This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A new article Mauritania-Israel war of 1967 is up for MILHIST assessment. It is fairly straight start class but - here is the weird question - is this war notable from a military point of view? It seems to have been entirely diplomatic, featured no military activity and, allegedly, one side was not aware that it was at war with the other. So, query is - are all wars notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstrelet ( talk • contribs)
The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (E) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2nd Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. NtheP ( talk) 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
For information the Current weapons of the United States Air Force navbox (actually called USAF weapons) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 27#Template:USAF weapons. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/May Revolution, a current A-Class nomination, is likely to be closed in a pair of days or so. So far, there had been just two reviews. May I ask someone else to have a look at it? Either to pass the nomination or to fail it with a clear idea of things to fix would be a better outcome than a nomination failed because of lack of reviews during the month Cambalachero ( talk) 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone. As mentioned in this month's Bugle, there is also an ongoing effort to complete and standardize the Academy, Milhist's effort to create an online training school to assist all editors, old and new. Some ideas for missing articles can be seen in the redlinks here, but ideas, possibly including the redlinks, for what is missing from the current Academy page are needed. Thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Can some members of this project please help at West Point Cadets' Sword? An eager new contributor very much wants to add lots of material to this article. I've tried to provide guidance but my patience is wearing thin. He is very good-natured but my suggestions don't seem to be making much of an impact so I think it's time for others to step in to see they can help more than I can. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 09:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion
here on the use of the term “decisive” to describe the victory.
Are there any guidelines on the use of the term “decisive” in infoboxes (or elsewhere) to describe victories (or defeats come to that)? Has this been discussed here before? (I feel I’ve seen it on article talk pages before, but can’t think of any at the moment)
Xyl 54 (
talk) 20:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The Featured Article Candidacy for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer your comments.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have opened the first History A-class review in a while; it's for Ionian islands under Venetian rule. DCI traveling Talk 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
How do I stop an unknown IP editor from repeatedly changing the article Alfred-Karl Smidt without presenting new references. My sources which are listed in the article clearly name him as Alfred-Karl Smidt, sometimes only called Karl Smidt. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Operation Locker, which aims to provide comprehensive coverage of all ships lost during the period 1939-45 has been launched. Assistance from members of this WikiProject in achieving that aim is welcome. Please discuss this project at the relevant talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Arawe is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 06:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
For the past few days I have been editing the
Lewis Nicola article, and I am a bit confused on how I am supposed to cite certain things. One in particular is letters. I found
this, a letter from George Washington to Lewis Nicola, at the Library of Congress, but I do not know which cite template to use, so I picked cite web. I was hoping someone at the Military history WikiProject would be able to help. Thanks in advance!
—
Michael Jester (
talk ·
contribs) 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The {{ sclass}} is producing a dab problem when linking to minesweepers. Aparrently the ship type is not the primary article on Wikipedia, but is located at minesweeper (ship). I don't want to see Bangor-class minesweeper (ship) displayed as a link all over Wikipedia. (the correct link is Bangor-class minesweeper) Therefore it would seem that the template needs to be tweaked to produce the correct link so that minesweeper displays as a single word and links to the article on the ship type. Anyone have any idea on how to do this? Mjroots ( talk) 11:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
...comes from this. Should it be prodded or is it potentially salvagable? - The Bushranger One ping only 14:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Thomas J. Hudner, Jr. is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Jesse L. Brown is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
So, I'm trying to use this book for some articles, but the pages don't have numbers. Not only are they unnumbered in print, but electronic copies seem to ignore page numbers completely and it's impossible to tell where I am in the book. If it were a small book I'd just count manually, but it's 352 pages long. Any ideas on how I can use it as a source? — Ed! (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know who is helping me with the backlogs of the 26,395 that require "B class" to be completed. I appreciate the help whoever they maybe. I'm sure a few weeks ago, it was around 26,750 B class unassessed articles for our WikiProject, we are doing a good job. Once again keep up the good work and it'll be down to around 26,100 by the end of January next year. Honestly, I am amazed how many the people who have helped me get through this backlog. The reason why I am leaving the American Civil War articles is because I'm getting the Conpendium the 3 Volume set which are on about 530 articles of the American Civil War, that is why I'm not doing those articles quite yet. Once again I appreciate the help with the backlog and anything in return that I'm able to do, feel free to ask on my Discussion page! Adamdaley ( talk) 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about something that might help speed this up. WikiProject Aviation and a couple of other also use B class checklists and often times they are populated when ours is not. I could rather easily program something that could inherit the B-class criteria from another WikiProject, Say WPAviation for example so that if ours was blank then it would populate with the other templates data. Of course this won't work for everyone and there is of course a degree of error but I thought I would mention it anyway in case there was interest in doing something like this. The same is also true of some other things as well. For example, if the article contained an Unref or refimprove tag then we could populate the appropriate B-Class section with No. -- Kumioko ( talk) 04:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Any chance we'll see another B-class assessment drive any time soon? That could always help. — Ed! (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been going through the lists of WWII weaponry and have seen misrepresentation of weapons. Germany did utilize much of the captured weaponry it acquired during WWII but to say many of the weapons are firearms of Germany is extreme to me. I was planning on turning the list into an article for weapons adopted by the German military and not the hodgepodge of weapons listed. Should the captured weapons get their own list? I personally think the list should be split because technically any weapon a soldier picks up and fires is a Firearm of Germany by current standards. Input would be appreciated. -- MOLEY ( talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk:West Point Cadets' Sword ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) needs cleanup, Andy2159 ( talk · contribs) keeps deleting the talk page, by my count, it has been wiped atleast 3 times, without being archived. Can someone go through the history and properly archive it per WP:TALK ( WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE) ? 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 09:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does need to be cleaned up and I have put a lot of work on it this weekend discussion page. Yes I have deleted this page a few times, I did not know that it could of been archived if I knew I would of done it correctly. The reason I deleted the information was I could no longer enter any new information. I do not remember being warned about anything but an image that I posted with the copy right information incorrectly entered in the correct fields. I'm been on this site for a long time and I do have problems with the way things are formatted in Wikipidia, its a handicap and I'm working on it but my intent is to work with in the system not against it. Andy2159 ( talk) 05:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
G'day all. Could I get some views of experienced editors on the reliability of axishistory.com? I have read a short discussion on archives several years ago, but wanted to get a current view. Thanks. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 05:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897) article. As the article uses mainly offline sources as reference, I need some help with verification. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Radzymin (1920) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Bautzen (1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
FAC now open, any further input appreciated! Thanks, Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Quick translation question. What are the English abbreviations for infantry division, panzer/armored division, guard (army, division, corps)? This is related to those maps. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Several USN and CS Navy ship images have been placed for deletion as providing no source. The description pages show a claim of US government ownership of the images. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 3 -- 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 07:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused - I cannot find the Milhist Peer Review instructions. Do we run there separately anymore, or do we just use the main PR process? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST Review alerts/Enhanced}}
. - Dank (
push to talk) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Article has been brought to the attention of WP:RSN because of discussion as to whether Andrew Bostom is an appropriate source. But the article seems to need an enormous amount of attention: sourcing, structure, NPOV, formatting. It isn't in your WikiProject at the moment and if it is to be kept I'm sure you will think that it is in scope. I'm also posting on WikiProject Islam, as it would seem that a lot of eyes are needed. Regards. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The peer review for Lewis Nicola is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello WP MilHist editors - if you have a spare moment, your comment is requested over at the MedCab mediation on the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, which I am mediating. We've run into a small issue that I think would be resolved best by outside comment, and I would appreciate it if you could go over and take a look. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Roy Dowling is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 06:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Having a tidy up yesterday and removed the Category:Royal Air Force stations in England parent cat from RAF stations included directly in the England category as they were all in the sub-cats for individual counties. It seem to have annoyed User:Hugo999 who has been adding the England cat to qoute from my talk page I added that for a reason, so that articles on English RAF stations can be found wothout having to know or hunt through the “county” subcategories. Hugo999 also uses the fact that an "Allincluded" tag is available then that is an acceptable practice. If users have to use the England or country cat rather than county cats then perhaps the argument is why use the sub-cats at all. We cant have every cat in the tree on an article you could argue they should also all be in the United Kingdom cat if users dont known the England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland split. Just looking for opinions, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Mike Cline ( talk) 13:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force →
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and Commonwealth of Independent States military history task force –
If the scope of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force includes the military history of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) states after 1991 the task force should be renamed to the
NPOV name:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and Commonwealth of Independent States military history task force. —
Yulia Romero •
Talk to me! 13:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Comment: it seems a very long name. What about just "russian military history task force" and clarify the scope in the lead section? After all, " Russians" can be either meant to be for citizens of Russia or for the whole group of people living in countries of russian heritage. Just clarify it's the later, and that's it. After all, this is not WikiProject Russia but a military history wikiproject (with the word "history" in it), so it shouldn't be strange for anyone if we take a "historical" perspective Cambalachero ( talk) 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A name that better represents the scope is likley to atract more members of the taskforce. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings and thanks to MILHIST members for help thus far with the FAC of Boeing 767, an aircraft with military applications. The review is nearing completion, but needs a contributor to perform source spotchecks (check select citations to verify article text). Links, PDFs, scans/images have already been prepared for convenience, and are ready to be provided. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Sincerely, SynergyStar ( talk) 23:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The book Satellittkrigen, published in 2011, has been reviewed in Finansavisen (2011-12-31 "Selvrettferdig flisespikkeri" page 35 ): "[The book] Manages to substantiate the probability [sannsynliggjøre] that Norway does not abide by treaties regarding the militarization of Svalbard and Antarctica".
That review also states that the book has been reviewed by Klassekampen and Ny Tid.
Other links,
(Links to Danish and Norwegian wikipedia articles regarding the Svalbard Satellite Station, [4], [5].
Is the book notable for an article?-- Chadburrey ( talk) 11:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created the article Satellittkrigen. I think that the book is notable in its own right, and should not be merged with a future article about the satellite ground station.
The following text is probably all notable, and belongs in the article about the book (but all of the text about the reviews, might not belong in an article about the Svalbard Satellite Station:
"Satellittkrigen is a Norwegian book published in 2011, written by Bård Wormdal. [1]
In it the author claims that Norway is still using Svalbard for military purposes that breach the Svalbard Treaty. [2]
The book's title is made up of two Norwegian words, their meanings being "satellite" and "the war".
Svalbard Satellite Station is still being used for espionage and warfare, in violation with the Svalbard Treaty, the book claims. [3] [4]
The law enforcement, Sysselmannen, has resources at its disposal to enforce the Svalbard Treaty — equalling one 50 % position of employment (et halvt årsverk). [5]
Finansavisen in its review of the book, said that it "Manages to substantiate the probability [sannsynliggjøre] that Norway does not abide by treaties regarding the militarization of Svalbard and Antarctica". [6]
The book has also been reviewed by Klassekampen and Ny Tid. [7] "-- Chadburrey ( talk) 14:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I følge Wormdal har sysselmannen bare et halvt årsverk til å passe på at traktaten blir overholdt. Øvrige myndigheter bedriver enten bevisst tåkelegging ellerde har ikke peiling på hva de driver med.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Klarer å sannsynliggjøre at Norge ikke overholder traktater om militarisering av Svalbard og Antarktis
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
The featured article candidacy for South American dreadnought race 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! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've come across a reference to a USN tanker named Montana. was this an SS Montana or a USNS Montana? Mjroots ( talk) 12:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for German battleship Bismarck 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! Parsecboy ( talk) 23:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You are still welcome to participate in the first new review of the restructured Review Department of WikiProject History. The reviews can be found here: WP:History Review Department/A-class review. DCI talk 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Blah blah blah, required canvassing, blah blah, there. Res Mar 03:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Hector Waller 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) 05:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Not my area at all but I just noticed Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, I though the general idea was that we do not do comparisons but this appears to have survived a number of attempts to delete! MilborneOne ( talk) 19:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the process of going through the photos I took during my recent(ish) trip to Europe to identify ones which would be useful on Wikicommons, and am wondering if anyone has any requests from the following museums I visited and took lots of photos of:
For the record, I did go to lots and lots of non-military history related places :p Nick-D ( talk) 05:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, did you snap anything at Les Invalides relating to Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon, the French Revolution, etc? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [ chat 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notification to let anyone interested know that there's a discussion at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board regarding use of ribbons in articles. The discussion may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 12:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The GOCE would like a more efficient archiving system for completed requests ... please weigh in over there if anyone has a suggestion. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
An RFC is underway to consider a proposal to make the Featured Article leadership elected.
TCO ( talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The following inconclusive discussion has been copied from the Battle of Romani discussion page -
Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The now archived discussion headed 'ANZAC' on the Military History Project's discussion page concluded with -
The Official history uses ANZAC for the corps and Anzac for the men, the cove, and the biscuits. Its British counterpart uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division throughout. I think the use of ANZAC in capitals is a misunderstanding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Despite all this Jim Sweeney continues to replace Anzac with ANZAC or the unwieldly Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division in the Battle of Mughar Ridge article, when both the Anzac and Australian Mounted Divisions were involved. Currently this article mentions the Australian Mounted Division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division. [11]
Does anyone else think Jim Sweeney should be stopped from replacing Anzac with both or either of his alternatives?-- Rskp ( talk) 02:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Slightly aside from the main discussion; regarding RSKP's comment "Jim Sweeney's contribution... he has been so busy with his unhelpful edits; adding red links...", you might want to check out Wikipedia:Red link. A further thought; if it's anything like the work did on airborne formations recently, I doubt they'll stay red for very long. Ranger Steve Talk 09:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Rskp, reference your comment: "Anotherclown your personal attack on me is entirely unwarranted - I have done no more than defend the integrity of my references NO MORE..." I didn't even mention your username in my post above so I fail to see how its a personal attack (although the fact that you recognise your behaviour in my comments seems instructive). Reference your next nugget: "Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown have both adopted a special style in all their communications with me..." I haven't edited one of YOUR articles or your talk page in nearly a month. Regardless, my "communications" with you on your talk page and a number of article talk pages are plain for anyone to view and form their own opinions (and I welcome anyone that can be bothered to do so). That your attempt to "report" this "communication" went no where should indicate that such accusations are baseless though. Editors before me have raised the issue of your article ownership ( such as here), I've raised it repeatedly, Jim has raised it, and now AR has raised it. Are we all crazy? Lastly, why have you revived this issue again long after it seemed to have run its course? That hardely seems like an act of good faith. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
After a short break, the discussion I started about the Falklands War article has been consigned to the archives. In short, to answer some of the questions left there, a task force of some description might be a good idea, but I believe it might be a little bit late now given that the anniversary is only a few months away. Personally, what I’d like to see is as many people who can, chip in on the main article on an ad-hoc basis and get it suitably ready for a GA review, so at least an article of some merit can be ready for the “On this day” page. Basically just a quick drive to get some quality article work done in the next couple of months.
On that note, there’s already a bit of a long-standing issue at the article, which I would welcome some input from any editor on. Having achieved a consensus of opinion that it would be good to include Margaret Thatcher in the infobox, given her status as Prime Minister during the conflict, one editor has insisted that this is only acceptable if every member of the entire War Cabinet (established and chaired by Thatcher) is also included. Not only does this seem to go against the established consensus that I (and other editors) see at other war articles and the guidance at the infobox page, but it also seems to make a rather unattractive infobox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Falklands_War&diff=470083750&oldid=470000247).
Could I please get some opinions on this matter? Whilst I accept that all the members of the war cabinet are notable people in their own right, I don’t believe their role was notable enough to have them included in a summary box (nor do several other editors). I’d have thought that the PM alone was enough (being the head of the cabinet and the country).
The full (long winded) discussion on the subject is at Talk:Falklands_War#Margaret_Thatcher. I’ll leave it to other editors to decide what they think of it, but speaking personally, I think it reeks of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and I’m quite frankly sick of the whole thing.
Any reasoned input is appreciated! Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 14:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Having read none of the discussion at the article talk page but looking at the " War Cabinet included" version (which I agree is unwieldy), I'd suggest a middle road. Is there a British War Cabinet of the Falklands War article around (or alternatley, an article created that list the whos and whens of the cabinet, along with dates of establishment and disbanding, major decisions, and internal politics? That could be linked in the infobox as "Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the War Cabinet" - gets the name in there, without the overly long list of names. -- saberwyn 22:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There's a dispute about the fall of Cologne in 1945 involving contradictory sources. Help would be appreciated at Talk:Cologne. Thank you, Pichpich ( talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
see Talk:Shawinigan Military College, where the existence and what this is, is under discussion. It currently redirects to the CEGEP, which is wrong, but what to do with it is being discussed. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I'd like comments in general, but I thought the spotchecking tasks for Nyon Conference ( FAC here) might in particular suit a military historian. Enough of them come from PDFs that I can, and will, email upon request. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
How come there are over 30,000 articles in the bio task force that aren't rated for importance? 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 13:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Just checked the American Civil War and American Revolutionary War task forces and their articles are divided into importance rankings as well. So if importance rankings isn't part of MILHIST then something fishy is going on here. 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Or is this a problem which can't be fixed? 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 15:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Monstrelet and MarcusBritish make good points. If MILHIST prefers not to use importance ratings, then perhaps looking into fixing the "spillover" would be worth the trouble. 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 04:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
These two articles have one hell of a lot of overlap because the history of 8 Gp in WW2 is the history of most of the life of the Pathfinders. Should they be merged? NtheP ( talk) 22:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up it appears the Encyclopedia Britannica is not classed as a reliable source see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source?. I have only seen it used a few times in MILHIST articles, but anyone thinking of using it should be aware. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not. Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR?"" Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have started revamping the WW2 Tehran Conference page and intend to do the same for the other main conferences of WW2 (should include Cairo, Potsdam, Yalta, Casablanca etc). I have searched for a suitable infobox template to use for this type of conference and decided to use Template:Infobox conference as a work-around in lieu of anything better. This template is not particularly suited to the requirement - any ideas or recommendations? Thanks. Farawayman ( talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. In case anyone is interested in doing a bit of fun cleanup, here are the current top 12 most linked-to "Battle of" disambiguation pages:*
Any help correcting the links to these pages so that they point to the correct battle would be most appreciated; completed lines can crossed out. *
Battle of the sexes left out for obvious reasons; thank goodness that one doesn't fall under this project. Cheers!
bd2412
T 03:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who is working on this. We generally do not fix links on user pages or talk pages, but focus instead on links in articles, images, categories, and portals. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, regarding electing leaders. Sorry, the discussion is long and heated and no simple section to send you, but see the whole page.
Milhist coordinator leadership and elections have been mentioned as one model to learn from. Appreciate any insights and participation.
(And this is not "canvassing". Please give whatever insights you have pro/con or expecially in terms of expanded learning. You can feel free to drop TCO-recruit for 20 pushups or mountain climbers, too. ;-))
TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A number of infoboxes in the Sinai and Palestine theatre of WW1 have seen the countries involved in the combat cut, leaving only 'British Empire'. Two reasons have been given a)that the countries are all in the British Empire, and b) that it brings combatants1 and combatants2 into line as only the Ottoman Empire is mentioned. See [23] for an example.
The trouble is, as I see it, countries like Australia, India and New Zealand in particular, which all played significant roles in the campaigns, don't get a mention at the top of the article. This has the potential to put off readers who may be looking for operations involving one of these countries. Do you think this is ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoslynSKP ( talk • contribs) **I'm sorry I forgot to sign this.-- Rskp ( talk) 23:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is probably simpler than that. It seems to me that there is some other motivation for this. Perhaps Jim could explain his rationale further? Peacemaker67 ( talk) 14:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
For once, not the usual debate on medal ribbons!
I've just been pointed to John Basilone, which has a 15px floating Medal of Honor in the upper right corner above the infobox. Have we clear policy on this sort of thing? The top icon seems very likely to be against MOS, and it reminds me I've always been a little concerned about displaying the MoH in the infobox alongside the photograph anyway - I think we may have discussed this before, but I don't remember what if anything the consensus was.
Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I am fairly new to editing, so please bear with me if this question has been asked (and resolved) previously. I note a series of articles on German Armies e.g. 1st Army (Germany) which cover the armies of WW1 and WW2. I believe that these should be separate as the two formations had no direct lineage link in a manner analogous to 1st Division (German Empire) and 1st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). I do not know how to go about spliting / renaming / whatever these articles. Would redirection be needed? Or disambiguation? Hamish59 ( talk) 15:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have taken the time to update add refs etc.. to Military history of Canada. I an interested in seeing how far away from GA level the article would be under this projects idea of what a GA article is. Could I get someone with knowledge of the topic to read over the huge page tell what they think. After a quick read over from the experts here I think a formal review is in order then GA assessment would be next. What do you think am I close or still lots to be done? Moxy ( talk) 19:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Canada/archive2..
Moxy (
talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
How come nobody has totaled up the article count for December's contest? January is nearly half done and nobody has even checked the contestants' entries! 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi interested editors may want to comment at Talk:George Clinton (Royal Navy officer). it been requested the disambiguation is changed to (naval officer). This would have a huge impact of this project as several articles use (Royal Navy officer), (Royal Air Force officer), (British Army officer) and (Royal Marine officer), when a disambiguation title is required. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I am seeking consensus on whether the portayal of Hermann Fegelein in film, tv shows, etc. should be part of the article. Please visit the talk page. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
A peer review for Military history of Canada is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I worked on getting
James Inglis Hamilton to GA-class about a month ago. I decided to pick back up the article and add some more information. One thing I am confused about is this sentence: "Hamilton was the colonel of the 15th Regiment of Foot [...] during which he took part in the 1790s West Indies Campaign." I have looked about books and such, but I cannot find anything on this West Indies Campaign. Is there anyone on WP:MILHIST who can help me out? Thanks in advance!
—
Michael Jester (
talk ·
contribs) 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There has been some discussion of the wording of the introductory paragraph at B class assessment "If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. B-Class requests are assessed using the five B-class criteria(FAQ). Please consider entering articles you have worked on in the military history article writing contest." It is a working assumption that the first sentence is not the only reason why an editor can bring forward an article for assessment i.e. any editor coming across an article he/she finds that is thought to be of possible B class quality can ask the opinion of other editors through this mechanism. Can we confirm consensus on that and rephrase the paragraph to reflect this interpretation? Thanks Monstrelet ( talk) 14:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to drop a note here to let fellow Military History Project members know about an open FA nomination for William S. Clark. His article has recently been added to WikiProject Military History. Clark was a colonel during the American Civil War and an educator who helped establish the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Hokkaido University. I hope that some folks from this project might be inclined to comment. The nomination can be found here. Thanks. Historical Perspective ( talk) 22:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I am washing my hands of this sorry project. Apprently simple concepts are beyond certain people's comprehention, like asking for ASSESSMENTS on the REQUESTS FOR ASSESSMENTS page! Nobody seems to be interested in doing anything about the assessments on these articles unless they have vested interest in getting their precious articles to the next level. I've also brought up several topics about problems I've seen but the problems still haven't been fixed. I'm done trying to fix anything here. 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This entire scene appears to revolve around the usage of the Assessment Requests page. I think the most recent round of edits that prompted the above outburst started when IP 69.77.53.146 added 10 articles to the Assessment Requests page. Jim Sweeney reverted, directing the poster to the #B class assessment wording discussion above. IP 76.7.231.130 restores here, Jim reverts without explanation, IP 76 reverts back, then starts assessing them. Parsecboy then removes the IP's list with the edit summary "Please stop posting a swath of articles from the unassessed backlog. That is not what this page is for. Read the instructions.", then follows up with a null edit and the summary "if you can't follow simple directions, I'm going to start blocking your IPs" [24]. A response comes from Wild Wolf of "Fine, since a REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT page is apparently not for ASSESSING articles, then I'll just do it myself without getting a second opinion from anyone and nobody will have the right to complain about it", although this may have just been the IP jumping on a public computer Wild Wolf forgot to log out of.
Other recent related incdents may include when IP 64.6.124.31 added 7 articles here, to be reverted by Molestach, who left a note on the IP's talk page, and this back-and-forth where Parsecboy removed a list added by 76.7.231.130 with the summary "this list is for articles you have improved and need an updated assessment", IP 69.77.53.146 restored, then Parsecboy revered again with "Please read what I wrote, then read the instructions for this page. Then stop posting these here." -- saberwyn 02:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not a member of this project, and have never written any articles on military history (though I have helped out with a few through reviews and such). Am I allowed to vote in the military historian of the year award when it opens? If not, I completely understand, and I'll leave you to get on with it. Thanks, J Milburn ( talk) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The name of a battalion has been changed from how it appears in the literature cited, so I have added a note to that effect here [25]
This note has been undone here [26] with the explanation 'revert vandalism its cited so how does it not reflect sources used'.
Is this acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia? -- Rskp ( talk) 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--
Kumi-Taskbot (
talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is able to assist in spotchecks on sources for the Featured Article Candidacy of HMS Temeraire (1798), please stop by and comment here. Benea ( talk) 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A consensus has twice decided this is the appropriate name for this mounted division at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Continuing problems regarding Anzac/ANZAC/Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#ANAZC. Despite these protracted discussions which both accepted Anzac Mounted Division as the most appropriate, an attempt to move the page from ANZAC Mounted Division has been mired in more discussions. What remedy is there? -- Rskp ( talk) 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As a note to Australian editors, the Australian Army History Unit is currently accepting applications for the research grants scheme it administers. These can have a value of up to A$15,000. Details are available here. Nick-D ( talk) 07:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
How do I cite a photograph ? This memorial image File:Statues in Victoria Embankment Gardens - geograph.org.uk - 1729996.jpg lists the engagements the ICC were involved in. The problem is these engagements are not documented, the same, (some are some are missing) in any books or web sites that I can find. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone. Scholarship applications to attend Wikimania 2012 are now available. I'd like to see most of you there, so I hope y'all apply! In a related thought, is there any interest putting a presentation together? Perhaps on how/why our project is successful on-wiki and what others can adapt to their own projects? (other and better ideas are welcome) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of battleships of Greece is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I was about to start a list article along the lines of List of Sd.Kfz. designations, but for Soviet/Russian GABTU vehicle designations but am stuck at the first hurdle; deciding the article name. "List of object names"? "List of GABTU object names"? (use object ob'yekt or obyekt?). Obviously I can make a bunch of redirects so people can find it, but wanted to start off on the correct foot. ( Hohum @) 19:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see the debate at [27] relating to a proposal from User:Good Olfactory to alter this very specific category (Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915) to the far more general and non-specific Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove. I hope that there is some support for retaining this special and very specific category. Thank you all. Lindsay658 ( talk) 06:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments are requested re a solution to the avoidance of whitespace in the various lists of shipwrecks covering 1939-44. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks#Avoiding whitespace in TOC, where your opinion is sought on the proposed solution. Mjroots ( talk) 13:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to say that Henry II of England has been expanded recently, and would no doubt benefit from the eyes of additional medieval military historians! For those not into 12th century European history, Henry was the "Cold War" warrior of his day: at the age of 14 he invaded England with a few friends and mercenaries; he married the most glamorous divorcee in Europe and acquired a larger empire in France than the French king himself; he carried on fighting battles and wars and building castles until he was finally defeated by his own son... What more could you ask for? Anyway, any help or military history wisdom gratefully received! Hchc2009 ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The time has come to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project should be awarded this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award. Which editor in our project, in your estimation, contributed the most to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the course of 2011? Any Milhist editor may nominate up to ten editors – this is to prevent any of our resident geniuses from nominating the entire membership list! – but can vote for as many editors as they like. Self-nominations are frowned upon. The top three get the gold wiki, the silver wiki, and the bronze wiki respectively. All other nominees will receive the WikiProject barnstar.
Please nominate in the following format, with brief comments (twenty words max). Nominations are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 January. There will then be a one week long voting period. Please do not vote yet!
Please nominate editors below this line. Thanks, and good luck! Nick-D ( talk) 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure that WikiProject History is getting revitalized, so I'm making one more suggestion. Perhaps the entire, dormant project could be scrapped, and replaced by a parent directory of other child-projects and managed by WikiProject volunteers, in a mini-WikiProject Council? It'd be better than leaving the project to sit around, cold and dormant, I think. DCI talk 00:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal at Talk:Australian frontier wars#Frontier History Revisited by Robert Ørsted-Jensen - not a reliable source to remove a reference and the material its been used to cite due to concerns over the reliability of this source. Comments from other editors on this would be great. Nick-D ( talk) 06:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Battles, I don't see anything about battles being categorized by the location where they took place. There is Category:Battles by country, but that's organized by the countries that participated in the battle, not the location where the battle took place. Is there a categorization of battles by location? And if not, has that been specifically rejected before, or is it just something that has not been gotten around to being done? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello editors interested in Abraham Lincoln. I just created a proposal for a new WikiProject with a focus on Lincoln, which overlaps with the Civil War military history task force. This project is intended to be similar to the WikiProject that exists for Barack Obama. Please feel free to comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Abraham Lincoln. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I had a quick question about the list class tag: I have changed to class assessment for several ACW articles to "list", but on the ACW task force page the assessment statistics skip the list classification. Will articles assessed as list still be included in the start category? Wild Wolf ( talk) 04:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|class=Start
to |class=list|list=yes
, for now. That will update the main MilHist Assessment table. Hopefully, the Task Forces will be updated at a later date, once we develop criteria for a range of List classes, like A to C. That's being discussed several topics above.. scroll up, you can't miss it.
Ma®©usBritish [
chat 04:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|
The A-Class review for Priscus (general) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 09:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Quick question, as I was under the impression that WP:MILHIST didn't have the List-class assessment, as stated in the Assessment FAQ: Has WP:MILHIST changed policy and allowed articles to be assessed List-class? I only asked because an editor recently changed the assessment at Talk:List of castles in Japan. Much obliged. Boneyard90 ( talk) 04:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
To answer User:Mojoworker, I refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#FAQ, Q#12, which states:
The conflict of information between the FAQ and the Assessment scale, in light of past policy, prompted my initial question. Boneyard90 ( talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Icons are like favicons. Once they shrink down to 16px, they look uncontrollably naff. That said, here's are 3 draft icons:
File:Symbol AL class.svg File:Symbol AL class.svg File:Symbol BL class.svg File:Symbol BL class.svg File:Symbol CL class.svg File:Symbol CL class.svg
Ma®©usBritish [ chat 00:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Standard "lilac" list icon, plus draft colour versions matching A/B/C icons for AL/BL/CL:
File:Symbol AL class 2.svg File:Symbol AL class 2.svg File:Symbol BL class 2.svg File:Symbol BL class 2.svg File:Symbol CL class 2.svg File:Symbol CL class 2.svg
Ma®©usBritish [ chat 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Question - Why is there not a Good List (GL) class? Mjroots ( talk) 12:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to take existing B-class and A-class and adapt it to List format, with a few alterations, working it towards FL class, which I've added below to indicate how the criteria steps up from being a basic List-class to CL to AL before FL, and fills the current gap. Ma®©usBritish [ chat 03:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The article is assessed against the BL-class criteria and meets BL1 or BL2 as well as BL3 and BL4 and BL5 of the remaining criteria.
The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets BL1 or BL2 as well as BL3 and BL4 and BL5 of the remaining criteria:
The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets all five:
It will probably be necessary to introduce a new section to WP:MILMOS to go into specific details regarding list/table structure and layout. The criteria does not go into specifics, and relies on editors/reviewers to refer to MOS and anyway, regardless of what class is being targeted in any area of Wiki. Given our high standards, a MILMOS#lists section could carefully detail the standards we expect. Ma®©usBritish [ chat 03:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Palmerston Forts Society whose FortLogs provided much detailed technical information about forts in the UK, especially Victorian ones, has moved its information into a members only area. The society's pages were frequently quoted as external references for fort pages, and presumably those links now need to be removed. I have informed the society that Wikipedia will probably have to remove their references, and pointed them to this page. Vicarage ( talk) 07:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems much of the useful information has been moved to the Victorian Forts site. I have contacted them about referencing their site. Vicarage ( talk) 07:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
One obvious change would be to add all the fort data sheets from http://www.victorianforts.co.uk/fortdata.htm to the entries in category Category:Palmerston Forts. Vicarage ( talk) 08:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A wikipedia search shows that many of the links here are to www.palmerstonforts.org.uk, while the society has changed the URL to www.palmerstonfortssociety.org.uk. There is a redirect in place, but the deep links are broken. Any attempt to resolve the situation should use both addresses. For example all 49 links given by [ this search] are broken Vicarage ( talk) 08:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
David Moore, the author of the fort data sheets, current Victorian Forts admin, and ex-admin of PFS, confirms that the content was moved after the PFS decided it clashed with their charitable status. He is please for the the content to have wide visibility. I will go ahead with the changes to External Links. I will not be changing References. Vicarage ( talk) 09:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The historical content that previously appeared on the Palmerston Forts Society website has been moved in its entirety to the Victorianforts website due to constraints imposed by the current committee on the use of links to trading website Amazon for the purpose of deriving income. This fell foul of their charitable constitution which forbade generating an income by trading. All links to the fact sheets on the old Palmerston Forts Society can be changed to the corresponding pages on the new website. Whilst the original facts sheets have been placed inside a protected 'members only' page on the PFS site they are now out of date and are not actively updated by the author. The ones on the new site are actively maintained and are being expanded. David Alan Moore 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of the data sheets are also referenced from the Island Eye website, but are outdated and unmaintained, so also need to be changed to Victorian Forts ones. Vicarage ( talk) 11:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
All the above changes complete. Vicarage ( talk) 15:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I just came across this article, which covers two differant battles. Should this be split into two articles? Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the FAC for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just started an article on Brigadier Denis Ormerod but my reflist isn't showing and I'm getting a warning saying it isn't there. I can't fathom out if I've done something wrong or if it's a bug in Wikipedia, Could an experienced editor please look at this and see if they can figure out what is wrong please? Thank you in advance. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
</ref>
. That's generally enough to confuse the parser. --
Tagishsimon
(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-class review of the article on Battle of Radzymin (1920) needs your help. The article is now a GA and it's been reviewed and copy-edited countless times, but the previous assessment timed out due to insufficient voters/reviewers. Current assessment ( check here) is also likely to time out unless one more person drops in. Pretty, pretty please. // Halibu tt 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussions which may be of interest to this group and some fresh opinion would be of help in keeping discussion along the right track. A lot of passion seems to have been aroused by the move. See Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 2012. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Bardanes Tourkos is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has been at FAR for a month: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Medal of Honor/archive2. It really doesn't look to be in that bad of shape to me, and I'm surprised no one is able to take on the work to salvage this star. Or at least let us know if it's so bad it needs to be defeatured. Is there no one here who has a minute to spare to help keep an important FA on board? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Title says it all. Just a note to inform interested parties in our project that there is currently an RM on Talk:Communist Romania. The proposed new title is Socialist Republic of Romania. -- Director ( talk) 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to know if anyone has suggestions on what is needed to an article about a war become a FA, beyond the FA requisites, of course. Does it need an overview on all sides' armies, equipment, tactics, etc?? Or just the story of the war is enough? Any other idea? Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of Ohio class submarines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 08:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for John Balmer 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) 13:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Battle of Arawe 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! Nick-D ( talk) 04:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As a quick reminder, voting for the military historian of the year award will close in just over 50 minutes. Please vote now if you haven't already done so! Nick-D ( talk) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A new article Mauritania-Israel war of 1967 is up for MILHIST assessment. It is fairly straight start class but - here is the weird question - is this war notable from a military point of view? It seems to have been entirely diplomatic, featured no military activity and, allegedly, one side was not aware that it was at war with the other. So, query is - are all wars notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstrelet ( talk • contribs)
The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (E) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2nd Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. NtheP ( talk) 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
For information the Current weapons of the United States Air Force navbox (actually called USAF weapons) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 27#Template:USAF weapons. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/May Revolution, a current A-Class nomination, is likely to be closed in a pair of days or so. So far, there had been just two reviews. May I ask someone else to have a look at it? Either to pass the nomination or to fail it with a clear idea of things to fix would be a better outcome than a nomination failed because of lack of reviews during the month Cambalachero ( talk) 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone. As mentioned in this month's Bugle, there is also an ongoing effort to complete and standardize the Academy, Milhist's effort to create an online training school to assist all editors, old and new. Some ideas for missing articles can be seen in the redlinks here, but ideas, possibly including the redlinks, for what is missing from the current Academy page are needed. Thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Can some members of this project please help at West Point Cadets' Sword? An eager new contributor very much wants to add lots of material to this article. I've tried to provide guidance but my patience is wearing thin. He is very good-natured but my suggestions don't seem to be making much of an impact so I think it's time for others to step in to see they can help more than I can. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 09:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion
here on the use of the term “decisive” to describe the victory.
Are there any guidelines on the use of the term “decisive” in infoboxes (or elsewhere) to describe victories (or defeats come to that)? Has this been discussed here before? (I feel I’ve seen it on article talk pages before, but can’t think of any at the moment)
Xyl 54 (
talk) 20:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The Featured Article Candidacy for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer your comments.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have opened the first History A-class review in a while; it's for Ionian islands under Venetian rule. DCI traveling Talk 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
How do I stop an unknown IP editor from repeatedly changing the article Alfred-Karl Smidt without presenting new references. My sources which are listed in the article clearly name him as Alfred-Karl Smidt, sometimes only called Karl Smidt. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Operation Locker, which aims to provide comprehensive coverage of all ships lost during the period 1939-45 has been launched. Assistance from members of this WikiProject in achieving that aim is welcome. Please discuss this project at the relevant talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Arawe is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 06:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
For the past few days I have been editing the
Lewis Nicola article, and I am a bit confused on how I am supposed to cite certain things. One in particular is letters. I found
this, a letter from George Washington to Lewis Nicola, at the Library of Congress, but I do not know which cite template to use, so I picked cite web. I was hoping someone at the Military history WikiProject would be able to help. Thanks in advance!
—
Michael Jester (
talk ·
contribs) 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The {{ sclass}} is producing a dab problem when linking to minesweepers. Aparrently the ship type is not the primary article on Wikipedia, but is located at minesweeper (ship). I don't want to see Bangor-class minesweeper (ship) displayed as a link all over Wikipedia. (the correct link is Bangor-class minesweeper) Therefore it would seem that the template needs to be tweaked to produce the correct link so that minesweeper displays as a single word and links to the article on the ship type. Anyone have any idea on how to do this? Mjroots ( talk) 11:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
...comes from this. Should it be prodded or is it potentially salvagable? - The Bushranger One ping only 14:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Thomas J. Hudner, Jr. is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Jesse L. Brown is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
So, I'm trying to use this book for some articles, but the pages don't have numbers. Not only are they unnumbered in print, but electronic copies seem to ignore page numbers completely and it's impossible to tell where I am in the book. If it were a small book I'd just count manually, but it's 352 pages long. Any ideas on how I can use it as a source? — Ed! (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know who is helping me with the backlogs of the 26,395 that require "B class" to be completed. I appreciate the help whoever they maybe. I'm sure a few weeks ago, it was around 26,750 B class unassessed articles for our WikiProject, we are doing a good job. Once again keep up the good work and it'll be down to around 26,100 by the end of January next year. Honestly, I am amazed how many the people who have helped me get through this backlog. The reason why I am leaving the American Civil War articles is because I'm getting the Conpendium the 3 Volume set which are on about 530 articles of the American Civil War, that is why I'm not doing those articles quite yet. Once again I appreciate the help with the backlog and anything in return that I'm able to do, feel free to ask on my Discussion page! Adamdaley ( talk) 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about something that might help speed this up. WikiProject Aviation and a couple of other also use B class checklists and often times they are populated when ours is not. I could rather easily program something that could inherit the B-class criteria from another WikiProject, Say WPAviation for example so that if ours was blank then it would populate with the other templates data. Of course this won't work for everyone and there is of course a degree of error but I thought I would mention it anyway in case there was interest in doing something like this. The same is also true of some other things as well. For example, if the article contained an Unref or refimprove tag then we could populate the appropriate B-Class section with No. -- Kumioko ( talk) 04:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Any chance we'll see another B-class assessment drive any time soon? That could always help. — Ed! (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been going through the lists of WWII weaponry and have seen misrepresentation of weapons. Germany did utilize much of the captured weaponry it acquired during WWII but to say many of the weapons are firearms of Germany is extreme to me. I was planning on turning the list into an article for weapons adopted by the German military and not the hodgepodge of weapons listed. Should the captured weapons get their own list? I personally think the list should be split because technically any weapon a soldier picks up and fires is a Firearm of Germany by current standards. Input would be appreciated. -- MOLEY ( talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk:West Point Cadets' Sword ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) needs cleanup, Andy2159 ( talk · contribs) keeps deleting the talk page, by my count, it has been wiped atleast 3 times, without being archived. Can someone go through the history and properly archive it per WP:TALK ( WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE) ? 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 09:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does need to be cleaned up and I have put a lot of work on it this weekend discussion page. Yes I have deleted this page a few times, I did not know that it could of been archived if I knew I would of done it correctly. The reason I deleted the information was I could no longer enter any new information. I do not remember being warned about anything but an image that I posted with the copy right information incorrectly entered in the correct fields. I'm been on this site for a long time and I do have problems with the way things are formatted in Wikipidia, its a handicap and I'm working on it but my intent is to work with in the system not against it. Andy2159 ( talk) 05:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
G'day all. Could I get some views of experienced editors on the reliability of axishistory.com? I have read a short discussion on archives several years ago, but wanted to get a current view. Thanks. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 05:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897) article. As the article uses mainly offline sources as reference, I need some help with verification. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Radzymin (1920) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Bautzen (1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
FAC now open, any further input appreciated! Thanks, Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Quick translation question. What are the English abbreviations for infantry division, panzer/armored division, guard (army, division, corps)? This is related to those maps. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Several USN and CS Navy ship images have been placed for deletion as providing no source. The description pages show a claim of US government ownership of the images. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 3 -- 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 07:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused - I cannot find the Milhist Peer Review instructions. Do we run there separately anymore, or do we just use the main PR process? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST Review alerts/Enhanced}}
. - Dank (
push to talk) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Article has been brought to the attention of WP:RSN because of discussion as to whether Andrew Bostom is an appropriate source. But the article seems to need an enormous amount of attention: sourcing, structure, NPOV, formatting. It isn't in your WikiProject at the moment and if it is to be kept I'm sure you will think that it is in scope. I'm also posting on WikiProject Islam, as it would seem that a lot of eyes are needed. Regards. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The peer review for Lewis Nicola is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello WP MilHist editors - if you have a spare moment, your comment is requested over at the MedCab mediation on the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, which I am mediating. We've run into a small issue that I think would be resolved best by outside comment, and I would appreciate it if you could go over and take a look. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Roy Dowling is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 06:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Having a tidy up yesterday and removed the Category:Royal Air Force stations in England parent cat from RAF stations included directly in the England category as they were all in the sub-cats for individual counties. It seem to have annoyed User:Hugo999 who has been adding the England cat to qoute from my talk page I added that for a reason, so that articles on English RAF stations can be found wothout having to know or hunt through the “county” subcategories. Hugo999 also uses the fact that an "Allincluded" tag is available then that is an acceptable practice. If users have to use the England or country cat rather than county cats then perhaps the argument is why use the sub-cats at all. We cant have every cat in the tree on an article you could argue they should also all be in the United Kingdom cat if users dont known the England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland split. Just looking for opinions, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Mike Cline ( talk) 13:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force →
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and Commonwealth of Independent States military history task force –
If the scope of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force includes the military history of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) states after 1991 the task force should be renamed to the
NPOV name:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and Commonwealth of Independent States military history task force. —
Yulia Romero •
Talk to me! 13:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Comment: it seems a very long name. What about just "russian military history task force" and clarify the scope in the lead section? After all, " Russians" can be either meant to be for citizens of Russia or for the whole group of people living in countries of russian heritage. Just clarify it's the later, and that's it. After all, this is not WikiProject Russia but a military history wikiproject (with the word "history" in it), so it shouldn't be strange for anyone if we take a "historical" perspective Cambalachero ( talk) 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A name that better represents the scope is likley to atract more members of the taskforce. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings and thanks to MILHIST members for help thus far with the FAC of Boeing 767, an aircraft with military applications. The review is nearing completion, but needs a contributor to perform source spotchecks (check select citations to verify article text). Links, PDFs, scans/images have already been prepared for convenience, and are ready to be provided. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Sincerely, SynergyStar ( talk) 23:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The book Satellittkrigen, published in 2011, has been reviewed in Finansavisen (2011-12-31 "Selvrettferdig flisespikkeri" page 35 ): "[The book] Manages to substantiate the probability [sannsynliggjøre] that Norway does not abide by treaties regarding the militarization of Svalbard and Antarctica".
That review also states that the book has been reviewed by Klassekampen and Ny Tid.
Other links,
(Links to Danish and Norwegian wikipedia articles regarding the Svalbard Satellite Station, [4], [5].
Is the book notable for an article?-- Chadburrey ( talk) 11:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I have created the article Satellittkrigen. I think that the book is notable in its own right, and should not be merged with a future article about the satellite ground station.
The following text is probably all notable, and belongs in the article about the book (but all of the text about the reviews, might not belong in an article about the Svalbard Satellite Station:
"Satellittkrigen is a Norwegian book published in 2011, written by Bård Wormdal. [1]
In it the author claims that Norway is still using Svalbard for military purposes that breach the Svalbard Treaty. [2]
The book's title is made up of two Norwegian words, their meanings being "satellite" and "the war".
Svalbard Satellite Station is still being used for espionage and warfare, in violation with the Svalbard Treaty, the book claims. [3] [4]
The law enforcement, Sysselmannen, has resources at its disposal to enforce the Svalbard Treaty — equalling one 50 % position of employment (et halvt årsverk). [5]
Finansavisen in its review of the book, said that it "Manages to substantiate the probability [sannsynliggjøre] that Norway does not abide by treaties regarding the militarization of Svalbard and Antarctica". [6]
The book has also been reviewed by Klassekampen and Ny Tid. [7] "-- Chadburrey ( talk) 14:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I følge Wormdal har sysselmannen bare et halvt årsverk til å passe på at traktaten blir overholdt. Øvrige myndigheter bedriver enten bevisst tåkelegging ellerde har ikke peiling på hva de driver med.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Klarer å sannsynliggjøre at Norge ikke overholder traktater om militarisering av Svalbard og Antarktis
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
The featured article candidacy for South American dreadnought race 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! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've come across a reference to a USN tanker named Montana. was this an SS Montana or a USNS Montana? Mjroots ( talk) 12:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for German battleship Bismarck 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! Parsecboy ( talk) 23:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You are still welcome to participate in the first new review of the restructured Review Department of WikiProject History. The reviews can be found here: WP:History Review Department/A-class review. DCI talk 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Blah blah blah, required canvassing, blah blah, there. Res Mar 03:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Hector Waller 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) 05:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Not my area at all but I just noticed Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, I though the general idea was that we do not do comparisons but this appears to have survived a number of attempts to delete! MilborneOne ( talk) 19:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the process of going through the photos I took during my recent(ish) trip to Europe to identify ones which would be useful on Wikicommons, and am wondering if anyone has any requests from the following museums I visited and took lots of photos of:
For the record, I did go to lots and lots of non-military history related places :p Nick-D ( talk) 05:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, did you snap anything at Les Invalides relating to Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon, the French Revolution, etc? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [ chat 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notification to let anyone interested know that there's a discussion at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board regarding use of ribbons in articles. The discussion may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 12:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The GOCE would like a more efficient archiving system for completed requests ... please weigh in over there if anyone has a suggestion. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
An RFC is underway to consider a proposal to make the Featured Article leadership elected.
TCO ( talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The following inconclusive discussion has been copied from the Battle of Romani discussion page -
Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The now archived discussion headed 'ANZAC' on the Military History Project's discussion page concluded with -
The Official history uses ANZAC for the corps and Anzac for the men, the cove, and the biscuits. Its British counterpart uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division throughout. I think the use of ANZAC in capitals is a misunderstanding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Despite all this Jim Sweeney continues to replace Anzac with ANZAC or the unwieldly Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division in the Battle of Mughar Ridge article, when both the Anzac and Australian Mounted Divisions were involved. Currently this article mentions the Australian Mounted Division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division. [11]
Does anyone else think Jim Sweeney should be stopped from replacing Anzac with both or either of his alternatives?-- Rskp ( talk) 02:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Slightly aside from the main discussion; regarding RSKP's comment "Jim Sweeney's contribution... he has been so busy with his unhelpful edits; adding red links...", you might want to check out Wikipedia:Red link. A further thought; if it's anything like the work did on airborne formations recently, I doubt they'll stay red for very long. Ranger Steve Talk 09:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Rskp, reference your comment: "Anotherclown your personal attack on me is entirely unwarranted - I have done no more than defend the integrity of my references NO MORE..." I didn't even mention your username in my post above so I fail to see how its a personal attack (although the fact that you recognise your behaviour in my comments seems instructive). Reference your next nugget: "Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown have both adopted a special style in all their communications with me..." I haven't edited one of YOUR articles or your talk page in nearly a month. Regardless, my "communications" with you on your talk page and a number of article talk pages are plain for anyone to view and form their own opinions (and I welcome anyone that can be bothered to do so). That your attempt to "report" this "communication" went no where should indicate that such accusations are baseless though. Editors before me have raised the issue of your article ownership ( such as here), I've raised it repeatedly, Jim has raised it, and now AR has raised it. Are we all crazy? Lastly, why have you revived this issue again long after it seemed to have run its course? That hardely seems like an act of good faith. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
After a short break, the discussion I started about the Falklands War article has been consigned to the archives. In short, to answer some of the questions left there, a task force of some description might be a good idea, but I believe it might be a little bit late now given that the anniversary is only a few months away. Personally, what I’d like to see is as many people who can, chip in on the main article on an ad-hoc basis and get it suitably ready for a GA review, so at least an article of some merit can be ready for the “On this day” page. Basically just a quick drive to get some quality article work done in the next couple of months.
On that note, there’s already a bit of a long-standing issue at the article, which I would welcome some input from any editor on. Having achieved a consensus of opinion that it would be good to include Margaret Thatcher in the infobox, given her status as Prime Minister during the conflict, one editor has insisted that this is only acceptable if every member of the entire War Cabinet (established and chaired by Thatcher) is also included. Not only does this seem to go against the established consensus that I (and other editors) see at other war articles and the guidance at the infobox page, but it also seems to make a rather unattractive infobox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Falklands_War&diff=470083750&oldid=470000247).
Could I please get some opinions on this matter? Whilst I accept that all the members of the war cabinet are notable people in their own right, I don’t believe their role was notable enough to have them included in a summary box (nor do several other editors). I’d have thought that the PM alone was enough (being the head of the cabinet and the country).
The full (long winded) discussion on the subject is at Talk:Falklands_War#Margaret_Thatcher. I’ll leave it to other editors to decide what they think of it, but speaking personally, I think it reeks of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and I’m quite frankly sick of the whole thing.
Any reasoned input is appreciated! Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 14:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Having read none of the discussion at the article talk page but looking at the " War Cabinet included" version (which I agree is unwieldy), I'd suggest a middle road. Is there a British War Cabinet of the Falklands War article around (or alternatley, an article created that list the whos and whens of the cabinet, along with dates of establishment and disbanding, major decisions, and internal politics? That could be linked in the infobox as "Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the War Cabinet" - gets the name in there, without the overly long list of names. -- saberwyn 22:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There's a dispute about the fall of Cologne in 1945 involving contradictory sources. Help would be appreciated at Talk:Cologne. Thank you, Pichpich ( talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
see Talk:Shawinigan Military College, where the existence and what this is, is under discussion. It currently redirects to the CEGEP, which is wrong, but what to do with it is being discussed. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I'd like comments in general, but I thought the spotchecking tasks for Nyon Conference ( FAC here) might in particular suit a military historian. Enough of them come from PDFs that I can, and will, email upon request. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
How come there are over 30,000 articles in the bio task force that aren't rated for importance? 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 13:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Just checked the American Civil War and American Revolutionary War task forces and their articles are divided into importance rankings as well. So if importance rankings isn't part of MILHIST then something fishy is going on here. 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Or is this a problem which can't be fixed? 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 15:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Monstrelet and MarcusBritish make good points. If MILHIST prefers not to use importance ratings, then perhaps looking into fixing the "spillover" would be worth the trouble. 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 04:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
These two articles have one hell of a lot of overlap because the history of 8 Gp in WW2 is the history of most of the life of the Pathfinders. Should they be merged? NtheP ( talk) 22:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up it appears the Encyclopedia Britannica is not classed as a reliable source see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source?. I have only seen it used a few times in MILHIST articles, but anyone thinking of using it should be aware. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not. Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR?"" Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have started revamping the WW2 Tehran Conference page and intend to do the same for the other main conferences of WW2 (should include Cairo, Potsdam, Yalta, Casablanca etc). I have searched for a suitable infobox template to use for this type of conference and decided to use Template:Infobox conference as a work-around in lieu of anything better. This template is not particularly suited to the requirement - any ideas or recommendations? Thanks. Farawayman ( talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. In case anyone is interested in doing a bit of fun cleanup, here are the current top 12 most linked-to "Battle of" disambiguation pages:*
Any help correcting the links to these pages so that they point to the correct battle would be most appreciated; completed lines can crossed out. *
Battle of the sexes left out for obvious reasons; thank goodness that one doesn't fall under this project. Cheers!
bd2412
T 03:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who is working on this. We generally do not fix links on user pages or talk pages, but focus instead on links in articles, images, categories, and portals. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, regarding electing leaders. Sorry, the discussion is long and heated and no simple section to send you, but see the whole page.
Milhist coordinator leadership and elections have been mentioned as one model to learn from. Appreciate any insights and participation.
(And this is not "canvassing". Please give whatever insights you have pro/con or expecially in terms of expanded learning. You can feel free to drop TCO-recruit for 20 pushups or mountain climbers, too. ;-))
TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A number of infoboxes in the Sinai and Palestine theatre of WW1 have seen the countries involved in the combat cut, leaving only 'British Empire'. Two reasons have been given a)that the countries are all in the British Empire, and b) that it brings combatants1 and combatants2 into line as only the Ottoman Empire is mentioned. See [23] for an example.
The trouble is, as I see it, countries like Australia, India and New Zealand in particular, which all played significant roles in the campaigns, don't get a mention at the top of the article. This has the potential to put off readers who may be looking for operations involving one of these countries. Do you think this is ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoslynSKP ( talk • contribs) **I'm sorry I forgot to sign this.-- Rskp ( talk) 23:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is probably simpler than that. It seems to me that there is some other motivation for this. Perhaps Jim could explain his rationale further? Peacemaker67 ( talk) 14:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
For once, not the usual debate on medal ribbons!
I've just been pointed to John Basilone, which has a 15px floating Medal of Honor in the upper right corner above the infobox. Have we clear policy on this sort of thing? The top icon seems very likely to be against MOS, and it reminds me I've always been a little concerned about displaying the MoH in the infobox alongside the photograph anyway - I think we may have discussed this before, but I don't remember what if anything the consensus was.
Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I am fairly new to editing, so please bear with me if this question has been asked (and resolved) previously. I note a series of articles on German Armies e.g. 1st Army (Germany) which cover the armies of WW1 and WW2. I believe that these should be separate as the two formations had no direct lineage link in a manner analogous to 1st Division (German Empire) and 1st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). I do not know how to go about spliting / renaming / whatever these articles. Would redirection be needed? Or disambiguation? Hamish59 ( talk) 15:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have taken the time to update add refs etc.. to Military history of Canada. I an interested in seeing how far away from GA level the article would be under this projects idea of what a GA article is. Could I get someone with knowledge of the topic to read over the huge page tell what they think. After a quick read over from the experts here I think a formal review is in order then GA assessment would be next. What do you think am I close or still lots to be done? Moxy ( talk) 19:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Canada/archive2..
Moxy (
talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
How come nobody has totaled up the article count for December's contest? January is nearly half done and nobody has even checked the contestants' entries! 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi interested editors may want to comment at Talk:George Clinton (Royal Navy officer). it been requested the disambiguation is changed to (naval officer). This would have a huge impact of this project as several articles use (Royal Navy officer), (Royal Air Force officer), (British Army officer) and (Royal Marine officer), when a disambiguation title is required. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I am seeking consensus on whether the portayal of Hermann Fegelein in film, tv shows, etc. should be part of the article. Please visit the talk page. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
A peer review for Military history of Canada is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I worked on getting
James Inglis Hamilton to GA-class about a month ago. I decided to pick back up the article and add some more information. One thing I am confused about is this sentence: "Hamilton was the colonel of the 15th Regiment of Foot [...] during which he took part in the 1790s West Indies Campaign." I have looked about books and such, but I cannot find anything on this West Indies Campaign. Is there anyone on WP:MILHIST who can help me out? Thanks in advance!
—
Michael Jester (
talk ·
contribs) 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There has been some discussion of the wording of the introductory paragraph at B class assessment "If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. B-Class requests are assessed using the five B-class criteria(FAQ). Please consider entering articles you have worked on in the military history article writing contest." It is a working assumption that the first sentence is not the only reason why an editor can bring forward an article for assessment i.e. any editor coming across an article he/she finds that is thought to be of possible B class quality can ask the opinion of other editors through this mechanism. Can we confirm consensus on that and rephrase the paragraph to reflect this interpretation? Thanks Monstrelet ( talk) 14:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to drop a note here to let fellow Military History Project members know about an open FA nomination for William S. Clark. His article has recently been added to WikiProject Military History. Clark was a colonel during the American Civil War and an educator who helped establish the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Hokkaido University. I hope that some folks from this project might be inclined to comment. The nomination can be found here. Thanks. Historical Perspective ( talk) 22:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I am washing my hands of this sorry project. Apprently simple concepts are beyond certain people's comprehention, like asking for ASSESSMENTS on the REQUESTS FOR ASSESSMENTS page! Nobody seems to be interested in doing anything about the assessments on these articles unless they have vested interest in getting their precious articles to the next level. I've also brought up several topics about problems I've seen but the problems still haven't been fixed. I'm done trying to fix anything here. 76.7.231.130 ( talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This entire scene appears to revolve around the usage of the Assessment Requests page. I think the most recent round of edits that prompted the above outburst started when IP 69.77.53.146 added 10 articles to the Assessment Requests page. Jim Sweeney reverted, directing the poster to the #B class assessment wording discussion above. IP 76.7.231.130 restores here, Jim reverts without explanation, IP 76 reverts back, then starts assessing them. Parsecboy then removes the IP's list with the edit summary "Please stop posting a swath of articles from the unassessed backlog. That is not what this page is for. Read the instructions.", then follows up with a null edit and the summary "if you can't follow simple directions, I'm going to start blocking your IPs" [24]. A response comes from Wild Wolf of "Fine, since a REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT page is apparently not for ASSESSING articles, then I'll just do it myself without getting a second opinion from anyone and nobody will have the right to complain about it", although this may have just been the IP jumping on a public computer Wild Wolf forgot to log out of.
Other recent related incdents may include when IP 64.6.124.31 added 7 articles here, to be reverted by Molestach, who left a note on the IP's talk page, and this back-and-forth where Parsecboy removed a list added by 76.7.231.130 with the summary "this list is for articles you have improved and need an updated assessment", IP 69.77.53.146 restored, then Parsecboy revered again with "Please read what I wrote, then read the instructions for this page. Then stop posting these here." -- saberwyn 02:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not a member of this project, and have never written any articles on military history (though I have helped out with a few through reviews and such). Am I allowed to vote in the military historian of the year award when it opens? If not, I completely understand, and I'll leave you to get on with it. Thanks, J Milburn ( talk) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The name of a battalion has been changed from how it appears in the literature cited, so I have added a note to that effect here [25]
This note has been undone here [26] with the explanation 'revert vandalism its cited so how does it not reflect sources used'.
Is this acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia? -- Rskp ( talk) 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--
Kumi-Taskbot (
talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is able to assist in spotchecks on sources for the Featured Article Candidacy of HMS Temeraire (1798), please stop by and comment here. Benea ( talk) 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A consensus has twice decided this is the appropriate name for this mounted division at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Continuing problems regarding Anzac/ANZAC/Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#ANAZC. Despite these protracted discussions which both accepted Anzac Mounted Division as the most appropriate, an attempt to move the page from ANZAC Mounted Division has been mired in more discussions. What remedy is there? -- Rskp ( talk) 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As a note to Australian editors, the Australian Army History Unit is currently accepting applications for the research grants scheme it administers. These can have a value of up to A$15,000. Details are available here. Nick-D ( talk) 07:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
How do I cite a photograph ? This memorial image File:Statues in Victoria Embankment Gardens - geograph.org.uk - 1729996.jpg lists the engagements the ICC were involved in. The problem is these engagements are not documented, the same, (some are some are missing) in any books or web sites that I can find. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone. Scholarship applications to attend Wikimania 2012 are now available. I'd like to see most of you there, so I hope y'all apply! In a related thought, is there any interest putting a presentation together? Perhaps on how/why our project is successful on-wiki and what others can adapt to their own projects? (other and better ideas are welcome) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of battleships of Greece is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I was about to start a list article along the lines of List of Sd.Kfz. designations, but for Soviet/Russian GABTU vehicle designations but am stuck at the first hurdle; deciding the article name. "List of object names"? "List of GABTU object names"? (use object ob'yekt or obyekt?). Obviously I can make a bunch of redirects so people can find it, but wanted to start off on the correct foot. ( Hohum @) 19:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see the debate at [27] relating to a proposal from User:Good Olfactory to alter this very specific category (Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915) to the far more general and non-specific Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove. I hope that there is some support for retaining this special and very specific category. Thank you all. Lindsay658 ( talk) 06:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments are requested re a solution to the avoidance of whitespace in the various lists of shipwrecks covering 1939-44. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks#Avoiding whitespace in TOC, where your opinion is sought on the proposed solution. Mjroots ( talk) 13:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to say that Henry II of England has been expanded recently, and would no doubt benefit from the eyes of additional medieval military historians! For those not into 12th century European history, Henry was the "Cold War" warrior of his day: at the age of 14 he invaded England with a few friends and mercenaries; he married the most glamorous divorcee in Europe and acquired a larger empire in France than the French king himself; he carried on fighting battles and wars and building castles until he was finally defeated by his own son... What more could you ask for? Anyway, any help or military history wisdom gratefully received! Hchc2009 ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The time has come to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project should be awarded this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award. Which editor in our project, in your estimation, contributed the most to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the course of 2011? Any Milhist editor may nominate up to ten editors – this is to prevent any of our resident geniuses from nominating the entire membership list! – but can vote for as many editors as they like. Self-nominations are frowned upon. The top three get the gold wiki, the silver wiki, and the bronze wiki respectively. All other nominees will receive the WikiProject barnstar.
Please nominate in the following format, with brief comments (twenty words max). Nominations are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 January. There will then be a one week long voting period. Please do not vote yet!
Please nominate editors below this line. Thanks, and good luck! Nick-D ( talk) 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure that WikiProject History is getting revitalized, so I'm making one more suggestion. Perhaps the entire, dormant project could be scrapped, and replaced by a parent directory of other child-projects and managed by WikiProject volunteers, in a mini-WikiProject Council? It'd be better than leaving the project to sit around, cold and dormant, I think. DCI talk 00:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal at Talk:Australian frontier wars#Frontier History Revisited by Robert Ørsted-Jensen - not a reliable source to remove a reference and the material its been used to cite due to concerns over the reliability of this source. Comments from other editors on this would be great. Nick-D ( talk) 06:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Battles, I don't see anything about battles being categorized by the location where they took place. There is Category:Battles by country, but that's organized by the countries that participated in the battle, not the location where the battle took place. Is there a categorization of battles by location? And if not, has that been specifically rejected before, or is it just something that has not been gotten around to being done? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello editors interested in Abraham Lincoln. I just created a proposal for a new WikiProject with a focus on Lincoln, which overlaps with the Civil War military history task force. This project is intended to be similar to the WikiProject that exists for Barack Obama. Please feel free to comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Abraham Lincoln. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I had a quick question about the list class tag: I have changed to class assessment for several ACW articles to "list", but on the ACW task force page the assessment statistics skip the list classification. Will articles assessed as list still be included in the start category? Wild Wolf ( talk) 04:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|class=Start
to |class=list|list=yes
, for now. That will update the main MilHist Assessment table. Hopefully, the Task Forces will be updated at a later date, once we develop criteria for a range of List classes, like A to C. That's being discussed several topics above.. scroll up, you can't miss it.
Ma®©usBritish [
chat 04:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|
The A-Class review for Priscus (general) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 09:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Quick question, as I was under the impression that WP:MILHIST didn't have the List-class assessment, as stated in the Assessment FAQ: Has WP:MILHIST changed policy and allowed articles to be assessed List-class? I only asked because an editor recently changed the assessment at Talk:List of castles in Japan. Much obliged. Boneyard90 ( talk) 04:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
To answer User:Mojoworker, I refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#FAQ, Q#12, which states:
The conflict of information between the FAQ and the Assessment scale, in light of past policy, prompted my initial question. Boneyard90 ( talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Icons are like favicons. Once they shrink down to 16px, they look uncontrollably naff. That said, here's are 3 draft icons:
File:Symbol AL class.svg File:Symbol AL class.svg File:Symbol BL class.svg File:Symbol BL class.svg File:Symbol CL class.svg File:Symbol CL class.svg
Ma®©usBritish [ chat 00:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Standard "lilac" list icon, plus draft colour versions matching A/B/C icons for AL/BL/CL:
File:Symbol AL class 2.svg File:Symbol AL class 2.svg File:Symbol BL class 2.svg File:Symbol BL class 2.svg File:Symbol CL class 2.svg File:Symbol CL class 2.svg
Ma®©usBritish [ chat 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Question - Why is there not a Good List (GL) class? Mjroots ( talk) 12:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to take existing B-class and A-class and adapt it to List format, with a few alterations, working it towards FL class, which I've added below to indicate how the criteria steps up from being a basic List-class to CL to AL before FL, and fills the current gap. Ma®©usBritish [ chat 03:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The article is assessed against the BL-class criteria and meets BL1 or BL2 as well as BL3 and BL4 and BL5 of the remaining criteria.
The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets BL1 or BL2 as well as BL3 and BL4 and BL5 of the remaining criteria:
The article is assessed against the following criteria and meets all five:
It will probably be necessary to introduce a new section to WP:MILMOS to go into specific details regarding list/table structure and layout. The criteria does not go into specifics, and relies on editors/reviewers to refer to MOS and anyway, regardless of what class is being targeted in any area of Wiki. Given our high standards, a MILMOS#lists section could carefully detail the standards we expect. Ma®©usBritish [ chat 03:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Palmerston Forts Society whose FortLogs provided much detailed technical information about forts in the UK, especially Victorian ones, has moved its information into a members only area. The society's pages were frequently quoted as external references for fort pages, and presumably those links now need to be removed. I have informed the society that Wikipedia will probably have to remove their references, and pointed them to this page. Vicarage ( talk) 07:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems much of the useful information has been moved to the Victorian Forts site. I have contacted them about referencing their site. Vicarage ( talk) 07:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
One obvious change would be to add all the fort data sheets from http://www.victorianforts.co.uk/fortdata.htm to the entries in category Category:Palmerston Forts. Vicarage ( talk) 08:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A wikipedia search shows that many of the links here are to www.palmerstonforts.org.uk, while the society has changed the URL to www.palmerstonfortssociety.org.uk. There is a redirect in place, but the deep links are broken. Any attempt to resolve the situation should use both addresses. For example all 49 links given by [ this search] are broken Vicarage ( talk) 08:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
David Moore, the author of the fort data sheets, current Victorian Forts admin, and ex-admin of PFS, confirms that the content was moved after the PFS decided it clashed with their charitable status. He is please for the the content to have wide visibility. I will go ahead with the changes to External Links. I will not be changing References. Vicarage ( talk) 09:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The historical content that previously appeared on the Palmerston Forts Society website has been moved in its entirety to the Victorianforts website due to constraints imposed by the current committee on the use of links to trading website Amazon for the purpose of deriving income. This fell foul of their charitable constitution which forbade generating an income by trading. All links to the fact sheets on the old Palmerston Forts Society can be changed to the corresponding pages on the new website. Whilst the original facts sheets have been placed inside a protected 'members only' page on the PFS site they are now out of date and are not actively updated by the author. The ones on the new site are actively maintained and are being expanded. David Alan Moore 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of the data sheets are also referenced from the Island Eye website, but are outdated and unmaintained, so also need to be changed to Victorian Forts ones. Vicarage ( talk) 11:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
All the above changes complete. Vicarage ( talk) 15:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I just came across this article, which covers two differant battles. Should this be split into two articles? Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the FAC for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just started an article on Brigadier Denis Ormerod but my reflist isn't showing and I'm getting a warning saying it isn't there. I can't fathom out if I've done something wrong or if it's a bug in Wikipedia, Could an experienced editor please look at this and see if they can figure out what is wrong please? Thank you in advance. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
</ref>
. That's generally enough to confuse the parser. --
Tagishsimon
(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-class review of the article on Battle of Radzymin (1920) needs your help. The article is now a GA and it's been reviewed and copy-edited countless times, but the previous assessment timed out due to insufficient voters/reviewers. Current assessment ( check here) is also likely to time out unless one more person drops in. Pretty, pretty please. // Halibu tt 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussions which may be of interest to this group and some fresh opinion would be of help in keeping discussion along the right track. A lot of passion seems to have been aroused by the move. See Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 2012. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Bardanes Tourkos is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has been at FAR for a month: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Medal of Honor/archive2. It really doesn't look to be in that bad of shape to me, and I'm surprised no one is able to take on the work to salvage this star. Or at least let us know if it's so bad it needs to be defeatured. Is there no one here who has a minute to spare to help keep an important FA on board? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Title says it all. Just a note to inform interested parties in our project that there is currently an RM on Talk:Communist Romania. The proposed new title is Socialist Republic of Romania. -- Director ( talk) 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to know if anyone has suggestions on what is needed to an article about a war become a FA, beyond the FA requisites, of course. Does it need an overview on all sides' armies, equipment, tactics, etc?? Or just the story of the war is enough? Any other idea? Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of Ohio class submarines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 08:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for John Balmer 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) 13:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Battle of Arawe 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! Nick-D ( talk) 04:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As a quick reminder, voting for the military historian of the year award will close in just over 50 minutes. Please vote now if you haven't already done so! Nick-D ( talk) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)