations are often issued based on either a specific action/battle OR covering a date range, it stands to reason that someone who arrives in that unit during the last few days of the period covered by the award may not have actually contributed much (or anything) to the accomplishments of the unit. WE are not in a position (in most cases) to judge that. Frankly, I would not be opposed to displaying only valor awards. And you're not talking about insignia with your examples, Kumioko. Those are qualification badges.

One benefit to listing only valor awards means that current biographies will then appear on a more equal footing with older profiles. Remember, there are more awards now than there were 50 years ago.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Although Unit citations are important, it is my humble opinion, that only unit citations that are individaul permanent awards for those that were assigned to the unit during the period of time, or specific event, which the unit was awarded the citation should be listed as individual awards for the subject of a biography article.

As was the case in the SSG Giunta article, I clearly showed that the subject of that article was not assigned to the unit, or in the Army, for all of the citations which he was required to wear as a member of the unit. Now being discharged, as he was not assigned to the unit during the period of awarding, none of them could be considered permanently worn, and thus the removal.

In the present case regarding SFC Petry, only one unit citation is listed in his bio, which I linked earlier, and none other were. Why? Furthermore, most of the awards that the Sergeant has worn were listed in the profile, but certain ones are missing, specifically the JSAM. Why the disparity? As I have stated before, I have tagged the unit citations and JSAM accordingly, and have written to the Center of Military History in attempt to get official verification of the awards in question.

On a greater scale of things, I am fine with listing all awarded medals, as long as it is done in a minimal way, including but not required a small table such as is on the SFC Petry article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So I finally got a reply back from the Center of Military History and it reads as follows, with spaces added for formatting, and my name redacted:

Dear ...,
The Awards and Decorations Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) is the organization responsible for maintaining personnel awards information. HRC should be able to answer your question. Contact information can be found at this website: https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/active/tagd/awards/Contacts/contacts.htm
Because SFC Petry is such a high-profile soldier, it is possible that the U.S. Army Public Affairs Office may have a fact sheet on SFC Petry that includes a list of his awards. The email address listed on the Army Public Affairs Facebook Page is: ocpa.osmd@us.army.mil
We hope that this helps. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
James Tobias
Historical Resources Branch
U.S. Army Center of Military History
103 Third Avenue
Ft. McNair, DC 20319-5058

I do not have a Facebook page so if if someone can contact the Army Public Affairs through their facebook in regards to the contested material, it would be greatly appreciated. I will also email my question to the email listed above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to use Facebook to contact Army Public Affairs? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Still haven't heard anything back from Army Public Affairs. Does anyone have any contacts that maybe able to assist with this? Perhaps we can raise this issue up with a media contact, to see if they can get us a valid answer? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Something that has been discussed on the talk page Talk:Continuation_War#Civilian_casualties_2 and which even caused a minor edit war (with resulting blocks). So i ask here another opinion on the matter. Should the (civilian) casualties from the Siege of Leningrad be included to the Continuation War article? Granted that Finnish forces did participate to blockading the city from the north however Finnish troops did stop roughly to the pre-Winter War border and did not bomb, or shell the city during the siege, also even the few attempts to blockade the supply traffic to the city were performed by Italian or German units (partially under Finnish command, Naval Detachment K). Given that Army Group North is not (nor are actually most of Kriegsmarine units in the Gulf Finland) considered to be part of the Continuation War - and that taking out Leningrad was it's goal, not a Finnish one - i find very few reasons why the civilian casualties from the siege should be included to the Continuation War infobox. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Ong Thanh is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A single purpose editor, Skellands (talk · contribs) appears to be at work on James King (Royal Navy officer) (also see the talkpage. He doesn't seem to be engaging at all with posts on his talkpage, and his blanket reverts are removing valid content and references. It would be good to get some more people involved as at the moment it is more or less just him and me. Benea (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some assistance with making the edits or verifying that edits have been made would be much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Polish–Soviet War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I don't know if there has been any discussions on this, but I've got a feeling that the community doesn't seem to regard Globalsecurity.org and FAS.org as high-quality sources. I just want to abolish the impression that these webpages are non-reliable, because, to me, they're not. The information on GS.org, for particular, is very consistent with the those of my books, and some of their articles offer much more detailed information than there is readily available on other websites. It is also professional website, which gives me the assumption that whatever it offers has undergone critical reviews, and hence the website falls under SCHOLARSHIP. The same can also be said of FAS in that the organisation is a scholarly source of of info.

Just in case I've missed something, please tell me where the guidelines are for the usage of GS.org and FAS.org as sources. That's it, I leave it to the community to discuss this matter further. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Federation of American Scientists is an excellent resource, especially as a publisher and interpreter of primary sources. I'm not as sure I would use their original matieral as a solitary source on contentious topics but that's just my take. Global Security on the other hand is really a teritiary source, they don't conduct any of their own scholarship. Without proper citations in their articles and without an assertion of original scholarship I would never use GS as a reliable source. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There have been several discussions of these websites at WP:RSN (the most recent of which seems to have been Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91#www.globalsecurity.org). My personal view is that GlobalSecurity.org should be used with great caution as its content is a hodge podge of stuff taken from other websites, some of which aren't of high quality. I think that FAS is OK. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that I should not use GS unless there are no substitutes or that I'm fairly certain the info is factually accurate? Whatever it is, I still believe GS is great in its depth of military information [11], and that it can be accessed by anyone. There are subjects that do not have a lot of coverage on the 'net, especially Su-37, for which GS has dedicated pages. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that you should use it at all. Given that GS generates little original content, you'd be best of finding the original source of the material and then, after assuring yourself that this is a reliable source, citing it rather than the GS version. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Forbes recommendation you quote seems to be from 2005 (or possibly earlier) - note the reference to "Powell". I'm not sure it's the final word in critical analysis of the site! As others note, while most of their material is accurate, I'd be concerned about the lack of provenance information - it's mostly from official sources, but it's often hard to say. Shimgray | talk | 18:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the quality of GS has declined over the years. It was (from memory!) quite good when it was first split from the FAS website in the early 2000s, but since then standards have slipped as its content has become dominated by material taken from elsewhere without much quality control. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be very sceptical of both of them. There are areas that I have professional involvement in that are woefully inaccurate on both of them. FAS tends to cherry-pick and ignore conflicting material, and inevitably any analysis is based on incomplete sources.

The biggest issue with GS is the complete absence of provenance in what they say, so there is a significant risk of single-sourcing a piece of information that they've uncritically copied from elsewhere.

FAS does provide access to primary material though, so can be used as a convenience link.

ALR (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• They are sure better than nothing, but are still self-published with no apparent editorial review. These web pages can have errors, particularly [more so] with related topics other an page's primary focus. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd question why "inaccurate" is "better than nothing"...

ALR (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not so much an issue of innacuracy to me. The problem is verifiability. I think that both sites are reliable but I would try to avoid them for several reasons. Global security, as mentioned above tends to gather info from a variety of places and since they don't typically cite where they got it its hard to tell if its copywritten or not. FAS on the other hand tends to have a lot of conjecture and hypothetical theories and possibilites as well as just straight data. Personally I think they are ok to use but as mentioned above should be used with caution and only when a better source cannot be located. I would also say we should try to avoid them when going for A and FA class but that's just me. --Kumioko (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I wrote "can have errors", which does not mean always inaccurate. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm thinking of using GS if there is another source that backs up the claim, instead of using it singly for a particular statement. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What about a site like Chinese Military Aviation]? At first glance, it appears to be totally self-published and unsourced, but it is used as a source on several PRC military aircraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The fellow who runs Globalsecurity.org (John Pike) used to be a member of the FAS, the website does generate some of its own content though it had been slacking in that field for several years. Now that it is a paid membership service the content quality seems to be improving.XavierGreen (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a membership website, I think there'd be an in-house requirement to fact check all the info, would there? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Patently there isn't. I would say about 20% of anything I've seen on there is outright wrong, about another 30% is pretty speculative but closer to accurate, about 20% has some errors.

The biggest difficulty you have with these sites is that they're working from public domain information themselves so even when there is some analysis it's potentially founded on inaccurate information in the first place.

With respect to the point about using it as corroboration, you can't legitimately do that either. Because it has no provenance you don't know if it's independent of the source that you're wanting to corroborate. You're likely to end up single sourcing, as they may be using what you're wanting to corroborate as their source.

ALR (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've only just become aware that the National Library of New Zealand has digitized many New Zealand newspapers from 1868 through 1945. While I've only successfully searched it for references to a couple of British destroyers, it looks to be a good resource for us in general. Check it out: [12]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a good chunk of Richard Hutton Davies using this - it's an excellent resource. There's also a surprising amount of reporting on domestic British news stories, which can be useful. Shimgray | talk | 12:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. As a reminder, the National Library of Australia has done the same thing with its Trove service, and the British Library is developing its own equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Over at WP:SHIPS, we have a resource list - WP:SHIPS/R. Now, I realise that MILHIST is bigger than ships, but would it be worth this WP creating a similar list of resources to aid editors in writing articles. Just a suggestion, which you are free to adopt or not as you see fit. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a guideline on how formal fleet desingations should be? That is, should it be rendered "1st Fleet" or "First Fleet"? Same for armies: "1st Army" or "First Army"? I tend to the second, but I see the first is very common. I'd advocate adopting the second, but standardizing on either one would seem a good idea. (Or is there a standard already, & I'm just missing it...?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The number (or in some cases a Roman numeral) is actually part of the name in many cases, but I don't know if that applies to fleets and armies, which are often composed on a more ad hoc basis than permanent units like divisions and brigades. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My thinking is, as the senior command, a more formal usage is appropriate. It's also common in the sources I've seen. (IDK if that's an artifact of what I've read, tho.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what kind of sources you've seen it in? If they're the kind of sources that are known for their attention to detail or sources that tend to specialise in military history, then I'd be inclined to trust them. If they're more general sources, especially non-specialist encyclopaedia and similar sources, then I'd take details like that with a pinch of salt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall if it's First or 1st Army in the US Army; I operated at a much lower level. Although I can attest to the fact that the formal name of a US Army corps uses Roman numerals, forex III Armored Corps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this in specialist histories by the likes of Macksey, & in Willmot & (IIRC) Morison, among some others, as opposed to pop works. (IDK if Rohmer used the formal or not; of them all, he's the only one I'd be sure would know.) I've also seen the use of the Roman for corps (tho I understand that's a U.S., or U.S.-UK, convention, not strictly applicable to German or Sov), & I tend to default to it, too.

As to "common", to be clear, I mean common on WP, which is why I'm wondering about which is, or should be, standard. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:41 & 00:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Trekphiler, as with discussions on armies/corps, we've tended to go with the source rendering - see WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Thus the Soviet 18th Army (Soviet Union) but the Eighth Army (United Kingdom). IIRC the only numbered fleets we seem to deal with are the U.S. fleets, which following USN convention we have at spelt out, eg United States Sixth Fleet, and Japanese IJN fleets. For the IJN fleets I'm not sure whether the Japanese used numerals or spelt out, but in accordance with #UNITNAME we would go with their original useage. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That helps, thx. On Japan (& it was Nagumo's page got me thinking), IDK what the usual was. (I don't actually read Japanese... :( ). I don't run into Sov armies here much, so I'm going to use the "original editor rule" & leave them as I find them in future. On IJN, that may be the best approach for me, too. (The treatment I've seen of IJN fleets has usually been by U.S. writers, who may've been using the USN convention, & ignoring Japan's...) In any case, I appreciate the attention given, & the responses. Thx all. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

US Army Soldier's Creed was just added to "WP United States". Should it also be "WP Mil hist"? Eagle4000 (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I didn't realize that there is now a redirect for US Army Soldier's Creed to US Soldier's Creed. My NEW comment is that Talk:US Army Soldier's Creed was just added to "WP United States" (by a bot?). I am going to add a note at Talk:US Army Soldier's Creed that there is now a redirect. Does anything else need to be done to the Talk page for this redirect? Eagle4000 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be the negative Nancy but I'm unsure this needs an article at all. Might this be better served by incorporating the content into another article? TomPointTwo (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't agree we don't need it at all I do think that we could merge several of the creed articles into one. For example there are different articles for the creeds of the Army, Airforce Coast Guard and Navy. All of which are pretty stubby. I think it would be reasonable to merge these into one article. If at some point in the future they become sufficiently long we can split them at that time. --Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be merged into a larger article regarding military ethos, with sections how modern military ethos are spelled out. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, as a project we currently have several topics under discussion over that often overlooked part of Wikipedia Featured Content: WP:FTC. It would be great if some editors could pop over and take a look at topics that are currently under discussion. The criteria that the topics need to be assessed by can be found at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria.

Featured topics

• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Victoria Cross/addition1
• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleships/archive1

Good topics

• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battle of Masan/archive1 <-- Desperately needs some input
• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Admiral Hipper class cruisers/archive1

Thanks for your time, Woody (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Could this possibly be closed as a support? It's been a bit over a month since it was listed, and I don't think it's controversial looking at the comments. I'd really like to get it listed for a FAC because I'm going away in earlier October. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera this week has a bunch of coverage on the "Burma Boys", troops from British colonies in Africa who fought in World War II. It looks to be really interesting stuff, and we don't appear to have an article on this specific concept. I'm pretty bogged down on India stuff, so if I do it'll just be a 1-2 paragraph piece. However, if anyone with more time wants to do the topic, I'd imagine it could make a great DYK or similar, with some cool photos and the like. If anyone is interested in covering it, please roger-up so I know not to "waste" it with a shorter treatment. AJ main page for the feature series here: [13], pieces by correspondent Barnaby Phillips. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We have articles on the units/fmns however: 81st (West Africa) Division and 82nd (West Africa) Division. Extra material could be added there. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also scope for a broader article on this topic. The West African soldiers who fought in Burma had an important influence on the West African independence movements after World War II. The men who served in Burma observed the mismanagement of the theatre by the British, and (correctly) beleived that they were at least as good soldiers as those of the British Army. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any U.S. military history article on women in combat that would describe legislation and combat histories.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I sort of found what I needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Frank Bladin is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It has come to our attention that some editors are submitting more articles for review at WP:GAN, A-class review and WP:FAC than they've reviewed. Please try to review one article for every one that you submit. This will help to reduce the queues and the time taken to review everyone's articles. You don't need to be a subject matter expert to review an article. You can read it for prose quality, adherence to the WP:MOS, check for copyvio or close paraphrasing, or even see if it makes sense to a non-specialist. The editor might be using a lot of jargon that a general reader might not know and needs to have explained or linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) for the coordinators.

We need the extra reviewers, and it's really not hard to get good at some aspect of article reviewing ... just pick whatever you already know how to do and run with it. But that won't cover our copyediting problems, which run deeper. I'd like to get a committee together to try a few new approaches; I'm not sure, but I think it might work better to brainstorm this one by email, then report back with results. If anyone wants to share observations or possible solutions, either email me or reply here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the notion; however, as someone who is not completely au fait with parts of the A-class requirements (and certainly dependent on others for copyediting) I'd just like to clarify whether there's community support for the sort of "Support on A1, A2, A3" comments that I have made the last couple of times (call them 'half-supports' if you will). I know Dank also makes sort-of-similar supports; in the long run, might it require more discretion on the part of coords? I'd like to hear what people think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm always of the view that some information (e.g. a "half-support") is better than no information in making this sort of judgement. In addition, as the standard of articles continues to improve, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any one reviewer is likely to have the full range of skills and knowledge to comment authoratively on all aspects of an article. I'd agree with Dank's concerns over our lack of copy-editing capacity - our collective ability to conduct other aspects of article creation clearly outstrips our ability to copy-edit them all effectively at the moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. I think people have been noticing that most reviewers either support in full or don't support, and have concluded that they had to do the same ... and that's never been true at A-class, any useful contributions of any kind have always been welcome. FAC is trickier; some A-class reviewers should definitely be encouraged to repeat their comments at FAC, some shouldn't. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I read the opening opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history.2FReview Coords talk and think there are some concerns here, which could ultimately lead to bottle-necking. Scenario being, imagine someone writes 10 articles, and wants them all reviewed at whatever level, ACR, FAR, etc, but is unwilling to review any articles because Wiki says "you don't have to do anything you don't want to". Result: Backlog of 10 articles to review if the project ignores them. After a while, there is going to be a pile-up of unreviewed articles, which only results in the project looking bad, not the guy who nominates them all, because as far as anyone cares, he put the effort into writing them, but noone is putting in the effort to reviewing them. Can a person be blocked or prevented from submitting articles for review, despite not wanting to review themselves - there has to be a line that you don't cross, or you'll drag the whole system down.

Personally, I don't review at any class. I've done a peer review, and at the moment I'm doing loads of RFF reviews. If MilHist made a 1:1 rule, 1 review for 1 in return, can RFF and PRs be "cashed in" even if there was a scale.. 10 RFFs or 5 PRs = 1 A-class or 1 FAR, etc? that would be complex, and require a means of logging reviews done. Wiki is afterall, a ladder - it is a complex system - and I am very happy sitting on the bottom rungs when it comes to "functional duties" - i.e. reviews, RFFs, AfDs, yadda yadda, it's all administrative and keeps Wiki functioning. I would never attempt a FAR either way at the moment, as a nominee or reviewer, and probably wouldn't want to review at anything above B-class. Despite having an article subjected to a PR, BCR, ACR & GAR in a short time, it is much like the difference between being the pupil and being the teacher.. and Wiki has to respect people's comfort zones - some people write articles, some review, you cannot force people to do something they don't feel good at - as someone said, "a bad review is worse than no review." - People under-pressure do worse than if they do it voluntarily. Personally, I think the current system is a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - maybe it can be "tweaked" - but introducing new methods almost to the point of them becoming rules is simply going to drive contributors away. Or they will simply write articles and take them to GAN, independent of WikiProjects, and think "MilHist be stuffed" in which case the project loses out on good contributors (regardless of whether they review or not), and the editor still attains good standing, because to some people, a pretty little bronze star on an article is nothing more that a barely-noticeable 0.67Kb icon that doesn't even count show on all these mirror article-pinching ad-swamped sites who technically steal your credit after all the work, stress, reviews and discussions you endure. So to summarise, yes I think there is a lack of reviewers, but I also think there needs to be a better way of attracting them other than forcing them to engage via useless methods such as "if you don't review some, we won't review yours". Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 08:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there are no plans to withhold reviews from particular articles or anything of that sort. We're asking that editors who submit articles for review help out in reviewing others' articles as well; but this is a request for assistance, not a requirement for participating in the review process. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's good.. I simply read in the previous discussion that someone wrote "I just want the submitters to review as much as they're submitting at each level. I don't know if we need to go to some variant of the DYK system where your submission isn't processed until you've reviewed somebody else's, but that might work." I don't think that idea should be considered whatsoever, is all. :) Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 14:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I made that suggestion in case the problem persists. But to be clear, the problem does't lie with those people who submit one article for review without doing anything themselves; it's people who have 3 or more and don't review that start to cause backlogs like we're currently experiencing. My note was intended to remind them that they're asking other people to go out of their way to review their articles, but aren't giving anything back themselves. I could have called them out directly, but a soft approach is better to start off with, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you were coming from.. but the argument is they are giving back - they wrote the article in the first place. It's not their fault Wiki requires strict reviews to promote articles. Sure, it'd be nice of them to give a hand if they feel capable, but not everyone is like that, and we need to careful not to "name and shame" or alienate people - someone who has 3 reviews on the go has obviously put a lot of time and commitment into those articles, and get as much reward as the reviewers - a barnstar and "well done".. there's no cheque in the post for any of us. It needs to be decided how to encourage people to review more, than dissuade people from nominating so many. A lot of reviews are a sign of activity, which IMO is healthy for the project - it's the lack of active members and reviewers which is the problem, as I see it. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is where we disagree. Writing or expanding an article is pretty much its own satisfaction to my mind. The ego boost comes from getting recognition as a GA, A or FA-class article, which requires validation by others. How many people are willing to invest the time and effort to write a FA-class article just for the sheer satisfaction of doing so? Some, I expect, but not very many. If somebody is requesting other editors to assess their work, then they're looking for recognition, plain and simple. That costs time and effort by other editors. If they're not willing to do the same in exchange then problems arise as is happening now. There are a few editors that like reviewing articles and they're usually enough to cover the odd submission or three, but they can be easily overwhelmed. My feeling is that promoting articles is a bonus activity in Wiki designed to encourage editors to devote more time to Wiki, not a core function, and that most editors quite happily ignore the whole process. So I believe that a review is not something owed to an editor when requested, but a favor granted to him by other editors. I've seen any number of A-class reviews in other projects that have fossilized for lack of interest on the part of other editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

But reviewing is an essential core-process. I could sit back now, write a 5,000 word article about a subject, that appears FA standard. Difference between it and an actual FA standard article is that the latter has gone through the process of being reviewed, sources checked and verified, copyright and plagiarism tackled, MOS met, etc. It's the difference between a guy who dresses up in a replica uniform and plays soldier, and a real soldier - you can't tell them apart until you know their background, then you know which to trust. A reviewed article is technically the "Wiki Stamp of Approval" - and at the end of the day those who volunteer to review are performing a function, just as those who write articles, or those who only seem to tackle vandalism or look for AfDs are doing a function.. there are no favours - even in a charity (thrift) shop someone serves the customers, someone sweeps the floors - you can't "rank" them, just as you can't rank reviewers and writers - both are editors performing different duties - no one is forcing someone like Dank to review any and every nomination, even if it isn't his area of interest - I've taken inspiration from his open-mind in a way and review RFFs of almost any topic, and I've seen GA reviewers taking on a huge mix of articles to process, and I doubt they all appeal to their personal interests. Reviewing is a teamwork effort - the nominee, whether creator or just updating, has to work with the reviewer, in order for the review to work - simple as that - the reviewer isn't "better" than the nominee for "doing a favour" - and the nominee is no more important for writing/updating the article - it's a team effort. But there are still those who take advantage of such processes - GAs to FAs, or abusing the review process who spoil the spirit of promotion. Which is why those who sneak in 3 nominations in one go need to be asked to step back and give reviewers a chance to breathe, because wiki is not a race and bronze stars can't be taken to WMF and exchanged for cash. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 01:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the shout-out, thanks for your prodigious (and sorely needed) RFF work. Well put, I thought. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you too. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 09:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• The nominators often did not create the articles. With the established state of Wikipedia, somebody has already created an article on most non-new things. More likely the editors improved the articles to get ready for nomination. Asking/encouraging editors that nominate a bunch of articles to help with some reviews is not asking much, imo. This is not a hard requirement thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In cases where nominators have created an article in sandbox and worked hard on it from birth–review there should be some leeway in terms of "now you review something", and I think there are a lot more of these than you give credit for. As for nominators who are simply picking up good articles, where the creators have not pursued promotion, adding a few bits in, then nominating them, perhaps they should be reviewing - it is unfair to use ACRs and FARs as high-class peer reviews, which seems to be what you're implying in a non-critical way. Question is, how many of those non-creator reviews are being pursued by the nominator taking comments seriously until the article is promoted, and how many are wasting time, and letting comments pass because they can't be arsed with it due to demanding comments? Those are the editors to watch out for.. because they're stealing limelight and plugging their own userpage with lots of little , with no care for the resources they drain, and no intention of reviewing. Does that sound fair, if a little harsh? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating the effort required to get those stars. I took Robert Oppenheimer, which was a former featured article and attempted to restore it. This involved footnoting everything, and somewhat more rewriting than I originally intended. I started by reading four books. Then there was the slow process of moving the article through B, GA, A, and FAC. (I might add that the GA reviewer later got into trouble for gaming the GA process to score points for reviewing articles.) At the end of the exercise, the article is featured again, but of course will never again grace the main page. lately, I have had a brief burst of article creation, but the fact is that a huge number of articles have been created already, and 83% of MilHist articles are stubs or starts at last count. And I flinch at people saying that there is "no cheque in the post for any of us" while WMF folks are collecting six figure salaries. The era of the unpaid editor is coming to an end, and I think we should welcome this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, re-read my last post carefully, "nominators who are simply picking up good articles, where the creators have not pursued promotion, adding a few bits in, then nominating them" - taking a Stub/Start to FAR level is one thing, commendable. Taking a GA to FAR is not such a big job - depending on what the article lacks. Really, anyone can grab a GA, tweak it here and there, nominate it for FAR and see if they get lucky in terms of support and not too demanding where comments for improvements are made. I very much doubt that "pay" is on its way - not so long ago they were virtually begging for donations to keep the servers up, and vowing never to place ads on the site. Whilst I think this is a generous move, most of us are used to Google Ads on nearly all sites, and many of us use Ad blockers.. I think they should have considered it. But that's off topic here. I'm saying it's easier to take advantage of certain articles and get a GA from an A-class, or FA from a GA, in terms of minimal effort and "shine" with a few extra stars a month, compared with someone who creates a fresh article through to FAR, or even a Stub/Start to FAR, gains one star but takes up far less reviewer man-hours because they're more focused on quality than quantity. One should not read ideas into things, though, and take things personally. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off topic, but GAs which can be quickly promoted to A and then FA class tend to already have an editor actively working on improving them. And the amount of work needed to move from GA to FA class isn't trivial. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No one's saying it is "trivial", only that going from GA to FA might only be a couple of days work, maybe a week - it all depends on the article, and the review comments - being a subjective process there is no benchmark in terms of how many hours input makes an article FA quality. Some of those writing fresh articles and taking them up through A, GA, FA are sometimes taking 2 or 3 months to get through the reviews, and it can become tiresome and stressful. And the reasons are related to the topic - lack of reviewers and/or too-few reviewers being bogged down by too-many nominations. And the reasons, again - it seems, from what has been said by others, some people are nominating articles in batches rather than one at a time to ease the pressure. Cause and effect. Result: the whole review system stalls or breaks down, because the backlog is too big or not enough people are reviewing the backlog. Which, as the topic in mind, poses the question what can be done, either way, about it? - Demand people review more articles, or limit how many nominations people can submit at once/per month/per project, to make sure each nominated article gets the time and attention it deserves, rather than less focus because reviewers are trying to rush through the process to clear the backlog? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 09:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've directed this article, William B. Caldwell, III and the editor who wrote it your way, given that it looks good from the outset I think RFF would be too basic for this editor: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 August 30#William B. Caldwell, III

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 10:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Great work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure - he hasn't taken up the invitation. I was going to tag the article's talk page with the {{MILHIST}} banner, if he was interested. US Veteran biogs is not my thing though, so I'll leave it to someone who is more into that area of military history. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the object depicted in commons:Category:Rogers_Cannon_(Lowell,_Massachusetts) a cannon? If so, what kind? Thanks in advance, Emw (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

An ACW-era siege mortar, like that used at Petersburg and Richmond. This example is not a particularly big one, compared to the "Dictator". BusterD (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I once passed one of these with my late dotty grandma, and she exclaimed "ooooh, that's a big bugger!" - so I've come to know them as "big buggers". Not much help.. I know.. :) Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 20:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Most probably its a 13-inch Seacoast Mortar, Pattern 1861. See here. Farawayman (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've run across William Fife (Captain Billy Fife), which I'm considering listing for deletion - as it stands, the article is about two-thirds discussion of someone's research into his (disputed) genealogy. Digging through that, the man appears to have been a Pennsylvania militia officer during the Revolutionary War, but it's unclear if he's of any historic significance - the article implies he's famous, but doesn't seem to substantiate why. Any experts care to take a look? Shimgray | talk | 21:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, and a lot of it looks like somebody's own research. It's a very good essay, but it would need serious work to convert it into something more encyclopaedic. As to notability, I'm far from an expert, but he doesn't seem to have held a high rank and the article doesn't say much about what he did that made him famous. I'd say send it to AfD unless an expert opinion to the contrary is forthcoming. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the article itself states he wasn't involved in anything major (beyond being at Brandywine and Germantown as a private), and he only reached captain, I'd say he fails notability. The article reads to me like it belongs on a genealogy site, not here. I've worked on a lot of ARW stuff, but comparatively little on the frontiers and the details of the Philadelphia campaign. Magic♪piano 00:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There's also no indication that he's featured in secondary sources, histories of the period etc., which is another feature I'd be looking for. Like you say, a good genealogical essay, which I'd recommend goes up on a website somewhere, but probably not for wikipedia. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

First idea: An A-class review for 1689 Boston revolt.

Second idea (incompatible with first one): Merger of 1689 Boston revolt and Leisler's Rebellion. The new article would be entitled 1689 colonial rebellions or even Dissolution of the Dominion of New England, although that may be a little bulky.

Here's why... Both rebellions resulted in the overthrow of the governors of the Dominion of New England. First, Sir Edmund Andros, the dominion governor seated in Boston, was ousted in a combination of a popular uprising and militia coup. A similar event took place in New York little more than a month later, resulting in the deposition of his lieutenant governor, Francis Nicholson. The Dominion of New England, a short-lived union of several colonies in that region, was dissolved.

Even if this is not done, a "parent article" with a title like the ones I suggested might be a good idea.

Any thoughts? DCI2026 04:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Having worked on both articles, I don't think combining them is a good idea, because the local politics of the two events are virtually unrelated: their only real commonality is that they were a consequence of the Glorious Revolution. Any "umbrella" function can be (and to some extent already is) covered in Dominion of New England. The Boston revolt was more a singular event, while Leisler's Rebellion covered a period of nearly two years, and had significant local political consequences. (If you want more work on the consequences of the Glorious Revolution in North America, there is currently no article on Maryland's Coode's Rebellion (now just a redirect).) Magic♪piano 18:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right; I will, at some point in the future, defininitely work on a Coode's Rebellion article. DCI2026 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the article 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States) for FA. The review can be found here. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate. Any assistance with this nomination would be greatly appretiated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered this category, which was created in 2008. Since there is already a category for South Carolina Civil War regiments and a seperate subcategory for SC Union regiments, should this category be merged back into its parent category? Wild Wolf (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to Category:South Carolina Confederate States Army regiments? That category is used to complete the Category:Confederate States Army regiments tree, and should probably be retained for that reason. Or is there another CSA category for SC as well? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the category I'm referring to. There is already a Category:South Carolina Civil War regiments for SC Confederate regiments, created in February 2006. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, the Confederate regiments in the top category should perhaps be merged down into the more specific Confederate category, leaving this upper category with no individual articles in it? Shimgray | talk | 18:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that regiments raised for the side to which the state belonged are placed into the (state) Civil War regiments, while regiments raised for the opposite government were placed into (state) (side) Civil War regiments. For example, since South Carolina was a Confederate state, its Confederate regiments belong in the "South Carolina Civil War regiments" category, while its Union regiments belong in the "South Carolina Union Civil War regiments" category. Similarly, Maryland Union regiments go in "Maryland Civil War regiments", while Confederate units go in "Maryland Confederate Civil War regiments" category. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

While keeping the "native" regiments in the state-level category is probably a bit easier, it does create an issue in that there's no easy way to simultaneously nest those regiments within the armed forces' category. For example, if "South Carolina Union Army Civil War regiments" were contained within "South Carolina Civil War regiments", then "South Carolina Civil War regiments" could not be added to "Confederate States Army regiments" directly, and each regiment would need to be categorized instead. In this scenario, I think we're actually making things easier overall by adding a second level of categorization (e.g. "South Carolina Confederate States Army Regiments"), since that allows us to categorize the regiments as being part of the CSA as a group rather than individually. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, the image File:The Sun (Gotcha).png is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 31#File:The Sun (Gotcha)png. Interested editors are invited to comment there. Thanks, Woody (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Join the crowd, the image police are quite busy at the moment removing copyrighted images such as that, even when a justifiable fair-use criteria is provided. I'm having difficulty myself with them deleting official air force images provided by an official USAF public affairs office, because they seem to be focused on their zeal to delete images, no matter what the justification provided. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

[File:C-130-Peoria-Illinois ANG.jpg for an example of the image police's zeal Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a category called Category:United States Navy galleys. I've read a lot of literature on the topic of oared war vessels lately, and so far I haven't come across any mention of any North American galleys. There seems to have been plenty of oared gunboats, which appear to have been called "row galleys", but that doesn't seem enough to qualify them in the same category as the European vessels. Does anyone know if any of the vessels in the category are actual galleys or not?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The US Navy operated several galleys for coastal defense during the Quasi-War. They didnt see any combat action tough since they operated off the East coast, and that theater had largely subsided by the time they entered service. There also were small numbers of galleys operated on various north american lakes and rivers during the War of 1812, and many were used by State Navies during the Revolutionary war though i think a few were operated by the Continental Navy as well.XavierGreen (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the reported information on the ships in question it seems rather generous to describe all of them as galleys. Of course the term 'galley' has very open definition, essentially any rowed vessel larger than a boat could be understood as a galley. However reporting 50 feet boats with crew complements of less than 30 and armed with 24 pounder and then some as galleys does seem rather interesting choice, since by size they were nothing else than gunboats like Swedish cannon yawls (of the same era) (File:Decked_kanonjolle1.jpg). Even the larger ones seem - according to specifications - to have heavy armament for their size and very a limited crew for a galley (with full complement of 80 or so) however they at least were ships mainly operated by oars. Then there is also the actual term that the ships were referred to at the time by the nation owning them that needs to be considered. So i would say that they may not conform to the traditional galley specifications but they were galleys nonetheless. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Valcour Island featured boats of the Continental Navy that historians call "row galleys" and "gundalows". The latter were smaller gunboats mounting three guns (one forward, one to each side, see photo at USS Philadelphia (1776)); the galleys mounted 6-8 guns. I believe galley-like craft were also used on rivers and the "inland waterways" of the coast during the American Revolutionary War. Magic♪piano 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If the US oared vessels are anything like the Philadelphia of 1776, then they're simply gunboats with a somewhat unique and localized terminology. That's hardly enough to equate them with vessels like the Galley Subtle or even this Swedish design from 1749. There's more to early modern galleys than being an oared vessel with one or more forward-facing guns. The most distinct signs are the shape of the hull, the considerable length-to-width ratio, the square outrigger, fore and aft superstructures, lateen sail arrangement, the spur in the bow, etc. Do the US "galleys" possess any of these traits? Do historians writing about galleys in general actually include them in the definition?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely the wrong person to know (writing more about events and people). This image from Valcour Island is probably a contemporary drawing of the American fleet, but doesn't actually identify any specific vessels, and the view is hardly close up. Magic♪piano 19:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There's three craft with lateen rigs in that picture. Definitely galley-esque, so it fits the description in the sources above. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to move the "galley"-category vessels into "row galley"-category to avoid confusion with actual galleys?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, searching for "Quasi-War" in combination with "galley" at Google Books turned up some useful references. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships[14] points out that it had more to do with convenience and budgetary reasons than anything else. Gardiner & Lavery (1992)[15] also mention the somewhat non-standard use of the term in the US Navy. Gardiner & Lavery writes that it was used "freely in various navies for oared fighting vessels not fitting the mould of the classical full or half-galley and in fact more closely related to the original brigantine [italics in original]". They also compare them to Danish skærbåde, "skerry boats", of the 1760s, but these are described as inspired by Mediterranean technology rather than being actual galley variants.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the article Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) for FA. The review can be found here. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate. Any assistance with this nomination would be greatly appreciated. Buggie111 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that the list at WP:MHAR changes every day or so, but do any of you think it would be a good idea to list it on the Announcement board? I think it would be fine, considering that it would help with reviewing, no matter how marginally. Buggie111 (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that maintaining a listing of assessment requests would really be feasible in practice. Generally speaking, it takes about a day for new items to be added to the listing; the typical assessment request, on the other hand, is usually dealt with within that period. Perhaps it would be more directly useful to generate periodic lists of any assessment request that haven't been handled within a day or two and post requests for attention to those? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The peer review for 1689 Boston revolt is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Action of 23 August 1967 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled across the Selous Scouts article yesterday, and it looks a lot like a Rhodesian propaganda piece. Most of its content is sourced to a book co-written by the unit's commander and the general tone of the article is highly biased towards the white Rhodesian side of the war. I've tagged it as needing clean up, but if any editors have neutral sources on the unit that would be a good start. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rhodesian Light Infantry also looks dodgy. From these two articles you'd think that the white Rhodesians won the war... Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone hasn't seen the banners yet, I'd like to remind everyone that the annual project coordinator selection process has now started, and we will shortly be electing a new tranche of coordinators to serve for the next twelve months. If anyone is interested in running, please sign up by 23:59 (UTC) on Wednesday, 14 September. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the current list of those not standing for re-election, we appear to be losing at least half of the current batch of coordinators, some with several years experience, each. There does not appear to have been such a loss of veterans for a few years. Is anyone concerned that this could have a negative impact on the project, for an indefinite period? I'm not saying some of those nominated for first time election are necessarily bad, might have considered it myself if I had another 6 months experience on Wiki.. but there are bound to be some adverse effects when half of our experienced coords step-down, right? Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 22:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts myself, actually. But I think we still have a core of seasoned editors within the project—we have non-coords and ex-coords who have a lot of experience, and we have Kirill (without whom I'm sure the project would fall apart). Hopefully having a few new faces among the coords will complement the collective experience we have already and bring a breath of fresh air and new idea, new viewpoints, new experiences etc to the project and its coordiantion. Perhaps it's a good thing that quite a few coords are stepping down—after all, if we always have the same group of editors at the helm, the direction of the ship isn't likely to change much, to use a maritime metaphor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this election marks the end of the first 12-month term for coordinators, so the proportion standing for re-election was always going to be lower than for the previous 6-month long terms. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amen to that. Though I notice coord elections used to be bi-annually, and are now annually. If there is going to be a large change in coordination, then perhaps there should at least be a "project review" in 6 months to determine things are going smoothly and that new coords are handling their roles well. If not, open new elections, if they are, wait a full year. Just a thought. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That's actually quite a good idea (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a candidate! ;). I think we could afford to have a discussion even every three months to determine if the current coords are doing what we (the project as a whole) want them to, if there are enough of them (and if we want to elect/co-opt more), and how they're finding the role. It might even be worth replacing little-active coords with more active editors mid-term, but that's a bit off topic (and would need more than thinking aloud on the talk page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, personally I don't think a lot goes on in 3 months for the average editor. In that time some editors are lucky to get one article through a few review stages from Start to FA. So I think it might help coords to evaluate themselves every few months on the Coord message board, but only open the doors to all editors and members every 6 months - when there's a little more to consider from anyone. Too many evaluations could result in less going on elsewhere. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 23:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am the current Bn CO for Combat Logistics Battalion 15 (CLB-15), 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (15th MEU). I have been working over the past month to fully update the CLB-15 wiki page. As part of that update, I have included a section with the list of all former battalion commanders and battalion sergeants major. I was told by Looper5920 that I cannot have this info on a wiki page (see below note). Is this true?

"No disrespect was intended with the deletion but a wikipedia article is not the place to list these individuals. If you search around you will see that no other article on any Marine Corps unit lists the COs and SgtMajs. If a unit has notable former commanders than they definetly should be included either in the article or in the infobox. If you feel that I am worng in pushing this then brining it to the attention of the Military History project folks on their talk page and see what the consensus is. Thanks for the note and hope this answer lets you know where I am coming from.--Looper5920 (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Looper5920"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjwiener (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, yes that is the rough policy. There are always exceptions - if for instance (as Looper notes) there are particularly notable commanders, or if a unit is famous enough to have its entire command listed for its history (Easy Company comes to mind, but why some of those commanders have separate articles I don't know). It really all comes down to what reliable sources tell us, as Wikipedia is meant to be a reflection of 'real world' sources (books, magazines, TV) - if a unit is distinctive enough off-wiki to have all of its commanders publicised/described, then there's a case for it here as well. If not, then it's unlikely to merit inclusion in the article. This isn't a reflection on the the men and women who hold these positions, just a reflection on what other sources are saying. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonel Wiener, with all due respect, surely this sort of data should be added to CLB-15's official website? Additional information on the http://www.i-mef.usmc.mil/external/1stmlg/clr17/clb15/history/history.jsp page seems the best place for this information. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Since this effects Military ships (USS, HMS, HMAS ect). Its looking like that they will drop the prefix from the ships name. Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name Bidgee (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I was glancing at Hausa language and saw mention of Barikanchi, a military pidgin version of Hausa used to unite soldiers from diverse Nigerian language groups. I made a short stub for it with a few refs, but I can't quite figure out how to fit it into the WP:MIL category tree to put it with other military languages. It goes in Category:Military of Nigeria, of course, but do we have anything resembling Category:Military languages or similar? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

could be grouped with Japanese Bamboo English, and KiKAR? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armoured busKitfoxxe (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a pointer. I put it on the coordinators' page because it includes a proposal that coordinators offer status reports when A-class and FAC reviews are getting near the end, but we could do it differently ... opinions welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 10:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class review for If Day is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Nicky Barr is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Came across this news from JSTOR, which may prove useful to some http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-journal-content Monstrelet (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

More and more pages now have a "Page Rating" section for public rating [at least I think its public rating - I never access Wikipedia without logging in as a registered user] of the articles. Should we not start incorporating those results (at least as one of the minimum criteria) for GA, A and FA class evaluation? Farawayman (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How can I find out and fix whatever it was some random readers didn't like? - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be too much unknowns with the ratings. For example, if the article was improved a lot over a short period of time, the ratings provided before that will probably be inaccurate. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO no. We have no way of gauging the expertise (or otherwise) of the people that vote, so how can they be considered a valid indication of article quality? Equally, as it is optional for users to vote they will likely do so due to some particular motivation. This motivation is also impossible to determine, but may include simple "I like it" or "I hate it" votes about the subject rather than the article itself, or be driven by some other POV. Equally I'm not convinced that the model isn't open to ballot stuffing (i.e. authors voting for their own articles to boost their ratings). Personally I think the addition of these things to our articles was not the best idea we have come up with as a community. Anotherclown (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with just about every word of that :) EyeSerene^talk 16:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As do I - Anotherclown couldn't have said it better. These ratings are completely useless as a means of feedback. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well. My statistics training twitches very badly at the thought of using the page ratings! Hchc2009 (talk)

• Specific comments generated from the feedback form could be useful, but I don't think we can easily incorporate those into review criteria. But there's no way that anonymous ratings are a reliable measure of an article's quality, because if people will insert "penis" into random articles (because we all know that's hilarious), then what's to say they wouldn't rate an article low for amusement/disruption/whatever motivates people to do things like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

With no detail attached to the ratings they are worse than useless. Moreover we know nothing of the people who give the ratings. Do they have an axe to grind, did they read the whole article, do they even know anything about the subject? Someone can give an article a rating which suggests that something is missing but unless they then explain on the talkpage, an I have never come across someone explaining their ratings, it's utter rubbish. Including page ratings as a factor in A-class and FAC reviews is an awful idea. Nev1 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous page ratings with no elaboration is an awful idea full stop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this imply that MilHist editors know when an article is good and the general reading public have no clue? Maybe its premature because we don't have that many votes per page - but in due course, as the data increases - logic will prevail and the ratings should become more and more indicative of "the normal reader's" opinion. And this "normal reader's" opinion should be valued! I also then wonder, what is the purpose of these ratings? Farawayman (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does. As a general rule readers come to Wikipedia to learn something or find something out, writers do the research and so are much better placed to assess articles. Recently I've been working on rewriting the Rochester Castle article which was poorly organised, inadequately sourced, and had large chunks of information missing yet was rated a 4.x across the board after about 30 votes. I too wonder as to the purpose of the ratings as they've not effected how I edit because I don't find them useful in the slightest. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Which of the points above do you disagree with, and which seem plausible? - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec w/Dan) I hope so, but as I say, people articles' contents with "penis", so what's to say they wouldn't make a malicious rating? I don't know how it works, but if we could see data like 100 people rated a page 4 out of 5, but one or two rated it as 1 out of 5, then we can eliminate anomalies like that. But yes, with enough data (which I don't think we have yet because it's so new), the ratings could be indicative of the article's quality and could be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Statistically, the largest problem is that you only have a small % of viewers filling them in, and we have very little data on what encourages someone to enter a rating. Simply having a larger number of responses (e.g. 100+) doesn't remove that problem - you still need a larger proportion of the viewing audience filling them in (although the % required to have a valid answer decreases as the overall number of readers increases). You also need data on what encouraged someone to put particular ratings on the different categories: even assuming good faith, one person's idea of "trustworthy" might be very different from another's: for example, I'd venture that many evaluations are really ranking "the trustworthiness of wikipedia", as opposed to the article itself - but I've no data to support this either way, because of the way the system works. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I find the feedback tool all that reliable either, personally. One can add "Category:Article Feedback Blacklist" to opt-out and "Category:Article Feedback Pilot" to opt-in, though, so it is not forced or withheld. As mentioned above, creators and advocates of certain articles could quite easily vote stack their ratings. I personally do not see much good coming from it - not only can it be manipulated, but as with most statistical feedback campaigns, the results are subjective. I don't see anyone being all that interested in the long-term. If an article can be a Stub and rated 1-star/crap one week, then improved to A-class by a few weeks later and rated 5-star/great, does that make it a 3-star average, or are large contribs considered and ratings refreshed? Either way.. can't really trust it. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ratings expire after every 30 edits. Nev1 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find the ratings so vague & limited, they're practically useless. Is this informed opinion or not? Unless the ratings have a better range of options, I wouldn't put any weight on them. Certainly not as far as inclusion in a GA or FA. To which let me add, I agree entirely with Anotherclown. Well said, sir. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:50 & 18:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also against taking user ratings as somekind of measure of quality or pre-requisite kind to Military articles. According to unknown users, the article about the TV show Two and a Half Men is almost perfect. Try to compare it with articles about military that are featured and good. --Lecen (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the ratings aren't of much use in informing GA, A class and FA assessments for the various reasons described above. However, they are useful in monitoring how readable articles are, and so are of use in maintaining articles. They're also a worthwhile experiment in encouraging readers to interact with Wikipedia articles and hopefully edit them. That said, comments would be of more use than just star ratings. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they are of zero use to anyone or anything. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I find them of some use :) Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What use? Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)