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 question...do pages on the designers of military aircraft, who never served in the military themselves, qualify as part of the project? I'd think so, but I want to be sure in case I'm wrong. ;) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 23:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone here knew of any reliable source(s) on Benton Air Force Station? It was in Colley Township, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania in the US, within the northern part of Ricketts Glen State Park, which we are trying to get to FA. My guess is that there would be a few sentences on the station in the park's article (plus a few more on Red Rock Job Corps, which is on the site now, and the FAA radar installation there now). Our only sources on the station so far are the USGS GNIS entry and the USGS topographic map. I know it was a radar site established in the Second World War to watch for low flying aircraft approaching across the Atlantic Ocean. Any additional information / sources would be greatly appreciated. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ian made a comment about so few articles needing assessment. I was wondering the same thing. Is it that there are fewer new articles? Pr that we are keeping up with the assessments? Both? Does anyone have stats on these things? I've noticed Kumioko hasn't been around, and that may be part of the drop in numbers. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 00:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Raid at Cabanatuan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 03:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A new portal Portal:Terrorism is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Terrorism/archive1. I put a bit of work into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Franco-Mongol alliance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 11:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship 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! - MBK 004 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I see a number of new articles for various tactical missile squadrons. Was there ever a decision on whether that level of organization was notable.? DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
To achieve consensus here would be helpful. I've suggested a compromise which User:Recon.Army has rejected for now, saying he would like to hear from more editors. Benea ( talk) 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for William Ellis Newton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for CFM International CFM56 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! - MBK 004 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Army of the Danube order of battle; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A bot keeps adding a link to the German Wiki article of Wilhelm Borchert and Ernst Born. However the German articles are of different person's who just happen to have the same name. How do I stop this? I manually reverted but they keep coming back. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Long Range Desert Group is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have created the above, but I can't find anything on is, despite perusing all the books in my possession and all I could find on the internet. Is anyone able to expand on this supposed operation and check if it actually exists? SGGH ping! 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have just nominated this article for deletion as it appears that the war isn't actually taking place based on the references provided. Comments in the AfD would be most welcome here Nick-D ( talk) 02:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone feel like completing the specifications on the Churchill Crocodile? I'm not sure how similar the specs. are to the regular Churchill tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.68.131 ( talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Need "normalized" a Machine translation from the Russian wiki (text about Lieutenant Colonel ) -- UeArtemis ( talk) 18:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Russian Armed Forces
Appeared in Russia as a rank and position (deputy commander of the regiment) in the Royal army at the end of the XV - beginning of XVI century. In musketeer regiments usually L.colonels (often "despicable" origin) performed all the administrative functions of the musketeers head, appointed from among the nobles or boyars. In the XVII century and beginning of XVIII century, rank (rank) and P was called as polupolkovnik due to the fact that Lieutenant Colonel is usually in addition to other duties, commanded the second "half" of the regiment - back rows in the construction and reserves (before the introduction of the construction battalion of regular soldiers of regiments) .
Imperial period
Since the introduction of the Table of Ranks, and until its abolition in 1917 of any rank (rank) Lt. Col. VII belonged to the class and report cards prior to 1856 gave the right of hereditary nobility. In 1884, after the abolition of the rank of major in the Russian army all the majors (except for laid-off or tarnished his nefarious transgressions) were made to lieutenant colonel.
Soviet period
In the Red Army rank of lieutenant colonel for a long time simply absent. It appeared only in 1924 as a regular category K8 - "assistant commander of the regiment and his peers, which in 1935 with the introduction of personal titles were abolished. The very title of the newly introduced September 1, 1939 decision of the CEC and the CPC of the USSR № 2690 (Article 41-I Law on Universal Military Duty), which was announced by the order of the People's Commissar of Defense (NCB) № 226 of July 26, 1940, when it was first awarded , as the insignia were awarded former "colonel" (for three "sleepers" in their buttonholes). In the hierarchy of the military-political composition of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel was consistent with the title "Senior Battalion Commissar".
the text refers to the practice of Proprietorship (Inhaber). See Proprietor (Inhaber) for an article about the Habsburg practice (and Prussian, most of the German states). In France, the Proprietor was a Colonel, and usually had a chef de brigade, which would be a Lt. Colonel, who performed the administrative tasks. Eventually the chef might be promoted if the colonel was promoted to general. In the Habsburg armies, the appointment was for life, unless the officer was cashiered or quit. The translation of "despicable" would probably mean someone of common origins, or plebian. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand 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! - MBK 004 06:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 06:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody have information on this war? I'm looking for some now. I could use a little help. B-Machine ( talk) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC Gnevin ( talk) 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
There's presently a discussion of the neutrality of the Japanese prisoners of war in World War II article and its content which editors active in this project may, or may not, wish to comment on. Nick-D ( talk) 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Quebec (1775) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Horses in World War I 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! - MBK 004 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for William Ellis Newton 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) 04:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I have been involved in writing the article on Operation Crimp, a joint US-Australian operation in 1966 during the Vietnam War. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate any substantial US source material, particularly for the operations of the US 3rd Bde (not so much for the US 173rd Bde). Can someone with more knowledge and access to US material on the Vietnam War please have a look at the article and let me know if such material exists, and or add it themselves? The link to the GA review is here for information. Many thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 17:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The Marrua article has been nominated for deletion. It appears to be a Brazilian built military vehicle, so should fall under the remit of this WP. It needs work, (structure, refs) but should be salvageable. Mjroots ( talk) 06:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
(Not my proposal.) You guys use it, so you must have some comment to make, good or bad. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#A-class_articles - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, HMS Sea Robin (P267) has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 04:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Indiana (BB-1) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 09:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi everybody. Nominations for Good Article that fall under our scope are starting to pile up again—there are over 30 articles waiting to be reviewed. If you have the time, please take a look and see if there are any articles you can review. If would also be helpful if those who make regular nominations there take the time to review as well. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history) covers non stylistic issues such as notability and Categories can users here please have a look Gnevin ( talk) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this is apparently not going to be a localized issue, so lets start at the beginning so we can bring everyone up to speed at the same time.
As most of you are probably aware, our project has had a style guide for some time. It used to be located in the project's main page, however at the encouragement of a couple of editors we opened a discussion to formally have our style guide incorporated as part of the the wikipedia wide manual of style in 2007. The measure passed in November, at which point the MILMOS became a part of the MoS for all intents and purposes. This arrangement has been observed since then, but recently a handful of discussions have cropped up, beginning with a discussion on very specific MoS's, with the leading idea at the moment being to move all of the subject-specific MoS pages into a supplemental style guide that would have the same level of authority as the MoS proper. In addition to these points, question about non-stylistic guidelines hav been raised on the page ( WT:MILHIST#Issues with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history)), which has led to a suggestion that we split MILMOS into a style guide and a content guide (but potentially retaining a common talk page for both).
In light of the number of discussions concerning these issues its been decided to consolidate the information here to allow for project-wide feedback on these matters. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What if Wikipedia:Subject style guide was changed to be Wikipedia:Subject specific guide which would allow content from any of the sub categories in Category:Wikipedia_guidelines. Then the only change required here would be to mark each parts parent of master guideline? Gnevin ( talk) 18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've recently rewritten and upgraded the entire Larne gun-running article which had failed many Wiki guidelines and would like someone to independantly assess and class the article please. The article i believe meets many Wiki guidelines though does still have a issue as stated by me on its discussion page. Northern Star (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in Talk:The New York Times and the Holocaust#Assessing References. I have suggested some edits which have been reverted, so I would welcome comments from others to help form a consensus.
I originally posted an article on a tragic, but non-controversial topic in Holocaust studies: the New York Times policy during the period of the Second World War to minimize reports of the Holocaust. I relied on two resources: the New York Time’s apology in 2001, and the work of Dr. Laurel Leff.
The issue is not controversial among knowledgable people because the Times itself acknowledged its guilt fully and publicly in its 150th anniversary issue on November 14, 2001, 56 years after the end of the war. Under the title, “Turning Away from the Holocaust”, retired executive editor Max Frankel wrote that the Times knew the accuracy of the reports on Hitler’s persecution of the Jews and the Final Solution, but that from the beginning to the end, chose never to make it a lead story, or the exclusive topic of an editorial. “… to this day the failure .. to fasten upon Hitler's mad atrocities stirs the conscience of succeeding generations of reporters and editors.”
In listing the details of the Time’s policy to ‘bury’ the Holocaust, Frankel cited one outside resource: “No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times's leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year. The ordinary reader of its pages could hardly be blamed for failing to comprehend the enormity of the Nazis' crime. Laurel Leff...has been the most diligent independent student of The Times's Holocaust coverage and deftly summarized her findings last year in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics.”
Three people originally tried to delete the entire article. they have never made any contributions to an article on the holocaust or world war II, and are not really interested. they came over from the new york times page, where they try to prevent criticism of the Times. when they were voted down re deleting the New York Times and the Holocaust in its entirely, they have proceeded to gut it in place. i don't have any allies on this page. The administrator helping me on my talk page suggested I come here to say i would welcome comments from others. Cimicifugia ( talk) 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia
The featured article candidacy for Nimitz class aircraft carrier 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! - MBK 004 06:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As per WP:ICONDECORATION this image shouldn't be used in article templates. Any objects to removing it ? Gnevin ( talk) 14:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to use the template:
Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{ featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this wikiproject use IRC? I visited what I thought was the MilHist IRC channel but it was totally empty. Griffinofwales ( talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I was granted the founder right so we have an op, and everyone in this project (and outside!) is welcome to join! — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please cast their eyes at these two threads and resolve the issues noted? Griffinofwales ( talk) 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Indiana class battleship 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! - MBK 004 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Ordnance QF 18 pounder is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that User:ALR has been consistently reverting the inclusion of information about the play Deep Cut on the article Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, citing it as "popcruft". "Popcruft" is defined in WP:MILPOP as a "trivial appearance" or "unsupported speculation". The play is hardly that, as evidenced by the reliable sources which have been added to the article recently. DDM1 ( talk) 20:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Right. Given ALR's decision to declare that a consensus has been reached, does anyone else want to comment on all this? I believe I have given multiple significant examples of notability for the inclusion of information about this well-known and culturally significant production, which I will reiterate now below.
DDM1 ( talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that there's a new ACR: Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive. Comments would be much appreciated, thank you. JonCatalán (Talk) 22:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Action of 9 February 1799 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Posen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Operation Winter Storm 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! - MBK 004 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In 2005 or so the name of this article was changed to First Coalition. While there might need to be an article entitled First Coalition, the other articles on the sequence of the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars have similar titles: War of the Second Coalition, War of the Fifth Coalition, etc. The infobox is title War of the First Coalition, the battle box is also. Could someone figure out what to do? It's already been changed once, and someone has added a template I'm not familiar with to it, but I cannot figure out how to deal with this, and it should be done. will take an administrator. Does this need to be discussed, or can we just do it to make this article in line (at least in terms of its title, but not its quality) with the others? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have requested that the title Action of 17 February 1864 be changed to something more familiar, such as Sinking of USS Housatonic by CSS H. L. Hunley. Discussion is on the article talk page. PKKloeppel ( talk) 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at Xenobot Mk V, and thought that it would be good to have in the scope of our project, considering how many articles fall within our scope. I can start making a page of categories, and help would be good, but I want to make sure consensus exists. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(od)Do we have any idea how many articles this is likely to catch? EyeSerene talk 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just seen this on the BBC [1] Bletchley Park WWII archive to go online, will be worth keeping an eye on. May provide that missing link to some articles. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can some of the experts here take a look at Salvador Flores to determine notability, appropriateness of the prod, and clean up if it's notable? I'm not watching this page (MILHIST), so drop a line/tb on my talk page if necessary. tedder ( talk) 01:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was looking through all of the task forces and I noticed that there was no force for plainly recruiting new members for the project. I noticed that on one of the discussion pages that it was something for members to do. Does anyone know if there is a task force for this? Or is there a simple way to just invite new members? If not I would like to suggest making a task force specifically for this purpose. Tetobigbro ( talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. And how would would you suggest this gets done? Tetobigbro ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, its purpose would mainly be to look for some Wikipedians who seem like they could make great contributions to the project. A small group would search throughout Wikipedia for active users who show some promise of contributing to the project. The idea may be pointless, but it seemed like a good suggestion, and it is, of course, only a suggestion. Tetobigbro ( talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok and if you wouldn't mind telling me, how do you form a working group? I know how to make a task force, but are they the same thing or just an informal group of people? Tetobigbro talk 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. And to answer questions, it would focus on individuals, I planned on having the group be a main task force, so that it could cover all other working groups and task forces within this specific WikiProject. Tetobigbro talk 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well those are my two cents, what do others think LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 01:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It sounds great to me, I'm just lost and want to know what this suggestion has become. Tetobigbro talk 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok and where should I place the proposal? Back on this same section, a new section, or somewhere else completely? Tetobigbro talk 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
My proposal is to create a group of people that will invite wikipedians to join this wikiproject and the task forces of this wikiproject. The group would talk to people about joining this wikiproject and look for wikipedians who seem like they show some amount of promise. It would also look for new members to add so that they can be guided through our project. This would make more well-trained wikipedians and greatly increase the amount of members of this wikiproject. Tetobigbro talk 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So what was the decision of the outreach group? Tetobigbro talk 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've created the SS Almeria Lykes (1940) article. As she took part in Operation Pedestal it is likely she is mentioned in some of the many books on the subject. Assistance in further expanding the article is welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Ylee and I disagree on whether to use RADM, LTJG, etc. in Operation Petticoat. I can't persuade Ylee that this is reader-unfriendly. Could somebody else please weigh in? Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a proposal to create a WikiProject on Medieval Weaponry, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medieval Weaponry. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 01:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! - MBK 004 06:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys, the FAC for Victoria Cross recipient William Ellis Newton has had very little attention some two weeks after nominating; be great to get any sourcing/referencing issues shortly as I'll be travelling overseas in three days and internet access will be limited -- access to references even more so! The article has passed its ACR very recently so I'm hoping there won't be much if anything but it will need the reviews to get up for FA. If a few could stop by soon that'd be excellent... ;-) Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Editors on the page Trojan War are working on a proposal to reintroduce an infobox to the article, anyone interested in contributing to the discussions is welcome to comment on the article's talk page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for 3rd Bombay European Regiment is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Naval battles of the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.medalofhonor.com has been sourced in a number of articles. It was a listing of Medal of Honor awardees, but as of September 2009 the site is now occupied by the game. links ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher 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! - MBK 004 19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship/archive1 needs some attention.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
With recent improvements to the logic of the Portals this template is deprecated and I would like to recomnmend it for deletion. Before I do though I thought I would post it here and see if anyone had any opinion on it first. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia:Official names, should No. 1 Demolition Squadron be moved to Popski's Private Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The Helmut Lent article was featured article of day on 6 June 2010. Since this was also the anniversary of D-Day the article attracted many readers. On the talk page a discussion was initiated on whether Lent was a Nazi and Wackywace ( talk · contribs) took a firm position and stated he was a Nazi. My question here is what constitutes a Nazi in the English speaking community? My definition was always a member of the National Socialist Party. But maybe my definition is askew here. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi the Special Air Service article is going through a Good Article review here Talk:Special Air Service/GA1. As you can see it has been pointed out it is in need of a copy edit. A request has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests but they seem to have a back log at the moment. So any WP:MILHIST editor who could assist your help would be appreciated. Thanks -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently working through a number of old exhibits at Eastbourne Redoubt, which have been stored in storerooms for a while, and I'm trying to figure out where all of them go in the museum. I do this by using our MODES item database...but to use that I need to know what an object is to search for it! I have here next to me two shells, hollowed out after I assume having been fired. They're obviously fired from some sort of artillery piece, but that's about all I can figure out. There are a number of shells in the database, and so I need help in narrowing down what they are. Their dimensions are as follows: Height/length approx. 28.5cm/11.5 in, width at bottom 10.5cm/4in, width at height 9cm/3.5in. Can anyone help identify them? Skinny87 ( talk) 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of armed forces flags may be of interest. Ty 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors is holding their second Backlog Elimination Drive starting on July 1. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. -- Diannaa TALK 03:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a question posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_II_task_force#WWII-based_games asking whether games such as Call of Duty fall under the scope of milhist. It's a valid question, and I don't have a good answer for it. On one hand, the theme is the same, but on the other hand these games aren't really military simulators. This question applies to all of the task-forces, and to this WikiProject as a whole. Should most military video games be included? NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
These articles are often written to quite a high standard based on their own criteria. How would we expect them to change by being MILHIST tagged? More emphasis on the historical elements of the game? Will this bring conflict with other projects who currently "own" these articles? Monstrelet ( talk) 09:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for No. 6 Commando is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The Feature Article Candidacy of Battle of Valcour Island could use one or two more reviewers. Thanks for your participation! Magic ♪piano 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Operation Aquatint is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) 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) 07:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just AfD'd another one of these, this one... is this really notable? It needs quite the clean up regardless. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, the question of whether the PRC possesses today a nuclear triad has been raised; please see the article's Talk page if you are qualified in helping to answer the question. YLee ( talk) 18:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
A user has requested comments about the placement of images in the Infobox for Medal of Honor recipients here Template talk:Infobox military person. I have already made mine. -- Kumioko ( talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I generated this graph using data generated from Wikipedia article traffic statistics. It some that interestingly enough the number of view to the main page of MILHIST project has been on the decline over approximately the past two and a half years. To what degree this reflects actual participation in the project is hard to say as there could be a multitude of different reasons for this decline such as user familiarity with the project for example. However I though I might throw this information out there so that other users might view it as well and give their take on it. I thought this might spark a discussion. LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Charles Miller (US Army) seems to fail general notability criteria for military personnel - he doesn't seem to have done anything to warrant a WP article. The writings noted at the end are not published. Opinions?
Secondly, is
William Richardson (Continental Army officer) likely to be notable? The article is currently an unreferenced stub.
Gwinva (
talk) 02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Fort ships have very little coverage on Wikipedia. There were only 198 of them but none has an article on Wikipedia. The nearest we have is the article on the explosion of SS Fort Stikine. SS Fort Stikine is a redirect, which could be turned into an article. All the other ships need articles creating. Basic info on ships Fort A fo Fort J, Fort K to Fort S and Fort T to Fort Y is available from the Mariners website. Mjroots ( talk) 10:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Many editors are no doubt aware that the Wikipedia community has spent literally years agonising over the conflict between our open editing policy and the need to protect the content of Wikipedia from inappropriate editing - especially in the area of biographical articles.
A system designed to address this conflict—" Pending changes"—is scheduled to begin trial on 15 June 2010 (although this date could yet change). The Pending changes system is basically an additional level of page protection that permits most editing as normal, but queues certain edits until they are approved by a "Reviewer", at which point they become visible on the article.
A limited number of pages are being selected for the trial based on "ongoing vandalism on busy articles, breaking news, high profile BLPs/companies, low profile but vandalized or edit warred biographies (BLPs), persistent targets, long term protected pages, talk/user talk/project page disputes, non-article namespaces". It is likely that a number of our articles will be affected.
Under the current proposals, autoconfirmed users should be able to edit as normal but there may be edits on some articles that are awaiting approval from users with the new " Reviewer" user right. This has already been granted to a number of trusted editors and more will follow, but any editor in good standing with a decent edit history and sound grasp of Wikipedia's core editing policies who wishes to receive Reviewer rights can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer, or contact an administrator. The standards for granting the Reviewer right are similar to those required for rollback; for more information, see Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming_a_reviewer. EyeSerene talk 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Relevant AFD discussion, on a California lawyer and politician. Served in United States Air Force, in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Air Force. Rank of Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 12:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A member of the project, NativeForeigner, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of NativeForeigner's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. - MBK 004 02:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose than a working group be established for the purpose of creating a forum where discussion concerning how WikiProject Military History might be improved. This working group would focus on five core issues.
Well this is my proposal at the moment. What do others think of it? LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 04:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to the idea; it kind of takes me back to that time I suggested we name the logistics department the strategic development initiative :) Running the working group should be easy, and we can put something in the bugle to announce this to everyone. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Tangential discussions of aside, I have gone ahead and created the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank and have begun filling out the necessary group internal infrastructure and page content. Feel free to help out. LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe the page for Operation Michael may have been vandalized. The paragraph on March 9-29 (section 3.5) simply says "the front was quiet on that day." I can't seem to find the correct entry to undo it. Anyone want to help? Thanks.-- AtTheAbyss ( talk) 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how you guys at MILHIST call attention to worthy subjects for article improvement, but John A. Logan seems to be a pretty important person that you guys might want to get up to your own A-class standards.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry 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! - MBK 004 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Treaty of Ciudad Juárez 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! - MBK 004 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all
I have just done an extensive expansion to the BEF article and marked it as Start class.
Can someone have a quick look at it to make sure it is ok and meets standard as I am going word blind from editing for so long on it.
Thanks... Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at Xenobot Mk V, and thought that it would be good to have in the scope of our project, considering how many articles fall within our scope. I can start making a page of categories, and help would be good, but I want to make sure consensus exists. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(od)Do we have any idea how many articles this is likely to catch? EyeSerene talk 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite busy right now, but I'll have the list up fairly soon. I'm fairly impressed with the amount of articles it caught for wikiproject olympics... [3] NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Baden (1915) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 11:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Army of the Danube order of battle is up for review as a potential Featured List. It passed ACR here a couple weeks ago. Please feel free to visit and voice your opinion. auntieruth (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This portal is currently being considered for Featured Portal status. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Terrorism. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody please find data on Ndwandwe-Zulu War, Dominican Restoration War, and Anglo-Spanish War (1654)?
I'm the one who made this post. Come on, we have to find information on these articles including French intervention in Mexico. This place is supposed to make war articles better. Let's make them better. B-Machine ( talk) 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have opened the Featured List candidacy for the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton. There are currently no featured orders of battle for land battles; the only current featured orders of battle are for naval engagements. Your comments and participation are appreciated. Thanks! Magic ♪piano 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been a lot of controversy on Wikipedia over terms such as "terrorist" for various armed groups, prefering terms such as "militant". I've put together a category, Category:Religious paramilitary organizations to see if it's a workable solution to non-judgementally tie together armed non-state actors with a religious commonality/purpose. This could include some of the less-disputed "terrorist" groups, as well as "self-defense forces", "militias", etc. under an objective terminology. I'd appreciate any input, and if the cat name is solid some help populating it would also be great. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for No. 6 Commando; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
As part of a general tidy up and recategorisation on the Commons for the UK honours system, I have just finished sorting through all the VC recipients at Comm:Category:Victoria Cross recipients. I have separated out Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa into their own national sub-categories using the naming form 'Category:Victoria Cross recipients from XXX'. As far as I can tell I have got everyone, but if others would like to cast an eye to make sure, that would be appreciated.
I welcome any thoughts people may have as to whether they need to be further categorised by conflict.
I have also added categories for most of the UK decorations (any I have missed I will get to shortly), these take the form of 'Category:Recipients of the XXX' which better reflects the standard approach to category naming decorations and medals on the Commons (I didn't attempt to modify the VC naming format because it seemed well established). Whilst I have added the appropriate additional decoration categories to VC winners where I was able to spot them from the images, I didn't do a thorough cross-check against the Wikipedia main articles. If you are starting or maintaining military bios, please consider adding the appropriate additional categories to related imagery on the Commons. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Action of 17 February 1864 has been nominated to be renamed. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Indefatigable (1909) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) 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! - MBK 004 04:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all
I have further expanded the British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II) article. Eyeserene has already given it a going over prior to this latest expansion but I would appreciate if someone could check it now I have added some more detail to it.
The article has grown from 2,700 to 20,155 bytes so I am getting a bit blurry eyed and rather than chance missing simple things would appreciate somone giving it the once over before I start on the "Action" section
In particular the background section and the refs :¬)
thanks... Chaosdruid ( talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to get back into the swing of editing, but after a few failed attempts at writing a new article or finishing a few of my unfinished ones, I've contracted writers block; too fast too soon probably. But I think that something smaller might be easier - copy-editing, hunting down references from my library, spell-checking and reading through and so forth. Therefore, I'm opening this up to see if anyone needs a hand in those areas - I'm quite good at hunting down images from the IWM as well! Skinny87 ( talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
As it appears that the current result which is listed is edited to something else periodically I tried to start discussion on changing it from single word result into " see 'aftermath' and 'analysis' " so that wider or conflicting views of the issue could be properly handled and discussed as suggested in the guidelines of template infobox military conflict as it appears that current result is not such.
There was a discussion ongoing about the change but it appears that the person why was arguing against the change (seemingly part of milhist group) first decided to drop out from the discussion and then after couple of weeks silence when i made the discussed edit he immediately reverted it, demanded in the edit summary that a talk page consensus must be reached (though he himself had left the discussion - and there were apparently no others), made no talk page changes though demanding a discussion and left again (apparently).
I was suggested to 'draw wider attention to this article' in hopes of gaining consensus/resolution on the matter and as it is military history article this might be the place to ask for it. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The article right now discusses only the British, Canadian, and American company organization. It doesn't at all discuss the history of the military unit, which I think is rather lacking. I'm not sure if this is the place to request someone with expertise in military history to address this, but this supposed military history article is rather lacking in history. ;) RobertM525 ( talk) 03:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this edit. Think there would ever be a need to use the age templates to list in infoboxes the length of conflicts? Could use a "partial date" parameter for the ones where there are no exact months or days. Anyone? S.G.(GH) ping! 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You may want to update the FA counter at the main page, it is over 500 easily, check out http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Military history&quality=FA-Class . Sadads ( talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, project members. I recently became involved with the fairly recently created article Major John Pott (just from seeing it pop up on the Recent Changes page). Military matters are a bit out of my area of expertise, so I'd like some help. I'm concerned that the subject of the article doesn't meet the criteria listed for notability at WP:MILPEOPLE. Normally I would have left the article for someone with more knowledge, but several things about this article struck me. The first, and perhaps most telling, is that the user who created the page is the self-identified flimographer of a documentary about the subject of the article, or, more accurately, the subject's grandson who wrote a song about Major Pott. Which leads to the second problem--I feel that the article is more focused on the song/video/documentary than the subject himself. That is, I believe that the band itself, as well as the lead singer and likely even the song meet the notability criteria associated with musical acts/works, but that doesn't make the subject of the song itself notable. Thus, if the Major is determined to be notable, the article will need to be trimmed to keep those references minimal; however, I hesitate to do too much editing on that regard if the page doesn't meet notability guidelines in the first place. So, what I'd like is for someone from here to take a look at the page and see if what Major Pott is said to have done qualifies by itself under the WP:MILPEOPLE notability guidelines (in particular, see my final notes on the Talk page). Thank you very much in advance for your assistance. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) Not at home right now, but in a day or so I can look at my SAS post-war sources and see if he crops up significantly. Skinny87 ( talk) 20:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I present to you all this gallery of images of a mysterious rifle that was just donated to the museum this week. It's rusted to hell and back and only the metal remains, but the donor found it at the side of a field in France aftera farmer had dug it up and tossed it away. It was found in the Somme/Arromanche area of Northern France, but that is all we know. Any ideas in identifying even who used it, let alone what model/type it is, would be much appreciated. A barnstar will be awarded to anyone who can help. More photos can be taken and uploaded if required. Skinny87 ( talk) 11:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) I had a look close-up at the rifle, and I don't think it's a '98 - the trigger guard of that '98 example is square/rectangular, and ours is definitely rounded. There are also no signs of those extra bits on the '98 example, not even marks where they might have rotted off. Skinny87 ( talk) 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the past few months, I've noticed (and I'm sure you all have as well) that a number of milhist articles have been nominated for deletion in an AfD, only for the poor bewildered writer to come to the AfD and try and defend their work without knowing why it's been nominated. Often they only get the standard generic 'Your article is being deleted' notice on their talkpage, which is vague and very unhelpful to new users. Several times I've gone to their talkpages and given a more detailed explanation, and they've been most grateful, and I know several other users have done similar. As such, I've developed (with EyeSerene's help) a MilHist AfD template which we can copy into a users talkpage. The template is here, and I'd like to see what people think of it, and what improvements can be made before we use it. Skinny87 ( talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS Indiana (BB-1) 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! - MBK 004 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I am the author of the 295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA) and the web site 295th.com [7]. This page is currently up for deletion, which seems absolutely unwarranted. Yes, the page itself could use some re-work, but the story of this company is also important, regardless of them not being front-line soldiers. Why? These men supported the front line, they helped liberate the prisoners at Dachau, and the fact that they were a non-airborne company training at Camp Toccoa and also running Currahee Mountain should be enough to warrant it staying put! Please, visit the Wikipedia page, the 295th web site, and give your support. Thank you in advance. 295th ( talk) 21:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
For those who read the news often may have recently seen the secretive UKUSA Agreement declassified yesterday/today. The Wikipedia article is at UK–USA Security Agreement. I have made some updates, added links to the declassified documents, and also requested that the page be moved to a new name as used by government sources. I would appreciate help in digesting this news as I have little knowledge about this topic. Thanks! Arsonal ( talk) 03:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for ARA Moreno is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
A discussion thread has been started at Talk:1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa#Title regarding the title of the article (i.e., whether to use "Invasion of Goa" or "Annexation of Goa" in the title). If you are interested in the topic, please discuss the issue there. XavierGreen ( talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Operation Postmaster is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Siege of Godesberg (1583) 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! - MBK 004 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Military History team! Can you help me? I was doing some tidy/update work on the Thomas Neely VC article, and noticed that he was buried at Masnieres British Cementry, Marcoing. I can't find an article with that title, do we have one? A small cemetery, it was also the place where the ashes of Henry Tandey were scattered. More details here on the CWGC website Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I just came across the Category:Recipients of the Cross of Honor. Now I am wondering if there is any use for such a category. Essentially the Cross of Honor is the equivalent to the British War Medal, having been issued to anyone who fought on the German side in WWI. Frankly, I do not see a point in categorizing all German (and Austrian) WWI veterans who were considered worthy of wearing this medal (i.e. not Jewish nor Socialists/Communists). -- Dodo19 ( talk) 12:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, The FAC for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) (which I nominated) is languishing with relatively few votes and comments. Any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)/archive1 would be much appreciated. Nick-D ( talk) 09:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This portal is currently being considered for Featured Portal status. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Terrorism. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds ( talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Bombardment of Papeete 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! - MBK 004 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all
Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous that blaa is posting inbetween older posts requiring others to reply there and making it impossible to follow the thread of any "discussion" also I just noticed that he put words in the middle of a previous post ! [8]
Can someone clarify what the hell the position is on this - should we not simply put:
@persons name + Date + Quote at the bottom of the whole section?
I understand that there is a need for simple little posts to go inbetween - such as Trekphiler at 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC) when he was simply posting a small note rather than part of the discussion
Chaosdruid ( talk) 19:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
you: Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous that blaa is posting inbetween older posts requiring others to reply there and making it impossible to follow the thread of any "discussion" also I just noticed that he put words in the middle of a previous post ..... Can someone clarify what the hell the position is on this.. for me it sounds like unnessecary at all. Not to mention that another user started this posting in the middle and i only posted a response.... . Kindergarden inst insulting , at least not in german... I hope u admit that making an extra section to talk about blas posting in th middle is kinde kindergarden, isnt it? Blablaaa ( talk) 22:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
and this Kindergarden ? and so the insults start again is also a bit "kindergarden" :-) . Dont overreact . That u got edit conflict because of my posts is not good. So i apologize for posting in the middle where u cant find it. I was also a bit confused when trek responded, but thought i will post below with enough ":::" ... Blablaaa ( talk) 22:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Midshipman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to bottom out his military experiences? The lead states that he was in combat in 'Nam as a US infantryman, the prose says he was a teacher there and a wiper on a Merchant Marine ship. The article on Platoon states he was basing it on his infantry experiences. There has been a cock up somewhere.... S.G.(GH) ping! 11:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Indian Air Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Siege of Godesberg FAC could use more reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This FAC needs more reviewers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion about moving Gunpowder, which presently covers historical potassium nitrate gunpowder, to Black powder and making Gunpowder a disambiguation page for black powder and modern gunpowder. Any comments are welcome, and should be made at Talk:Gunpowder#Requested move. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Could one of you people from across the pond possibly look over this article? I have no idea where the Mississippi flows in relation to Columbus, Tennessee, Cairo and so on. I think some of the disambiguation links may be a bit off and the river geography a little nonsensical. It's on the main page for a DYK today so someone is gonna notice that I know not my American geography! Long live the Queen! :D S.G.(GH) ping! 11:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just popped by the assessments section and saw the huge backlog. Someone has raised hundreds (literally) of USAF related articles. I wouldn't even know if these were notable, let alone assess them, but I'm sure someone here has the skills and knowledge to help the regulars Monstrelet ( talk) 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A member of the project, White Shadows, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of White Shadows's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. - MBK 004 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Two questions which sort of follow on from earlier discussions on computer games.
I would be happy to take the other part of question to the think tank but can't find the link on this page or the main project page - could someone enlighten me? Thanks Monstrelet ( talk) 07:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Moved to "Polular culture in milhist articles" section below. EyeSerene talk 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please check the article de:Schlacht bei Warburg which has been reworked recently and which was qualified excellent.-- Warboerde ( talk) 08:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out this resource: http://gallica.bnf.fr - it contains an extensive gallery of French PD images, including quite a lot of military ones! Regards, The Land ( talk) 12:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any task force dealing with war crimes and atrociites during World War 2? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm working up some stubs, translating the ledes and infoboxes (many of which have pix) from the es.wiki articles from Category:Batallas de la Guerra del Chaco, covering battles of the Chaco War, a war fought between Paraguay and Bolivia in the early 1930s. If there are any Spanish-speaking editors who want to help expand the articles with the remainder of text from es.wiki, that would be great. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 07:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There's currently an effort underway to set up a long-term collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution; since we cover some of the topics that would be involved, I'm wondering whether there is any interest in the project for taking part in the collaboration efforts?
A couple of topics we should consider:
Any comments on these or any other related issues would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Broken out from "War and popular culture queries" above. EyeSerene talk 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
At present, AFAIK, the project's guidance on popular culture articles is restricted to a paragraph under category 8 of what the project covers. The main thrust of this is about historical content of the cultural product (book, film etc.) There isn't an article guide or a specific notability guide. So two questions
I wonder if anyone could advise? This article self contradicts in terms of casualties. I suppose that isn't too surprising as neither side wants to exagerate own losses. I can't find any non commercial online sources let alone an authoritive one but note that the German, French and English versions also differ. See Talk:Battle of Smolensk (1812). Any suggestions on this -and getting consistency across different versions. Thanks in advance JRPG ( talk) 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga 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! - MBK 004 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Westfalen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
User User:Stor stark7 started a thread re:Rudiger Overmans on my talk page, I moved his comments and my replies to Talk:World War II casualties Other editors need to get involved.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I ran across this whilst cleaning out WP:UNCAT, and the concept is somewhat interesting. Worth keeping and expanding, listify, or just delete? I do have a Speedy Rename request in at WP:CFD to fix the capitalisation issue. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Battle of Yarmouk 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! - MBK 004 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is currently underway at Talk:Canadian Forces#Maritime Command, or Canadian Forces Maritime Command regarding the use of "Canadian Forces" in the article titles of the Canadian Forces Air Command, Canadian Forces Land Force Command, and Canadian Forces Maritime Command articles. Any input from the projerct would be welcome, whatever your views on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Russian battleship Slava 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! - MBK 004 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just reblocked User:Rivenburg, who was blocked back in 2007 for strongly biased editing of Michel Thomas. Ultimately, his block was reviewed, and was reduced to a ban on editing that specific article (talk page editing permitted). He has recently returned and edited the article using the Rivenburg account; however, a review of the article's history compared with available checkuser data strongly indicates that he has continued editing while logged out for much of the time of his topic ban.
This article needs review by people with some knowledge of the historical period involved, and I will cross-post this to the Polish and Military History wikiprojects; however, in the interim, it would be very helpful if a few folks would add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye out for further biased logged-out edits. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 06:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Plassey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for FN P90 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for ARA Moreno; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Forts in the United States contains many different fort articles in its subcategories. But there is an unanswered question. What should actually be included in this category? Just forts that were actually used for combat defense? Army facilities having schools or training areas but not used in combat? Anything named a 'fort'? Also things named camps used by ground forces? Only Army facilities, but not U.S. Marines and so on? Hmains ( talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed {{ US Cavalry}} being added to articles, and {{ US Infantry}} has been around for a while. These templates go under the main infobox to link to numerically previous or next divisions or regiments. The problem is that this creates an artificial sense of order— there is no particular precedence based on numeric designation. For example, 3rd Cavalry Division (United States) links next to 15th Cavalry Division (United States), which then links next to 21st Cavalry Division (United States). This also illustrates that articles are missing for those historical divisions.
If we really need some navigation aid for these articles, then it should be a standard navbox at the bottom of the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Rivadavia class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 06:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1 needs more reviewers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Acra (fortress) 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! - MBK 004 06:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Further to discussions here and elsewhere, the coordinators would like to put a proposal to our members:
The A-Class review for Battle of P'ohang-dong is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be hitting a stalemate Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_15#Category:Civil_affairs_units_and_formations_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps, please comment Sadads ( talk) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for SMS König 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! - MBK 004 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Citadel of Arbil is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have initiated a conversation about a suggested change to the way we display the BLP banner on article talk pages at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages. Please take some time and leave a comment about this suggestion. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a " tactical victory". Blablaaa ( talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Remaining neutral for the moment (until I've fully understood this chat), could I please ask everyone to keep their comments civil and constructive (here and on related threads). This discussion bears all the hallmarks of descending into a bitter battle - totally unnecessarily in my opinion. Blablaaa, I appreciate that English isn't your first language (apologies if I'm wrong on that) but comments like "what u simply dont understand" and "U dont understand tactical u are unskilled" come across as fairly insulting, and you are in danger of destroying any credibility your argument might have. Cheers, Ranger Steve ( talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just time for a quickie and two points:
PLease do not edit your posts after people have replied nor insert between other posts. Your last post was not made before mine at 23:55 it was after my post of 23:51 (UTC) (which you managed to remove the time stamp from !!) I have corrected the order... Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It may be that some alteration is needed then as the article states nothing about only capturing the north of the town and the bridgeheads:
"...drew up an offensive with two goals: to capture Caen and to prevent a large scale redeployment of German forces from the Anglo-Canadian sector to the American front." and "...he sought control of Bourguébus and the commanding high ground to the south."
Bourguébus is around 5 miles south of the centre of Caen, and two miles outside its southern boundary. I do not think that you are correct in your last statemnt according to the article.
It seems to me that neither of these objectives were fulfilled so it would appear that the operation was not a success at all.
THe article states that the operation failed to draw german forces away from the american front and it also says that "mid-afternoon on 9 July, Operation Charnwood was over" with only the northern half of Caen being taken.
It may be possible to say that securing the northern half led the germans to withdraw more quickly but the eventual taking of Caen in August was surely down to operations Goodwood and Jupiter?
Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of a mouthful lol but yup :¬) Sorry but it's an FA - I'm not normally that picky... Chaosdruid ( talk) 09:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
is somebody willing to explain in 1 sentence what he thinks my problem is. Rethinking the whole problem iam not ready to accept that the people here are not able to understand the in my opinion very obvious mistake. So it is now high likly that my words are not wisly chooses. So please can someone explain to me what he thinks what i mean. if he understood what i mean i will quit the discussion and "accept" that their is no support for my opinion, while iam 95% sure that iam correct. So show your good faith now Blablaaa ( talk) 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
i followed the link of ranger steve and i think this is exactly what i mean, two correct facts are put in one sentence to imply a correlation. Blablaaa ( talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the first, sure was the 16 LWFD defeated , that also not the point and only a part of charnwood. It also reflects not the cost of the operation. The statement is claiming nothing near the statement in the lead it claims it was a hard won victory. I also want to highlight that the 75% are 800 men, because the 75% sound so "extreme". To the second, hes claiming the allied took cean and reports the casualties of 16 LWFD, also no correlation. I also want to highlight that this is only a part of charnwood. To the 3rd that simply strategic when german losses slighlty lower than allied ( like they did on charnwood ) its a strategic problem for german , this is far from being relevant for the tactical scale. All your statements dont take the 12 ss inot consideration which inflicted very heavy casualties on the allied. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe u think about the following. An example, u have only the fact a battle took place and party X lost 3500 and party Y lost +2000. What do u think who won at the tactical scale ? Party x? Nope , no historian will think this. A tactical victory is in general seen as inflicting more casualties ( or more valuedamage ), this is a very "simple" describition but fits in general. Now u get more facts like caputred ground etc and now u hear; it is considered a tactical victory for party x. Would u now assume the casualties of party Y were a reason for the tactical outcome ? Nope, no historian would claim this. Thats why u find no historian ( hereby i want to point at the fact that u quote stories of participating soldiers and officers ) claiming this, thats why enigma , eyeseren and so on dont take the 1 minute and type the quote of a historian into the editbox. Nobody brings the quote. Nobody silence me with bringing the quote. The only thing we have are german casualties ( far lower than allied ) and the tactical outcome. And a statement which is wp:synth, maybe this helps understanding the issue finally. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I’ll probably regret getting involved in this, but here goes…
As I understand it, Blablaa believes that assertion A (that the Germans suffered heavy casualties), assertion B (that north Caen was captured) and assertion C (that it was a tactical victory) are all fine (sourced to reliable historians etc…). However, he feels that the wording of the line currently in the lead (“With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success.”) is a case of synth (or thereabouts), because it isn’t directly explained in the article’s analysis section, nor backed up by a reliable quote. Have I got that right Blablaa?
I think that if this was all there was to it, I wouldn’t really question the line too hard. While the German losses (A) alone might not constitute a tactical victory (being lower than the Allied), the other half of the sentence (the capture of northern Caen (B)) apparently did (I’m assuming you agree with that as well Blablaa). If the capture of Caen made it a tactical victory (B = C), then the large losses sustained by the Germans (lower than the Allies or not) only helps to reinforce that victory (B (& A) still = C).
On the flip side, I’m not too keen on the whole use of the term tactical. The articles Victory and Tactical victory don’t really match up well and neither are particularly well sourced. Could someone explain or improve the tactical article for the benefit of someone like me, who knows nothing of war or military manoeuvres? Unfortunately all of my books seem to refuse to do so and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of respectable authors aren’t 100% sure themselves!
As it is, the word tactical only appears three times in the Charnwood article (twice in the infobox and once in the lead). I would very much like to see the phrase used in the Analysis section as well, and be sourced. It must be said that Beevor doesn’t use the term tactical on p. 273, and yet the same reference is used in the infobox to support tactical victory as is used in analysis to describe partial success. I’m afraid I don’t have D’Este, so I can’t comment on that one.
So, is it original research for us to assume or infer the result of “tactical victory” from the main outcomes of a battle, when those words aren’t actually used by historians? I don’t know personally, but I think that would be a far more worthwhile conversation than this one. It does strike me that sometimes an article seems to use a fairly standard term in order to describe a rather unorthodox result for the sake of a tidy infobox (I am not pointing any fingers here, it is merely something I’ve noticed occasionally when battles far more complicated than this example seem to be so simply described in the box). Equally, sometimes an article uses a relatively convoluted description that isn’t actually used by any of the reliable sources in the article’s bibliography (I could use Operation Market Garden as an example here). I personally believe we should only use terms directly reference-able to reliable sources. This will inevitably lead to more complicated infoboxes on some articles (Charnwood being one), but it has to be verifiability over truth as always.
However, this is only my take on it, and I welcome some patient discussion about how much we can infer a result when summarising an article in the lead and infobox. In this instance, Charnwood is described as a tactical offensive, so its result would (theoretically) be a tactical victory/defeat. It might also be that a partial victory and tactical success are pretty much the same thing in military circles. If this is the way things go though, I think we need to really spruce up the relevant victory articles, and that way our summaries are directly explainable.
I’ve read this and the 3 or 4 related threads over the course of nearly 2 days, so apologies if I’ve got this quite wrong (please correct me accordingly!). Cheers, Ranger Steve ( talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Eyeseren u said many times u understand my point but than u say things like It's arguable that casualties should come under 'strategic' rather than 'tactical' because many historians support the idea that Montgomery's strategic aim was to draw down the German forces to the point where a breakout was inevitable (which was what eventually happened) , seeming u dont completly get tactical outcome , the tactical outcome is nothing else than battle performanc, the aims of the parties are pretty irrelevant. if montgomeries aim was to destroy 10 panzers and he losses 100 doing this he fulfilled his objectives but had a tactical defeat from a neutral point of view. I want to raise another issue maybe u and enigma thing about, why we have wasted 3 three days instead of changing the statement to something better? u thinkk the recent statement is perfect and we cant find a better? even when u think iam not really correct why not changing the sentence to another wording. I also want u to look at charnwood talk and who started bringing aggressiv attitude into the discussion. The new statement sounds not optimal in my opinion and for somebody with a good understand of warfare it sounds contradicting that it was a tactical with german heavy casaualties and despite aliied casualties. It can not be a tactical victory with german causltias and despite allies it can only be a tactical victory despite allied casualties and with allied ground gains. And that is indeed the correct version like i explainded above. I also want to highlight since we recognized that no historian claims this correlcation and so we cant find any quote supporting the statement ( i claimed this from the very beginning ) , now u say it needs no citiation, to avoid wp:burden. First u and enigma said its completly sourced since we know it is absolutly not, u claim it now needs no sitiation. Without trying to push u in a corner, maybe we should simply search a new sentence which is better than the old and satisfiing for all. what do u think ? Blablaaa ( talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I support TheLand here. I have read numerous discussions about trying to simplify very complex, often historically differing accounts', views on various outcomes of battles which go over and over disagreements merely to come up with an infobox result. The result is enormous amounts of wasted time. EyeSerene, is it plausible to delete the results section from the battle infobox? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The charnwood article still has OR in the lead with an statement which contraticts military logic and which is still unsources. Can someone change it now ? Correlation between allied sucess and german casualties was never claimed by any historian. please change it now and search for a better statement. The recent sentence is even worse than the old because u cant win a battle with german casualties and despite allied casualties. The sentence is weird now. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That nobody respondes to the infobox issue shows that nobody wants to take position for the status quo, because its bad. But if i would start changing it i would be reverted. So many people have opinions to topics where they lack the knowledge to participate on a academic level. But the infobox issue is so obivous allied bias that nobody wants to risk to get himself attackable. The best option is to wait until blabla shuts his mouth... . Thats an easy way to avoid changes. Ignore the guy who moans and revert him if he tries to change the status quo. And then use his reputation to slander his points. Blablaaa ( talk) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
the perfect prove for my opinion is that u ignored the infobox issue but immediatly came back to dicuss me and my opinions. thats so obvious. Blablaaa ( talk) 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
your premise is that enigma and eyeseren want to think about my concerns and handle them as real concerns rather than attempts to disrupt wiki. Your premise is wrong so are your conclusion. sorry... Blablaaa ( talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
addressing ranges question for my suggestion: here my idea "Despite I Corp's losses, operation charnwood became a tactical sucess with the capture of northern Cean." this summarizes the article better than the old. allied had much higher losses but achieved victory with the caputre of northcean Blablaaa ( talk) 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I am completely uninvolved in the discussion above, and to be honest couldn't care less who is right or wrong, but I find this editor's language to be uncivil, offensive and unjustified. For those that haven't followed the discussion, I quote from the thread above:
FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Since when have we tolerated such language, especially from an editor with 5 previous blocks? Are we all so gutless now following the previous episode that we allow this behaviour to go unsanctioned? It seems that way... (still waiting for his mate Caden to chime in and award him another Barnstar).
Bloody bad show all round. Why wasn't this reverted immediately and a block applied? The apology is hollow at best until the comments are removed by the editor in question, and quite frankly he is still deserving of at least a 24-hour block. Perhaps only Nick-D had the stomach to do it, but then we saw where that got him didn't we? His integrity unfairly called into question... Disgusted. Anotherclown ( talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The infoboxes are a general problem in my opinion. Maybe here is the correct place now to raise this issue. If we look normandy we see that all german units for example, are listed in the strength section. The strength section has the task to give the reader an idea of strenghths this means he wants to compare the participating infantry tanks planes etc. But on normandy we get the funny resultes that german units which were battalion size are counted as full divisions in the box, this applies for nearly every battle. German units never get real replacements. This meant 3 german division against 3 allied division in august 44 meant mabye 4:1 infantry and 5:1 in tanks. When the reader gets the counted units in the box he will always assume they are equall strengths. This is nothing else than fooling i think. I raised this problem already but i was ignored. Now we get the next problem. when 2800 bombers and other aircraft take part in an allied operation they are never mentioned in the box, when i ask why i get the answer : " because we dont know german aircraft", the simple reason that we dont know how much german aircraft participated, is that there were 20 or something like this. why not mentioning the 2800 aircraft? same for artillery. When a german battalion sized unit is listed as full division , then i wonder that 2800 aircraft are not mentioned. The infobox on normandy article is so useless its persuades the reader some kind of equality in strenght which is wrong (there are more problems but this is the most obvious for me). Please take a look at any normandy article its everywhere. Best example was verriers ridge. 3 days before this battle, the charnwood article said the 12 SS has battalion size now and on the next article the 12 SS is again listed as full Panzerdivision in the strenght section. Thats a simple lie, isnt it? I raised the issue but got no answer, i changed it now. The strenght section is for comparing strenghtes and if the division are very unequal in strange than u cant put them in the box. thats undisputable. My idea: use the infobox only for clear facts. Dont imply something . If german strenght isnt availabe than dont count any battlaion which took part as full division!!! I want also to give some input , on german wiki all new featured articles for battle in ww2 no longer have an infobox please take a look at cholm or wjasma-brijansk for example. On german wiki they came to the conclusion that for battles in ww2 its pretty useless to use an infobox which is so easy to manipulate. ( strength section on normany for example). All relevant issues are detailed explained in the article. Blablaaa ( talk) 19:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
i ask u one question please answer with yes or no. are u aware of the fact that on normandy articles, counting divisions will nearly always imply the reader an untrue picture about the strength relation ? please yes or no
Blablaaa (
talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
While i claim german units are understrength and you know this is anbsolutly correct u claim this is speculation to undermine my point. No search for consense in my opinion.... . Lets wait for other editors. If u really claim it is speculation to claim german panzerdivisions in normandy were understrenght compared to allied than i dont know. You are complete aware of this fact but you call it speculation.... . I wait for other editors.
Blablaaa (
talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
enigma: "No, because i believe the readers are smart enough to glance the rest of the article" , ok this means you know the figures are misleading but u claim the reader will read the article and see how misleading they are LoL. Sorry but.... Blablaaa ( talk) 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
enigma: "its clear as day what i called speculation" yes u call specualtion that allied divisions had more menpower which is actually well known and you know it 2 but you cant admit because it would immediatly proove your intention. THats why i think you dont search for consense. U really dispute the fact that german divisions were smaller in size then the allied, that u dispute this shows clearly what your intention is, doesnt it? the infoboxes are misleading... please lets find a better solution Blablaaa ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering you have argued that counting the divisions is so wrong, but counting the regiments/brigades and battalions is much more precise; am sure you would agree that would still not tell you how many men were involved, would not answer the question of how under strength these formations were, nor the difference in their organisation i.e. nothing changed the same "problem" remainds. Likewise it’s essentially the same problem that arrives when stating the total number of people ala the Battle of France – it does not tell you anything about organisation, deployment, how many men were involved, etc. All methods would still require the reader to look at the article to gain a full understanding; a stright up comparison is irrlevent on a modern battlefield however at least the infobox allows the reader to gain a quick understanding of roughly what forces were put into the battle - a division is still a division, a battalion a battalion regardless of what side, each side organised differently. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
i also want to highlight that my "failure" to assume a british regiments is equal to a german regiment, illustrates in a funny way that people in general will always think one german panzervision equals a british if they are counted in the box. Thats why people are misleaded with quantity of units particulary in normandy where german divisions were sometimes "battalionsized units". Blablaaa ( talk) 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I also want to highlight, that a historian who says "this three german divisions took part" doenst say german had the strenght of 3 full panzerdivisions but this is exactly what the strenght section in the box claims. So please finally stop claiming this is sourced by historians. No historian whould seriously claim german had 7 full divisions !!! if u claim any historian said this than please give quote! You will find none... Blablaaa ( talk) 20:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I must confess I am astounded by the ridiculous direction this issue has taken. Blablaa, I’m afraid I give in on trying to help you. I do strongly recommend you read my posts once more before you fly of the handle again. I didn’t “preffered to explain my point doesnt work instead of explaining the infobox now doenst work.” These are two very different things and I’m not going to explain it to you again. I have not anywhere looked for weak spots in your edits or attacked you. So get over it.
As for “mit zweierlei Maß messen”, the phrase you’re looking for is “double standards”. Well, I have tried as hard as possible to remain neutral on these threads, so perhaps unsurprisingly I struggle to find anything in my posts above that comes across as “moaning about [your] alleged wrong behaviour”. In fact I think I’ve pretty much ignored a lot of fairly risqué behaviour on your part, and a few personal attacks against others and myself. Equally I have ‘ignored’ what you describe as proof that people try to manoeuvre against you, because a) I’m trying to remain neutral, b) I personally haven’t been manoeuvring at all, which I would have thought is quite obvious, and c) as I‘ve already explained before, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Quite frankly I couldn’t care less if Enigma did ‘lie’ in his summary of a totally different discussion because it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the issue we are discussing here, which is about result sections and strengths in infoboxes. Enigma hasn’t lied about anything to do with this subject as far as I can see, and I’m not going to go out of my way to investigate where he might have said something else about something totally different once upon a time on a 60 comment long talk page I know nothing about. Seriously, even if he did lie, what does it have to do with the result sections of infoboxes? And even then, if I did suddenly start to care in some effort to prolong this debate and assist its inevitable descent into a bitching match, shall I suddenly start caring about your attitude in all this as well? The insults and expletives? The endless insinuations about people’s motives and suggestions of anti-German bias? The spelling? Do you really think that seizing upon an editor’s one possible impropriety totally absolves you of any? I don’t care. Like I said, I’m not here to mediate “he said – she said” spats, all I’ve been trying to do is reach a reasonable compromise on this subject and get a positive outcome. In order to do that I’ve tried very hard to remain neutral and remain focussed on the point of this discussion instead of getting sidetracked.
Unfortunately, you seem unable to recognise that. Given your attitude and rants above, I can’t conclude you are here for the same purpose as me; you appear to be a little too agenda driven, are too suspicious of people’s motives and are unwilling to engage in reasonable debate or compromise. It appears that unless people agree with you 100% then you just conclude that they are against you and soon incur ‘your wrath’. I have no time for that sort of discussion so I’m disengaging now. Good luck to anyone who has the patience to deal with this. I do think there might be something to be gained from further discussion on the subject, but I don’t have the inclination to waste my time anymore. Ranger Steve ( talk) 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, folks, let's all get back on track here and discuss the content of the articles, not the other editors involved in this debate. I see two substantive issues being discussed here:
Comments on these are welcome; if there are other matters that need to be examined, comments on those are welcome too.
What is not welcome here, however, are attacks on other contributors. This means, among other things: no insults, no accusations about other editors being liars, and no snide insinuations about the motives of anyone participating here.
There is a constructive debate to be had here about how we can improve the encyclopedia; let's not let it descend into incivility and mere bickering. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
slater: Then we can't use any level of formation, so what is your solutionn? . In general historians have reported strengths so we simply take this numbers to compare strengths. In normandy this doesnt work because german units were simply a bit disorganized. My simple solution is Write unknonw !! german strength is unknown so write unknown. We know which units participated so we can name them in the article. The infobox ( which is bad in general in my opinion ) wants to compare strengths, but we dont have german strength so we cant compare the strength thats it. To be honest the only thing we know for a fact that german deployed less troops. Iam pretty sure multiple surces can be find for this. A possiblity would be to write the allied numbers and for german "less" this would be correct and a hard fact but i guess nobody wants this. Thats everything to compare. Regarding the comparison of armoured divisions, german armoured division at max were bigger than allied ( i guess ) so even if both were at max they should not be used in the infobox because this now would also draw a wrong picture. Blablaaa ( talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Blablaaa, maybe it would be helpful for you to find out if anyone else thinks the infoboxes are misleading? You're investing an awful lot of time and energy in this, but I think you need to show that (a) you've identified a genuine problem, and (b) there's a consensus to fix it. EyeSerene talk 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
your 4th point would be an improvement. I still prefer "unkown further details" or numbers for allied and "less" for german with " further details" . Your post was one of the most valuable until now. Blablaaa ( talk) 05:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I see bad status quo maintained. And battalion sized units are still listed as full panzer divisions to mislead any reader. Congratulations MILHIST Blablaaa ( talk) 01:58, 18 July 2010 (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 question...do pages on the designers of military aircraft, who never served in the military themselves, qualify as part of the project? I'd think so, but I want to be sure in case I'm wrong. ;) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 23:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone here knew of any reliable source(s) on Benton Air Force Station? It was in Colley Township, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania in the US, within the northern part of Ricketts Glen State Park, which we are trying to get to FA. My guess is that there would be a few sentences on the station in the park's article (plus a few more on Red Rock Job Corps, which is on the site now, and the FAA radar installation there now). Our only sources on the station so far are the USGS GNIS entry and the USGS topographic map. I know it was a radar site established in the Second World War to watch for low flying aircraft approaching across the Atlantic Ocean. Any additional information / sources would be greatly appreciated. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ian made a comment about so few articles needing assessment. I was wondering the same thing. Is it that there are fewer new articles? Pr that we are keeping up with the assessments? Both? Does anyone have stats on these things? I've noticed Kumioko hasn't been around, and that may be part of the drop in numbers. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 00:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Raid at Cabanatuan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 03:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A new portal Portal:Terrorism is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Terrorism/archive1. I put a bit of work into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Franco-Mongol alliance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 11:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship 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! - MBK 004 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I see a number of new articles for various tactical missile squadrons. Was there ever a decision on whether that level of organization was notable.? DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
To achieve consensus here would be helpful. I've suggested a compromise which User:Recon.Army has rejected for now, saying he would like to hear from more editors. Benea ( talk) 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for William Ellis Newton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for CFM International CFM56 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! - MBK 004 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Army of the Danube order of battle; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A bot keeps adding a link to the German Wiki article of Wilhelm Borchert and Ernst Born. However the German articles are of different person's who just happen to have the same name. How do I stop this? I manually reverted but they keep coming back. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Long Range Desert Group is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have created the above, but I can't find anything on is, despite perusing all the books in my possession and all I could find on the internet. Is anyone able to expand on this supposed operation and check if it actually exists? SGGH ping! 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have just nominated this article for deletion as it appears that the war isn't actually taking place based on the references provided. Comments in the AfD would be most welcome here Nick-D ( talk) 02:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone feel like completing the specifications on the Churchill Crocodile? I'm not sure how similar the specs. are to the regular Churchill tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.68.131 ( talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Need "normalized" a Machine translation from the Russian wiki (text about Lieutenant Colonel ) -- UeArtemis ( talk) 18:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Russian Armed Forces
Appeared in Russia as a rank and position (deputy commander of the regiment) in the Royal army at the end of the XV - beginning of XVI century. In musketeer regiments usually L.colonels (often "despicable" origin) performed all the administrative functions of the musketeers head, appointed from among the nobles or boyars. In the XVII century and beginning of XVIII century, rank (rank) and P was called as polupolkovnik due to the fact that Lieutenant Colonel is usually in addition to other duties, commanded the second "half" of the regiment - back rows in the construction and reserves (before the introduction of the construction battalion of regular soldiers of regiments) .
Imperial period
Since the introduction of the Table of Ranks, and until its abolition in 1917 of any rank (rank) Lt. Col. VII belonged to the class and report cards prior to 1856 gave the right of hereditary nobility. In 1884, after the abolition of the rank of major in the Russian army all the majors (except for laid-off or tarnished his nefarious transgressions) were made to lieutenant colonel.
Soviet period
In the Red Army rank of lieutenant colonel for a long time simply absent. It appeared only in 1924 as a regular category K8 - "assistant commander of the regiment and his peers, which in 1935 with the introduction of personal titles were abolished. The very title of the newly introduced September 1, 1939 decision of the CEC and the CPC of the USSR № 2690 (Article 41-I Law on Universal Military Duty), which was announced by the order of the People's Commissar of Defense (NCB) № 226 of July 26, 1940, when it was first awarded , as the insignia were awarded former "colonel" (for three "sleepers" in their buttonholes). In the hierarchy of the military-political composition of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel was consistent with the title "Senior Battalion Commissar".
the text refers to the practice of Proprietorship (Inhaber). See Proprietor (Inhaber) for an article about the Habsburg practice (and Prussian, most of the German states). In France, the Proprietor was a Colonel, and usually had a chef de brigade, which would be a Lt. Colonel, who performed the administrative tasks. Eventually the chef might be promoted if the colonel was promoted to general. In the Habsburg armies, the appointment was for life, unless the officer was cashiered or quit. The translation of "despicable" would probably mean someone of common origins, or plebian. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand 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! - MBK 004 06:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 06:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody have information on this war? I'm looking for some now. I could use a little help. B-Machine ( talk) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC Gnevin ( talk) 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
There's presently a discussion of the neutrality of the Japanese prisoners of war in World War II article and its content which editors active in this project may, or may not, wish to comment on. Nick-D ( talk) 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Quebec (1775) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Horses in World War I 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! - MBK 004 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for William Ellis Newton 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) 04:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I have been involved in writing the article on Operation Crimp, a joint US-Australian operation in 1966 during the Vietnam War. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate any substantial US source material, particularly for the operations of the US 3rd Bde (not so much for the US 173rd Bde). Can someone with more knowledge and access to US material on the Vietnam War please have a look at the article and let me know if such material exists, and or add it themselves? The link to the GA review is here for information. Many thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 17:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The Marrua article has been nominated for deletion. It appears to be a Brazilian built military vehicle, so should fall under the remit of this WP. It needs work, (structure, refs) but should be salvageable. Mjroots ( talk) 06:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
(Not my proposal.) You guys use it, so you must have some comment to make, good or bad. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#A-class_articles - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, HMS Sea Robin (P267) has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 04:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Indiana (BB-1) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 09:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi everybody. Nominations for Good Article that fall under our scope are starting to pile up again—there are over 30 articles waiting to be reviewed. If you have the time, please take a look and see if there are any articles you can review. If would also be helpful if those who make regular nominations there take the time to review as well. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history) covers non stylistic issues such as notability and Categories can users here please have a look Gnevin ( talk) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this is apparently not going to be a localized issue, so lets start at the beginning so we can bring everyone up to speed at the same time.
As most of you are probably aware, our project has had a style guide for some time. It used to be located in the project's main page, however at the encouragement of a couple of editors we opened a discussion to formally have our style guide incorporated as part of the the wikipedia wide manual of style in 2007. The measure passed in November, at which point the MILMOS became a part of the MoS for all intents and purposes. This arrangement has been observed since then, but recently a handful of discussions have cropped up, beginning with a discussion on very specific MoS's, with the leading idea at the moment being to move all of the subject-specific MoS pages into a supplemental style guide that would have the same level of authority as the MoS proper. In addition to these points, question about non-stylistic guidelines hav been raised on the page ( WT:MILHIST#Issues with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history)), which has led to a suggestion that we split MILMOS into a style guide and a content guide (but potentially retaining a common talk page for both).
In light of the number of discussions concerning these issues its been decided to consolidate the information here to allow for project-wide feedback on these matters. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What if Wikipedia:Subject style guide was changed to be Wikipedia:Subject specific guide which would allow content from any of the sub categories in Category:Wikipedia_guidelines. Then the only change required here would be to mark each parts parent of master guideline? Gnevin ( talk) 18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've recently rewritten and upgraded the entire Larne gun-running article which had failed many Wiki guidelines and would like someone to independantly assess and class the article please. The article i believe meets many Wiki guidelines though does still have a issue as stated by me on its discussion page. Northern Star (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in Talk:The New York Times and the Holocaust#Assessing References. I have suggested some edits which have been reverted, so I would welcome comments from others to help form a consensus.
I originally posted an article on a tragic, but non-controversial topic in Holocaust studies: the New York Times policy during the period of the Second World War to minimize reports of the Holocaust. I relied on two resources: the New York Time’s apology in 2001, and the work of Dr. Laurel Leff.
The issue is not controversial among knowledgable people because the Times itself acknowledged its guilt fully and publicly in its 150th anniversary issue on November 14, 2001, 56 years after the end of the war. Under the title, “Turning Away from the Holocaust”, retired executive editor Max Frankel wrote that the Times knew the accuracy of the reports on Hitler’s persecution of the Jews and the Final Solution, but that from the beginning to the end, chose never to make it a lead story, or the exclusive topic of an editorial. “… to this day the failure .. to fasten upon Hitler's mad atrocities stirs the conscience of succeeding generations of reporters and editors.”
In listing the details of the Time’s policy to ‘bury’ the Holocaust, Frankel cited one outside resource: “No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times's leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year. The ordinary reader of its pages could hardly be blamed for failing to comprehend the enormity of the Nazis' crime. Laurel Leff...has been the most diligent independent student of The Times's Holocaust coverage and deftly summarized her findings last year in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics.”
Three people originally tried to delete the entire article. they have never made any contributions to an article on the holocaust or world war II, and are not really interested. they came over from the new york times page, where they try to prevent criticism of the Times. when they were voted down re deleting the New York Times and the Holocaust in its entirely, they have proceeded to gut it in place. i don't have any allies on this page. The administrator helping me on my talk page suggested I come here to say i would welcome comments from others. Cimicifugia ( talk) 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia
The featured article candidacy for Nimitz class aircraft carrier 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! - MBK 004 06:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As per WP:ICONDECORATION this image shouldn't be used in article templates. Any objects to removing it ? Gnevin ( talk) 14:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to use the template:
Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{ featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this wikiproject use IRC? I visited what I thought was the MilHist IRC channel but it was totally empty. Griffinofwales ( talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I was granted the founder right so we have an op, and everyone in this project (and outside!) is welcome to join! — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please cast their eyes at these two threads and resolve the issues noted? Griffinofwales ( talk) 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Indiana class battleship 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! - MBK 004 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Ordnance QF 18 pounder is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that User:ALR has been consistently reverting the inclusion of information about the play Deep Cut on the article Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, citing it as "popcruft". "Popcruft" is defined in WP:MILPOP as a "trivial appearance" or "unsupported speculation". The play is hardly that, as evidenced by the reliable sources which have been added to the article recently. DDM1 ( talk) 20:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Right. Given ALR's decision to declare that a consensus has been reached, does anyone else want to comment on all this? I believe I have given multiple significant examples of notability for the inclusion of information about this well-known and culturally significant production, which I will reiterate now below.
DDM1 ( talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that there's a new ACR: Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive. Comments would be much appreciated, thank you. JonCatalán (Talk) 22:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Action of 9 February 1799 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Posen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Operation Winter Storm 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! - MBK 004 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In 2005 or so the name of this article was changed to First Coalition. While there might need to be an article entitled First Coalition, the other articles on the sequence of the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars have similar titles: War of the Second Coalition, War of the Fifth Coalition, etc. The infobox is title War of the First Coalition, the battle box is also. Could someone figure out what to do? It's already been changed once, and someone has added a template I'm not familiar with to it, but I cannot figure out how to deal with this, and it should be done. will take an administrator. Does this need to be discussed, or can we just do it to make this article in line (at least in terms of its title, but not its quality) with the others? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have requested that the title Action of 17 February 1864 be changed to something more familiar, such as Sinking of USS Housatonic by CSS H. L. Hunley. Discussion is on the article talk page. PKKloeppel ( talk) 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at Xenobot Mk V, and thought that it would be good to have in the scope of our project, considering how many articles fall within our scope. I can start making a page of categories, and help would be good, but I want to make sure consensus exists. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(od)Do we have any idea how many articles this is likely to catch? EyeSerene talk 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just seen this on the BBC [1] Bletchley Park WWII archive to go online, will be worth keeping an eye on. May provide that missing link to some articles. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can some of the experts here take a look at Salvador Flores to determine notability, appropriateness of the prod, and clean up if it's notable? I'm not watching this page (MILHIST), so drop a line/tb on my talk page if necessary. tedder ( talk) 01:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was looking through all of the task forces and I noticed that there was no force for plainly recruiting new members for the project. I noticed that on one of the discussion pages that it was something for members to do. Does anyone know if there is a task force for this? Or is there a simple way to just invite new members? If not I would like to suggest making a task force specifically for this purpose. Tetobigbro ( talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. And how would would you suggest this gets done? Tetobigbro ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, its purpose would mainly be to look for some Wikipedians who seem like they could make great contributions to the project. A small group would search throughout Wikipedia for active users who show some promise of contributing to the project. The idea may be pointless, but it seemed like a good suggestion, and it is, of course, only a suggestion. Tetobigbro ( talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok and if you wouldn't mind telling me, how do you form a working group? I know how to make a task force, but are they the same thing or just an informal group of people? Tetobigbro talk 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. And to answer questions, it would focus on individuals, I planned on having the group be a main task force, so that it could cover all other working groups and task forces within this specific WikiProject. Tetobigbro talk 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well those are my two cents, what do others think LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 01:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It sounds great to me, I'm just lost and want to know what this suggestion has become. Tetobigbro talk 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok and where should I place the proposal? Back on this same section, a new section, or somewhere else completely? Tetobigbro talk 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
My proposal is to create a group of people that will invite wikipedians to join this wikiproject and the task forces of this wikiproject. The group would talk to people about joining this wikiproject and look for wikipedians who seem like they show some amount of promise. It would also look for new members to add so that they can be guided through our project. This would make more well-trained wikipedians and greatly increase the amount of members of this wikiproject. Tetobigbro talk 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So what was the decision of the outreach group? Tetobigbro talk 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've created the SS Almeria Lykes (1940) article. As she took part in Operation Pedestal it is likely she is mentioned in some of the many books on the subject. Assistance in further expanding the article is welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Ylee and I disagree on whether to use RADM, LTJG, etc. in Operation Petticoat. I can't persuade Ylee that this is reader-unfriendly. Could somebody else please weigh in? Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a proposal to create a WikiProject on Medieval Weaponry, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medieval Weaponry. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 01:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! - MBK 004 06:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys, the FAC for Victoria Cross recipient William Ellis Newton has had very little attention some two weeks after nominating; be great to get any sourcing/referencing issues shortly as I'll be travelling overseas in three days and internet access will be limited -- access to references even more so! The article has passed its ACR very recently so I'm hoping there won't be much if anything but it will need the reviews to get up for FA. If a few could stop by soon that'd be excellent... ;-) Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Editors on the page Trojan War are working on a proposal to reintroduce an infobox to the article, anyone interested in contributing to the discussions is welcome to comment on the article's talk page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for 3rd Bombay European Regiment is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Naval battles of the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.medalofhonor.com has been sourced in a number of articles. It was a listing of Medal of Honor awardees, but as of September 2009 the site is now occupied by the game. links ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher 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! - MBK 004 19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship/archive1 needs some attention.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
With recent improvements to the logic of the Portals this template is deprecated and I would like to recomnmend it for deletion. Before I do though I thought I would post it here and see if anyone had any opinion on it first. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia:Official names, should No. 1 Demolition Squadron be moved to Popski's Private Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The Helmut Lent article was featured article of day on 6 June 2010. Since this was also the anniversary of D-Day the article attracted many readers. On the talk page a discussion was initiated on whether Lent was a Nazi and Wackywace ( talk · contribs) took a firm position and stated he was a Nazi. My question here is what constitutes a Nazi in the English speaking community? My definition was always a member of the National Socialist Party. But maybe my definition is askew here. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi the Special Air Service article is going through a Good Article review here Talk:Special Air Service/GA1. As you can see it has been pointed out it is in need of a copy edit. A request has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests but they seem to have a back log at the moment. So any WP:MILHIST editor who could assist your help would be appreciated. Thanks -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently working through a number of old exhibits at Eastbourne Redoubt, which have been stored in storerooms for a while, and I'm trying to figure out where all of them go in the museum. I do this by using our MODES item database...but to use that I need to know what an object is to search for it! I have here next to me two shells, hollowed out after I assume having been fired. They're obviously fired from some sort of artillery piece, but that's about all I can figure out. There are a number of shells in the database, and so I need help in narrowing down what they are. Their dimensions are as follows: Height/length approx. 28.5cm/11.5 in, width at bottom 10.5cm/4in, width at height 9cm/3.5in. Can anyone help identify them? Skinny87 ( talk) 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of armed forces flags may be of interest. Ty 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors is holding their second Backlog Elimination Drive starting on July 1. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. -- Diannaa TALK 03:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a question posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_II_task_force#WWII-based_games asking whether games such as Call of Duty fall under the scope of milhist. It's a valid question, and I don't have a good answer for it. On one hand, the theme is the same, but on the other hand these games aren't really military simulators. This question applies to all of the task-forces, and to this WikiProject as a whole. Should most military video games be included? NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
These articles are often written to quite a high standard based on their own criteria. How would we expect them to change by being MILHIST tagged? More emphasis on the historical elements of the game? Will this bring conflict with other projects who currently "own" these articles? Monstrelet ( talk) 09:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for No. 6 Commando is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The Feature Article Candidacy of Battle of Valcour Island could use one or two more reviewers. Thanks for your participation! Magic ♪piano 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Operation Aquatint is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) 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) 07:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just AfD'd another one of these, this one... is this really notable? It needs quite the clean up regardless. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, the question of whether the PRC possesses today a nuclear triad has been raised; please see the article's Talk page if you are qualified in helping to answer the question. YLee ( talk) 18:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
A user has requested comments about the placement of images in the Infobox for Medal of Honor recipients here Template talk:Infobox military person. I have already made mine. -- Kumioko ( talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I generated this graph using data generated from Wikipedia article traffic statistics. It some that interestingly enough the number of view to the main page of MILHIST project has been on the decline over approximately the past two and a half years. To what degree this reflects actual participation in the project is hard to say as there could be a multitude of different reasons for this decline such as user familiarity with the project for example. However I though I might throw this information out there so that other users might view it as well and give their take on it. I thought this might spark a discussion. LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Charles Miller (US Army) seems to fail general notability criteria for military personnel - he doesn't seem to have done anything to warrant a WP article. The writings noted at the end are not published. Opinions?
Secondly, is
William Richardson (Continental Army officer) likely to be notable? The article is currently an unreferenced stub.
Gwinva (
talk) 02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Fort ships have very little coverage on Wikipedia. There were only 198 of them but none has an article on Wikipedia. The nearest we have is the article on the explosion of SS Fort Stikine. SS Fort Stikine is a redirect, which could be turned into an article. All the other ships need articles creating. Basic info on ships Fort A fo Fort J, Fort K to Fort S and Fort T to Fort Y is available from the Mariners website. Mjroots ( talk) 10:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Many editors are no doubt aware that the Wikipedia community has spent literally years agonising over the conflict between our open editing policy and the need to protect the content of Wikipedia from inappropriate editing - especially in the area of biographical articles.
A system designed to address this conflict—" Pending changes"—is scheduled to begin trial on 15 June 2010 (although this date could yet change). The Pending changes system is basically an additional level of page protection that permits most editing as normal, but queues certain edits until they are approved by a "Reviewer", at which point they become visible on the article.
A limited number of pages are being selected for the trial based on "ongoing vandalism on busy articles, breaking news, high profile BLPs/companies, low profile but vandalized or edit warred biographies (BLPs), persistent targets, long term protected pages, talk/user talk/project page disputes, non-article namespaces". It is likely that a number of our articles will be affected.
Under the current proposals, autoconfirmed users should be able to edit as normal but there may be edits on some articles that are awaiting approval from users with the new " Reviewer" user right. This has already been granted to a number of trusted editors and more will follow, but any editor in good standing with a decent edit history and sound grasp of Wikipedia's core editing policies who wishes to receive Reviewer rights can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer, or contact an administrator. The standards for granting the Reviewer right are similar to those required for rollback; for more information, see Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming_a_reviewer. EyeSerene talk 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Relevant AFD discussion, on a California lawyer and politician. Served in United States Air Force, in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Air Force. Rank of Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 12:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A member of the project, NativeForeigner, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of NativeForeigner's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. - MBK 004 02:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose than a working group be established for the purpose of creating a forum where discussion concerning how WikiProject Military History might be improved. This working group would focus on five core issues.
Well this is my proposal at the moment. What do others think of it? LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 04:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to the idea; it kind of takes me back to that time I suggested we name the logistics department the strategic development initiative :) Running the working group should be easy, and we can put something in the bugle to announce this to everyone. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Tangential discussions of aside, I have gone ahead and created the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank and have begun filling out the necessary group internal infrastructure and page content. Feel free to help out. LeonidasSpartan ( talk) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe the page for Operation Michael may have been vandalized. The paragraph on March 9-29 (section 3.5) simply says "the front was quiet on that day." I can't seem to find the correct entry to undo it. Anyone want to help? Thanks.-- AtTheAbyss ( talk) 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how you guys at MILHIST call attention to worthy subjects for article improvement, but John A. Logan seems to be a pretty important person that you guys might want to get up to your own A-class standards.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry 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! - MBK 004 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Treaty of Ciudad Juárez 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! - MBK 004 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all
I have just done an extensive expansion to the BEF article and marked it as Start class.
Can someone have a quick look at it to make sure it is ok and meets standard as I am going word blind from editing for so long on it.
Thanks... Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at Xenobot Mk V, and thought that it would be good to have in the scope of our project, considering how many articles fall within our scope. I can start making a page of categories, and help would be good, but I want to make sure consensus exists. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(od)Do we have any idea how many articles this is likely to catch? EyeSerene talk 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite busy right now, but I'll have the list up fairly soon. I'm fairly impressed with the amount of articles it caught for wikiproject olympics... [3] NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Baden (1915) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 11:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Army of the Danube order of battle is up for review as a potential Featured List. It passed ACR here a couple weeks ago. Please feel free to visit and voice your opinion. auntieruth (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This portal is currently being considered for Featured Portal status. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Terrorism. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody please find data on Ndwandwe-Zulu War, Dominican Restoration War, and Anglo-Spanish War (1654)?
I'm the one who made this post. Come on, we have to find information on these articles including French intervention in Mexico. This place is supposed to make war articles better. Let's make them better. B-Machine ( talk) 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have opened the Featured List candidacy for the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton. There are currently no featured orders of battle for land battles; the only current featured orders of battle are for naval engagements. Your comments and participation are appreciated. Thanks! Magic ♪piano 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been a lot of controversy on Wikipedia over terms such as "terrorist" for various armed groups, prefering terms such as "militant". I've put together a category, Category:Religious paramilitary organizations to see if it's a workable solution to non-judgementally tie together armed non-state actors with a religious commonality/purpose. This could include some of the less-disputed "terrorist" groups, as well as "self-defense forces", "militias", etc. under an objective terminology. I'd appreciate any input, and if the cat name is solid some help populating it would also be great. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for No. 6 Commando; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
As part of a general tidy up and recategorisation on the Commons for the UK honours system, I have just finished sorting through all the VC recipients at Comm:Category:Victoria Cross recipients. I have separated out Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa into their own national sub-categories using the naming form 'Category:Victoria Cross recipients from XXX'. As far as I can tell I have got everyone, but if others would like to cast an eye to make sure, that would be appreciated.
I welcome any thoughts people may have as to whether they need to be further categorised by conflict.
I have also added categories for most of the UK decorations (any I have missed I will get to shortly), these take the form of 'Category:Recipients of the XXX' which better reflects the standard approach to category naming decorations and medals on the Commons (I didn't attempt to modify the VC naming format because it seemed well established). Whilst I have added the appropriate additional decoration categories to VC winners where I was able to spot them from the images, I didn't do a thorough cross-check against the Wikipedia main articles. If you are starting or maintaining military bios, please consider adding the appropriate additional categories to related imagery on the Commons. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Action of 17 February 1864 has been nominated to be renamed. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Indefatigable (1909) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) 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! - MBK 004 04:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all
I have further expanded the British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II) article. Eyeserene has already given it a going over prior to this latest expansion but I would appreciate if someone could check it now I have added some more detail to it.
The article has grown from 2,700 to 20,155 bytes so I am getting a bit blurry eyed and rather than chance missing simple things would appreciate somone giving it the once over before I start on the "Action" section
In particular the background section and the refs :¬)
thanks... Chaosdruid ( talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to get back into the swing of editing, but after a few failed attempts at writing a new article or finishing a few of my unfinished ones, I've contracted writers block; too fast too soon probably. But I think that something smaller might be easier - copy-editing, hunting down references from my library, spell-checking and reading through and so forth. Therefore, I'm opening this up to see if anyone needs a hand in those areas - I'm quite good at hunting down images from the IWM as well! Skinny87 ( talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
As it appears that the current result which is listed is edited to something else periodically I tried to start discussion on changing it from single word result into " see 'aftermath' and 'analysis' " so that wider or conflicting views of the issue could be properly handled and discussed as suggested in the guidelines of template infobox military conflict as it appears that current result is not such.
There was a discussion ongoing about the change but it appears that the person why was arguing against the change (seemingly part of milhist group) first decided to drop out from the discussion and then after couple of weeks silence when i made the discussed edit he immediately reverted it, demanded in the edit summary that a talk page consensus must be reached (though he himself had left the discussion - and there were apparently no others), made no talk page changes though demanding a discussion and left again (apparently).
I was suggested to 'draw wider attention to this article' in hopes of gaining consensus/resolution on the matter and as it is military history article this might be the place to ask for it. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The article right now discusses only the British, Canadian, and American company organization. It doesn't at all discuss the history of the military unit, which I think is rather lacking. I'm not sure if this is the place to request someone with expertise in military history to address this, but this supposed military history article is rather lacking in history. ;) RobertM525 ( talk) 03:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this edit. Think there would ever be a need to use the age templates to list in infoboxes the length of conflicts? Could use a "partial date" parameter for the ones where there are no exact months or days. Anyone? S.G.(GH) ping! 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You may want to update the FA counter at the main page, it is over 500 easily, check out http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Military history&quality=FA-Class . Sadads ( talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, project members. I recently became involved with the fairly recently created article Major John Pott (just from seeing it pop up on the Recent Changes page). Military matters are a bit out of my area of expertise, so I'd like some help. I'm concerned that the subject of the article doesn't meet the criteria listed for notability at WP:MILPEOPLE. Normally I would have left the article for someone with more knowledge, but several things about this article struck me. The first, and perhaps most telling, is that the user who created the page is the self-identified flimographer of a documentary about the subject of the article, or, more accurately, the subject's grandson who wrote a song about Major Pott. Which leads to the second problem--I feel that the article is more focused on the song/video/documentary than the subject himself. That is, I believe that the band itself, as well as the lead singer and likely even the song meet the notability criteria associated with musical acts/works, but that doesn't make the subject of the song itself notable. Thus, if the Major is determined to be notable, the article will need to be trimmed to keep those references minimal; however, I hesitate to do too much editing on that regard if the page doesn't meet notability guidelines in the first place. So, what I'd like is for someone from here to take a look at the page and see if what Major Pott is said to have done qualifies by itself under the WP:MILPEOPLE notability guidelines (in particular, see my final notes on the Talk page). Thank you very much in advance for your assistance. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) Not at home right now, but in a day or so I can look at my SAS post-war sources and see if he crops up significantly. Skinny87 ( talk) 20:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I present to you all this gallery of images of a mysterious rifle that was just donated to the museum this week. It's rusted to hell and back and only the metal remains, but the donor found it at the side of a field in France aftera farmer had dug it up and tossed it away. It was found in the Somme/Arromanche area of Northern France, but that is all we know. Any ideas in identifying even who used it, let alone what model/type it is, would be much appreciated. A barnstar will be awarded to anyone who can help. More photos can be taken and uploaded if required. Skinny87 ( talk) 11:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) I had a look close-up at the rifle, and I don't think it's a '98 - the trigger guard of that '98 example is square/rectangular, and ours is definitely rounded. There are also no signs of those extra bits on the '98 example, not even marks where they might have rotted off. Skinny87 ( talk) 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the past few months, I've noticed (and I'm sure you all have as well) that a number of milhist articles have been nominated for deletion in an AfD, only for the poor bewildered writer to come to the AfD and try and defend their work without knowing why it's been nominated. Often they only get the standard generic 'Your article is being deleted' notice on their talkpage, which is vague and very unhelpful to new users. Several times I've gone to their talkpages and given a more detailed explanation, and they've been most grateful, and I know several other users have done similar. As such, I've developed (with EyeSerene's help) a MilHist AfD template which we can copy into a users talkpage. The template is here, and I'd like to see what people think of it, and what improvements can be made before we use it. Skinny87 ( talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS Indiana (BB-1) 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! - MBK 004 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I am the author of the 295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA) and the web site 295th.com [7]. This page is currently up for deletion, which seems absolutely unwarranted. Yes, the page itself could use some re-work, but the story of this company is also important, regardless of them not being front-line soldiers. Why? These men supported the front line, they helped liberate the prisoners at Dachau, and the fact that they were a non-airborne company training at Camp Toccoa and also running Currahee Mountain should be enough to warrant it staying put! Please, visit the Wikipedia page, the 295th web site, and give your support. Thank you in advance. 295th ( talk) 21:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
For those who read the news often may have recently seen the secretive UKUSA Agreement declassified yesterday/today. The Wikipedia article is at UK–USA Security Agreement. I have made some updates, added links to the declassified documents, and also requested that the page be moved to a new name as used by government sources. I would appreciate help in digesting this news as I have little knowledge about this topic. Thanks! Arsonal ( talk) 03:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for ARA Moreno is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
A discussion thread has been started at Talk:1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa#Title regarding the title of the article (i.e., whether to use "Invasion of Goa" or "Annexation of Goa" in the title). If you are interested in the topic, please discuss the issue there. XavierGreen ( talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Operation Postmaster is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Siege of Godesberg (1583) 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! - MBK 004 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Military History team! Can you help me? I was doing some tidy/update work on the Thomas Neely VC article, and noticed that he was buried at Masnieres British Cementry, Marcoing. I can't find an article with that title, do we have one? A small cemetery, it was also the place where the ashes of Henry Tandey were scattered. More details here on the CWGC website Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I just came across the Category:Recipients of the Cross of Honor. Now I am wondering if there is any use for such a category. Essentially the Cross of Honor is the equivalent to the British War Medal, having been issued to anyone who fought on the German side in WWI. Frankly, I do not see a point in categorizing all German (and Austrian) WWI veterans who were considered worthy of wearing this medal (i.e. not Jewish nor Socialists/Communists). -- Dodo19 ( talk) 12:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, The FAC for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) (which I nominated) is languishing with relatively few votes and comments. Any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)/archive1 would be much appreciated. Nick-D ( talk) 09:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This portal is currently being considered for Featured Portal status. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Terrorism. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds ( talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Bombardment of Papeete 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! - MBK 004 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all
Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous that blaa is posting inbetween older posts requiring others to reply there and making it impossible to follow the thread of any "discussion" also I just noticed that he put words in the middle of a previous post ! [8]
Can someone clarify what the hell the position is on this - should we not simply put:
@persons name + Date + Quote at the bottom of the whole section?
I understand that there is a need for simple little posts to go inbetween - such as Trekphiler at 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC) when he was simply posting a small note rather than part of the discussion
Chaosdruid ( talk) 19:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
you: Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous that blaa is posting inbetween older posts requiring others to reply there and making it impossible to follow the thread of any "discussion" also I just noticed that he put words in the middle of a previous post ..... Can someone clarify what the hell the position is on this.. for me it sounds like unnessecary at all. Not to mention that another user started this posting in the middle and i only posted a response.... . Kindergarden inst insulting , at least not in german... I hope u admit that making an extra section to talk about blas posting in th middle is kinde kindergarden, isnt it? Blablaaa ( talk) 22:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
and this Kindergarden ? and so the insults start again is also a bit "kindergarden" :-) . Dont overreact . That u got edit conflict because of my posts is not good. So i apologize for posting in the middle where u cant find it. I was also a bit confused when trek responded, but thought i will post below with enough ":::" ... Blablaaa ( talk) 22:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Midshipman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to bottom out his military experiences? The lead states that he was in combat in 'Nam as a US infantryman, the prose says he was a teacher there and a wiper on a Merchant Marine ship. The article on Platoon states he was basing it on his infantry experiences. There has been a cock up somewhere.... S.G.(GH) ping! 11:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Indian Air Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Siege of Godesberg FAC could use more reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This FAC needs more reviewers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion about moving Gunpowder, which presently covers historical potassium nitrate gunpowder, to Black powder and making Gunpowder a disambiguation page for black powder and modern gunpowder. Any comments are welcome, and should be made at Talk:Gunpowder#Requested move. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Could one of you people from across the pond possibly look over this article? I have no idea where the Mississippi flows in relation to Columbus, Tennessee, Cairo and so on. I think some of the disambiguation links may be a bit off and the river geography a little nonsensical. It's on the main page for a DYK today so someone is gonna notice that I know not my American geography! Long live the Queen! :D S.G.(GH) ping! 11:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just popped by the assessments section and saw the huge backlog. Someone has raised hundreds (literally) of USAF related articles. I wouldn't even know if these were notable, let alone assess them, but I'm sure someone here has the skills and knowledge to help the regulars Monstrelet ( talk) 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A member of the project, White Shadows, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of White Shadows's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. - MBK 004 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Two questions which sort of follow on from earlier discussions on computer games.
I would be happy to take the other part of question to the think tank but can't find the link on this page or the main project page - could someone enlighten me? Thanks Monstrelet ( talk) 07:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Moved to "Polular culture in milhist articles" section below. EyeSerene talk 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please check the article de:Schlacht bei Warburg which has been reworked recently and which was qualified excellent.-- Warboerde ( talk) 08:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out this resource: http://gallica.bnf.fr - it contains an extensive gallery of French PD images, including quite a lot of military ones! Regards, The Land ( talk) 12:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any task force dealing with war crimes and atrociites during World War 2? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm working up some stubs, translating the ledes and infoboxes (many of which have pix) from the es.wiki articles from Category:Batallas de la Guerra del Chaco, covering battles of the Chaco War, a war fought between Paraguay and Bolivia in the early 1930s. If there are any Spanish-speaking editors who want to help expand the articles with the remainder of text from es.wiki, that would be great. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 07:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There's currently an effort underway to set up a long-term collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution; since we cover some of the topics that would be involved, I'm wondering whether there is any interest in the project for taking part in the collaboration efforts?
A couple of topics we should consider:
Any comments on these or any other related issues would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Broken out from "War and popular culture queries" above. EyeSerene talk 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
At present, AFAIK, the project's guidance on popular culture articles is restricted to a paragraph under category 8 of what the project covers. The main thrust of this is about historical content of the cultural product (book, film etc.) There isn't an article guide or a specific notability guide. So two questions
I wonder if anyone could advise? This article self contradicts in terms of casualties. I suppose that isn't too surprising as neither side wants to exagerate own losses. I can't find any non commercial online sources let alone an authoritive one but note that the German, French and English versions also differ. See Talk:Battle of Smolensk (1812). Any suggestions on this -and getting consistency across different versions. Thanks in advance JRPG ( talk) 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga 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! - MBK 004 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Westfalen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
User User:Stor stark7 started a thread re:Rudiger Overmans on my talk page, I moved his comments and my replies to Talk:World War II casualties Other editors need to get involved.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I ran across this whilst cleaning out WP:UNCAT, and the concept is somewhat interesting. Worth keeping and expanding, listify, or just delete? I do have a Speedy Rename request in at WP:CFD to fix the capitalisation issue. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Battle of Yarmouk 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! - MBK 004 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is currently underway at Talk:Canadian Forces#Maritime Command, or Canadian Forces Maritime Command regarding the use of "Canadian Forces" in the article titles of the Canadian Forces Air Command, Canadian Forces Land Force Command, and Canadian Forces Maritime Command articles. Any input from the projerct would be welcome, whatever your views on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Russian battleship Slava 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! - MBK 004 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just reblocked User:Rivenburg, who was blocked back in 2007 for strongly biased editing of Michel Thomas. Ultimately, his block was reviewed, and was reduced to a ban on editing that specific article (talk page editing permitted). He has recently returned and edited the article using the Rivenburg account; however, a review of the article's history compared with available checkuser data strongly indicates that he has continued editing while logged out for much of the time of his topic ban.
This article needs review by people with some knowledge of the historical period involved, and I will cross-post this to the Polish and Military History wikiprojects; however, in the interim, it would be very helpful if a few folks would add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye out for further biased logged-out edits. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 06:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Plassey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for FN P90 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for ARA Moreno; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Category:Forts in the United States contains many different fort articles in its subcategories. But there is an unanswered question. What should actually be included in this category? Just forts that were actually used for combat defense? Army facilities having schools or training areas but not used in combat? Anything named a 'fort'? Also things named camps used by ground forces? Only Army facilities, but not U.S. Marines and so on? Hmains ( talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed {{ US Cavalry}} being added to articles, and {{ US Infantry}} has been around for a while. These templates go under the main infobox to link to numerically previous or next divisions or regiments. The problem is that this creates an artificial sense of order— there is no particular precedence based on numeric designation. For example, 3rd Cavalry Division (United States) links next to 15th Cavalry Division (United States), which then links next to 21st Cavalry Division (United States). This also illustrates that articles are missing for those historical divisions.
If we really need some navigation aid for these articles, then it should be a standard navbox at the bottom of the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Rivadavia class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 06:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1 needs more reviewers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Acra (fortress) 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! - MBK 004 06:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Further to discussions here and elsewhere, the coordinators would like to put a proposal to our members:
The A-Class review for Battle of P'ohang-dong is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be hitting a stalemate Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_15#Category:Civil_affairs_units_and_formations_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps, please comment Sadads ( talk) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for SMS König 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! - MBK 004 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Citadel of Arbil is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have initiated a conversation about a suggested change to the way we display the BLP banner on article talk pages at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages. Please take some time and leave a comment about this suggestion. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a " tactical victory". Blablaaa ( talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Remaining neutral for the moment (until I've fully understood this chat), could I please ask everyone to keep their comments civil and constructive (here and on related threads). This discussion bears all the hallmarks of descending into a bitter battle - totally unnecessarily in my opinion. Blablaaa, I appreciate that English isn't your first language (apologies if I'm wrong on that) but comments like "what u simply dont understand" and "U dont understand tactical u are unskilled" come across as fairly insulting, and you are in danger of destroying any credibility your argument might have. Cheers, Ranger Steve ( talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just time for a quickie and two points:
PLease do not edit your posts after people have replied nor insert between other posts. Your last post was not made before mine at 23:55 it was after my post of 23:51 (UTC) (which you managed to remove the time stamp from !!) I have corrected the order... Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It may be that some alteration is needed then as the article states nothing about only capturing the north of the town and the bridgeheads:
"...drew up an offensive with two goals: to capture Caen and to prevent a large scale redeployment of German forces from the Anglo-Canadian sector to the American front." and "...he sought control of Bourguébus and the commanding high ground to the south."
Bourguébus is around 5 miles south of the centre of Caen, and two miles outside its southern boundary. I do not think that you are correct in your last statemnt according to the article.
It seems to me that neither of these objectives were fulfilled so it would appear that the operation was not a success at all.
THe article states that the operation failed to draw german forces away from the american front and it also says that "mid-afternoon on 9 July, Operation Charnwood was over" with only the northern half of Caen being taken.
It may be possible to say that securing the northern half led the germans to withdraw more quickly but the eventual taking of Caen in August was surely down to operations Goodwood and Jupiter?
Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of a mouthful lol but yup :¬) Sorry but it's an FA - I'm not normally that picky... Chaosdruid ( talk) 09:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
is somebody willing to explain in 1 sentence what he thinks my problem is. Rethinking the whole problem iam not ready to accept that the people here are not able to understand the in my opinion very obvious mistake. So it is now high likly that my words are not wisly chooses. So please can someone explain to me what he thinks what i mean. if he understood what i mean i will quit the discussion and "accept" that their is no support for my opinion, while iam 95% sure that iam correct. So show your good faith now Blablaaa ( talk) 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
i followed the link of ranger steve and i think this is exactly what i mean, two correct facts are put in one sentence to imply a correlation. Blablaaa ( talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the first, sure was the 16 LWFD defeated , that also not the point and only a part of charnwood. It also reflects not the cost of the operation. The statement is claiming nothing near the statement in the lead it claims it was a hard won victory. I also want to highlight that the 75% are 800 men, because the 75% sound so "extreme". To the second, hes claiming the allied took cean and reports the casualties of 16 LWFD, also no correlation. I also want to highlight that this is only a part of charnwood. To the 3rd that simply strategic when german losses slighlty lower than allied ( like they did on charnwood ) its a strategic problem for german , this is far from being relevant for the tactical scale. All your statements dont take the 12 ss inot consideration which inflicted very heavy casualties on the allied. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe u think about the following. An example, u have only the fact a battle took place and party X lost 3500 and party Y lost +2000. What do u think who won at the tactical scale ? Party x? Nope , no historian will think this. A tactical victory is in general seen as inflicting more casualties ( or more valuedamage ), this is a very "simple" describition but fits in general. Now u get more facts like caputred ground etc and now u hear; it is considered a tactical victory for party x. Would u now assume the casualties of party Y were a reason for the tactical outcome ? Nope, no historian would claim this. Thats why u find no historian ( hereby i want to point at the fact that u quote stories of participating soldiers and officers ) claiming this, thats why enigma , eyeseren and so on dont take the 1 minute and type the quote of a historian into the editbox. Nobody brings the quote. Nobody silence me with bringing the quote. The only thing we have are german casualties ( far lower than allied ) and the tactical outcome. And a statement which is wp:synth, maybe this helps understanding the issue finally. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I’ll probably regret getting involved in this, but here goes…
As I understand it, Blablaa believes that assertion A (that the Germans suffered heavy casualties), assertion B (that north Caen was captured) and assertion C (that it was a tactical victory) are all fine (sourced to reliable historians etc…). However, he feels that the wording of the line currently in the lead (“With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success.”) is a case of synth (or thereabouts), because it isn’t directly explained in the article’s analysis section, nor backed up by a reliable quote. Have I got that right Blablaa?
I think that if this was all there was to it, I wouldn’t really question the line too hard. While the German losses (A) alone might not constitute a tactical victory (being lower than the Allied), the other half of the sentence (the capture of northern Caen (B)) apparently did (I’m assuming you agree with that as well Blablaa). If the capture of Caen made it a tactical victory (B = C), then the large losses sustained by the Germans (lower than the Allies or not) only helps to reinforce that victory (B (& A) still = C).
On the flip side, I’m not too keen on the whole use of the term tactical. The articles Victory and Tactical victory don’t really match up well and neither are particularly well sourced. Could someone explain or improve the tactical article for the benefit of someone like me, who knows nothing of war or military manoeuvres? Unfortunately all of my books seem to refuse to do so and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of respectable authors aren’t 100% sure themselves!
As it is, the word tactical only appears three times in the Charnwood article (twice in the infobox and once in the lead). I would very much like to see the phrase used in the Analysis section as well, and be sourced. It must be said that Beevor doesn’t use the term tactical on p. 273, and yet the same reference is used in the infobox to support tactical victory as is used in analysis to describe partial success. I’m afraid I don’t have D’Este, so I can’t comment on that one.
So, is it original research for us to assume or infer the result of “tactical victory” from the main outcomes of a battle, when those words aren’t actually used by historians? I don’t know personally, but I think that would be a far more worthwhile conversation than this one. It does strike me that sometimes an article seems to use a fairly standard term in order to describe a rather unorthodox result for the sake of a tidy infobox (I am not pointing any fingers here, it is merely something I’ve noticed occasionally when battles far more complicated than this example seem to be so simply described in the box). Equally, sometimes an article uses a relatively convoluted description that isn’t actually used by any of the reliable sources in the article’s bibliography (I could use Operation Market Garden as an example here). I personally believe we should only use terms directly reference-able to reliable sources. This will inevitably lead to more complicated infoboxes on some articles (Charnwood being one), but it has to be verifiability over truth as always.
However, this is only my take on it, and I welcome some patient discussion about how much we can infer a result when summarising an article in the lead and infobox. In this instance, Charnwood is described as a tactical offensive, so its result would (theoretically) be a tactical victory/defeat. It might also be that a partial victory and tactical success are pretty much the same thing in military circles. If this is the way things go though, I think we need to really spruce up the relevant victory articles, and that way our summaries are directly explainable.
I’ve read this and the 3 or 4 related threads over the course of nearly 2 days, so apologies if I’ve got this quite wrong (please correct me accordingly!). Cheers, Ranger Steve ( talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Eyeseren u said many times u understand my point but than u say things like It's arguable that casualties should come under 'strategic' rather than 'tactical' because many historians support the idea that Montgomery's strategic aim was to draw down the German forces to the point where a breakout was inevitable (which was what eventually happened) , seeming u dont completly get tactical outcome , the tactical outcome is nothing else than battle performanc, the aims of the parties are pretty irrelevant. if montgomeries aim was to destroy 10 panzers and he losses 100 doing this he fulfilled his objectives but had a tactical defeat from a neutral point of view. I want to raise another issue maybe u and enigma thing about, why we have wasted 3 three days instead of changing the statement to something better? u thinkk the recent statement is perfect and we cant find a better? even when u think iam not really correct why not changing the sentence to another wording. I also want u to look at charnwood talk and who started bringing aggressiv attitude into the discussion. The new statement sounds not optimal in my opinion and for somebody with a good understand of warfare it sounds contradicting that it was a tactical with german heavy casaualties and despite aliied casualties. It can not be a tactical victory with german causltias and despite allies it can only be a tactical victory despite allied casualties and with allied ground gains. And that is indeed the correct version like i explainded above. I also want to highlight since we recognized that no historian claims this correlcation and so we cant find any quote supporting the statement ( i claimed this from the very beginning ) , now u say it needs no citiation, to avoid wp:burden. First u and enigma said its completly sourced since we know it is absolutly not, u claim it now needs no sitiation. Without trying to push u in a corner, maybe we should simply search a new sentence which is better than the old and satisfiing for all. what do u think ? Blablaaa ( talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I support TheLand here. I have read numerous discussions about trying to simplify very complex, often historically differing accounts', views on various outcomes of battles which go over and over disagreements merely to come up with an infobox result. The result is enormous amounts of wasted time. EyeSerene, is it plausible to delete the results section from the battle infobox? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The charnwood article still has OR in the lead with an statement which contraticts military logic and which is still unsources. Can someone change it now ? Correlation between allied sucess and german casualties was never claimed by any historian. please change it now and search for a better statement. The recent sentence is even worse than the old because u cant win a battle with german casualties and despite allied casualties. The sentence is weird now. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That nobody respondes to the infobox issue shows that nobody wants to take position for the status quo, because its bad. But if i would start changing it i would be reverted. So many people have opinions to topics where they lack the knowledge to participate on a academic level. But the infobox issue is so obivous allied bias that nobody wants to risk to get himself attackable. The best option is to wait until blabla shuts his mouth... . Thats an easy way to avoid changes. Ignore the guy who moans and revert him if he tries to change the status quo. And then use his reputation to slander his points. Blablaaa ( talk) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
the perfect prove for my opinion is that u ignored the infobox issue but immediatly came back to dicuss me and my opinions. thats so obvious. Blablaaa ( talk) 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
your premise is that enigma and eyeseren want to think about my concerns and handle them as real concerns rather than attempts to disrupt wiki. Your premise is wrong so are your conclusion. sorry... Blablaaa ( talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
addressing ranges question for my suggestion: here my idea "Despite I Corp's losses, operation charnwood became a tactical sucess with the capture of northern Cean." this summarizes the article better than the old. allied had much higher losses but achieved victory with the caputre of northcean Blablaaa ( talk) 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I am completely uninvolved in the discussion above, and to be honest couldn't care less who is right or wrong, but I find this editor's language to be uncivil, offensive and unjustified. For those that haven't followed the discussion, I quote from the thread above:
FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Since when have we tolerated such language, especially from an editor with 5 previous blocks? Are we all so gutless now following the previous episode that we allow this behaviour to go unsanctioned? It seems that way... (still waiting for his mate Caden to chime in and award him another Barnstar).
Bloody bad show all round. Why wasn't this reverted immediately and a block applied? The apology is hollow at best until the comments are removed by the editor in question, and quite frankly he is still deserving of at least a 24-hour block. Perhaps only Nick-D had the stomach to do it, but then we saw where that got him didn't we? His integrity unfairly called into question... Disgusted. Anotherclown ( talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The infoboxes are a general problem in my opinion. Maybe here is the correct place now to raise this issue. If we look normandy we see that all german units for example, are listed in the strength section. The strength section has the task to give the reader an idea of strenghths this means he wants to compare the participating infantry tanks planes etc. But on normandy we get the funny resultes that german units which were battalion size are counted as full divisions in the box, this applies for nearly every battle. German units never get real replacements. This meant 3 german division against 3 allied division in august 44 meant mabye 4:1 infantry and 5:1 in tanks. When the reader gets the counted units in the box he will always assume they are equall strengths. This is nothing else than fooling i think. I raised this problem already but i was ignored. Now we get the next problem. when 2800 bombers and other aircraft take part in an allied operation they are never mentioned in the box, when i ask why i get the answer : " because we dont know german aircraft", the simple reason that we dont know how much german aircraft participated, is that there were 20 or something like this. why not mentioning the 2800 aircraft? same for artillery. When a german battalion sized unit is listed as full division , then i wonder that 2800 aircraft are not mentioned. The infobox on normandy article is so useless its persuades the reader some kind of equality in strenght which is wrong (there are more problems but this is the most obvious for me). Please take a look at any normandy article its everywhere. Best example was verriers ridge. 3 days before this battle, the charnwood article said the 12 SS has battalion size now and on the next article the 12 SS is again listed as full Panzerdivision in the strenght section. Thats a simple lie, isnt it? I raised the issue but got no answer, i changed it now. The strenght section is for comparing strenghtes and if the division are very unequal in strange than u cant put them in the box. thats undisputable. My idea: use the infobox only for clear facts. Dont imply something . If german strenght isnt availabe than dont count any battlaion which took part as full division!!! I want also to give some input , on german wiki all new featured articles for battle in ww2 no longer have an infobox please take a look at cholm or wjasma-brijansk for example. On german wiki they came to the conclusion that for battles in ww2 its pretty useless to use an infobox which is so easy to manipulate. ( strength section on normany for example). All relevant issues are detailed explained in the article. Blablaaa ( talk) 19:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
i ask u one question please answer with yes or no. are u aware of the fact that on normandy articles, counting divisions will nearly always imply the reader an untrue picture about the strength relation ? please yes or no
Blablaaa (
talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
While i claim german units are understrength and you know this is anbsolutly correct u claim this is speculation to undermine my point. No search for consense in my opinion.... . Lets wait for other editors. If u really claim it is speculation to claim german panzerdivisions in normandy were understrenght compared to allied than i dont know. You are complete aware of this fact but you call it speculation.... . I wait for other editors.
Blablaaa (
talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
enigma: "No, because i believe the readers are smart enough to glance the rest of the article" , ok this means you know the figures are misleading but u claim the reader will read the article and see how misleading they are LoL. Sorry but.... Blablaaa ( talk) 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
enigma: "its clear as day what i called speculation" yes u call specualtion that allied divisions had more menpower which is actually well known and you know it 2 but you cant admit because it would immediatly proove your intention. THats why i think you dont search for consense. U really dispute the fact that german divisions were smaller in size then the allied, that u dispute this shows clearly what your intention is, doesnt it? the infoboxes are misleading... please lets find a better solution Blablaaa ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering you have argued that counting the divisions is so wrong, but counting the regiments/brigades and battalions is much more precise; am sure you would agree that would still not tell you how many men were involved, would not answer the question of how under strength these formations were, nor the difference in their organisation i.e. nothing changed the same "problem" remainds. Likewise it’s essentially the same problem that arrives when stating the total number of people ala the Battle of France – it does not tell you anything about organisation, deployment, how many men were involved, etc. All methods would still require the reader to look at the article to gain a full understanding; a stright up comparison is irrlevent on a modern battlefield however at least the infobox allows the reader to gain a quick understanding of roughly what forces were put into the battle - a division is still a division, a battalion a battalion regardless of what side, each side organised differently. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
i also want to highlight that my "failure" to assume a british regiments is equal to a german regiment, illustrates in a funny way that people in general will always think one german panzervision equals a british if they are counted in the box. Thats why people are misleaded with quantity of units particulary in normandy where german divisions were sometimes "battalionsized units". Blablaaa ( talk) 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I also want to highlight, that a historian who says "this three german divisions took part" doenst say german had the strenght of 3 full panzerdivisions but this is exactly what the strenght section in the box claims. So please finally stop claiming this is sourced by historians. No historian whould seriously claim german had 7 full divisions !!! if u claim any historian said this than please give quote! You will find none... Blablaaa ( talk) 20:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I must confess I am astounded by the ridiculous direction this issue has taken. Blablaa, I’m afraid I give in on trying to help you. I do strongly recommend you read my posts once more before you fly of the handle again. I didn’t “preffered to explain my point doesnt work instead of explaining the infobox now doenst work.” These are two very different things and I’m not going to explain it to you again. I have not anywhere looked for weak spots in your edits or attacked you. So get over it.
As for “mit zweierlei Maß messen”, the phrase you’re looking for is “double standards”. Well, I have tried as hard as possible to remain neutral on these threads, so perhaps unsurprisingly I struggle to find anything in my posts above that comes across as “moaning about [your] alleged wrong behaviour”. In fact I think I’ve pretty much ignored a lot of fairly risqué behaviour on your part, and a few personal attacks against others and myself. Equally I have ‘ignored’ what you describe as proof that people try to manoeuvre against you, because a) I’m trying to remain neutral, b) I personally haven’t been manoeuvring at all, which I would have thought is quite obvious, and c) as I‘ve already explained before, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Quite frankly I couldn’t care less if Enigma did ‘lie’ in his summary of a totally different discussion because it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the issue we are discussing here, which is about result sections and strengths in infoboxes. Enigma hasn’t lied about anything to do with this subject as far as I can see, and I’m not going to go out of my way to investigate where he might have said something else about something totally different once upon a time on a 60 comment long talk page I know nothing about. Seriously, even if he did lie, what does it have to do with the result sections of infoboxes? And even then, if I did suddenly start to care in some effort to prolong this debate and assist its inevitable descent into a bitching match, shall I suddenly start caring about your attitude in all this as well? The insults and expletives? The endless insinuations about people’s motives and suggestions of anti-German bias? The spelling? Do you really think that seizing upon an editor’s one possible impropriety totally absolves you of any? I don’t care. Like I said, I’m not here to mediate “he said – she said” spats, all I’ve been trying to do is reach a reasonable compromise on this subject and get a positive outcome. In order to do that I’ve tried very hard to remain neutral and remain focussed on the point of this discussion instead of getting sidetracked.
Unfortunately, you seem unable to recognise that. Given your attitude and rants above, I can’t conclude you are here for the same purpose as me; you appear to be a little too agenda driven, are too suspicious of people’s motives and are unwilling to engage in reasonable debate or compromise. It appears that unless people agree with you 100% then you just conclude that they are against you and soon incur ‘your wrath’. I have no time for that sort of discussion so I’m disengaging now. Good luck to anyone who has the patience to deal with this. I do think there might be something to be gained from further discussion on the subject, but I don’t have the inclination to waste my time anymore. Ranger Steve ( talk) 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, folks, let's all get back on track here and discuss the content of the articles, not the other editors involved in this debate. I see two substantive issues being discussed here:
Comments on these are welcome; if there are other matters that need to be examined, comments on those are welcome too.
What is not welcome here, however, are attacks on other contributors. This means, among other things: no insults, no accusations about other editors being liars, and no snide insinuations about the motives of anyone participating here.
There is a constructive debate to be had here about how we can improve the encyclopedia; let's not let it descend into incivility and mere bickering. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
slater: Then we can't use any level of formation, so what is your solutionn? . In general historians have reported strengths so we simply take this numbers to compare strengths. In normandy this doesnt work because german units were simply a bit disorganized. My simple solution is Write unknonw !! german strength is unknown so write unknown. We know which units participated so we can name them in the article. The infobox ( which is bad in general in my opinion ) wants to compare strengths, but we dont have german strength so we cant compare the strength thats it. To be honest the only thing we know for a fact that german deployed less troops. Iam pretty sure multiple surces can be find for this. A possiblity would be to write the allied numbers and for german "less" this would be correct and a hard fact but i guess nobody wants this. Thats everything to compare. Regarding the comparison of armoured divisions, german armoured division at max were bigger than allied ( i guess ) so even if both were at max they should not be used in the infobox because this now would also draw a wrong picture. Blablaaa ( talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Blablaaa, maybe it would be helpful for you to find out if anyone else thinks the infoboxes are misleading? You're investing an awful lot of time and energy in this, but I think you need to show that (a) you've identified a genuine problem, and (b) there's a consensus to fix it. EyeSerene talk 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
your 4th point would be an improvement. I still prefer "unkown further details" or numbers for allied and "less" for german with " further details" . Your post was one of the most valuable until now. Blablaaa ( talk) 05:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I see bad status quo maintained. And battalion sized units are still listed as full panzer divisions to mislead any reader. Congratulations MILHIST Blablaaa ( talk) 01:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)