Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 87

(I did ask this at the British Task Force talk page, but I feel that the broader spectrum of readers here might give a better indication of where consensus lies. I've also refined my question, making it more specific in light of some research I did myself.)

Anyhow, here's my question: in the context of the English Civil War and related conflicts, three terms are used in contemporary and modern sources to describe the supporters of King Charles I^[1]:

1. loyalist, a term used at the time, as a self-reference (I've just added a brief reference on the disambig version of that sorry page);
2. royalist, a term used occassionally at the time self-referentially, apparently with a sort of 'foreign' connotation, that has taken hold much more in modern times (article is itself a disambig, directs visitors to:);
3. cavalier, a term used solely by the Parliamentarians/Roundheads (I'll save that debate for another day), with (derogatory?) lifestyle connotations, perhaps a subset of the supporters of the king (finally, an actual article about the people, though not FA class)

It's seems an odd arrangement to me: are people more likely to look for cavalier or royalist in these modern times? Is using either term inherently NPOV? Would it be best to collaboratively rewrite Cavalier to feel more like it represents all three terms? All views appreciated. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that roundheads and cavaliers are the terms usually used in history classes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Am currently studying the civil war at uni; the term Parliamentarian or simply the term parliament i.e. Parliament’s army etc I have only scanned through the book, checked the glossary and index – there is no mention of Roundheads. Likewise there appears to be no mention of cavaliers again it’s the King’s army or the King’s supporters etc (The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, Anne Laurence)

I don’t believe the colloquial terms should be used as the article names but once established that a supporter of the King was called a cavalier I wouldn’t object to it then being mentioned throughout the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to think how we apply WP:NCCN, those whose historical knowledge basically comes from secondary/high school education are likely to be more familiar with the Roundhead and Cavalier terms, so we need to be sure that those get Wikipedia readers to somewhere sensible, even if only by redirects or dab pages. Royalist certainly ahs a modern political interpretation, in for example debates about the position of the monarchy across the Commonwealth Realms, ad presumably in other countries which maintain a monarchy. David Underdown (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Although cavalier does seem to be a word with a paticualr meaning and not representative of all of the kings supporters. If this was going to be used as the article name for the entire Royalist side of the civil war would the term be established within the opening para that it was a nickname and then there technical term etc established i.e. a cavalier was a nickname ..... Kings supporters considered themselves ...... etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally I'm reading a bio of Marlborough at the moment, and Richard Holmes uses "loyalist" pretty much consistently for the King's supporters (Cavalier/Roundhead doesn't appear once in my recollection, though I do remember the terms from school history lessons). EyeSerene^talk 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking "Cavalier" as the most common name for them in English, why does own own article constantly refer to Royalists? Bloody hell that's confusing to the man looking for more general information about the royalists. Could someone who knows a bit about the period / has sources available please take take a look? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A further source: Peter G. Wallace 'The Long European Reformation' refers to the supporters of the King as Royalists (p. 139)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that Cavalier is the most common term - Royalist would seem to be better supported by the sources. EyeSerene^talk 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Some more material for you all:

Austin Wollrych writing the article ‘Shifting Perspectives on the Great Rebellion’ in the History Today magazine in 2002 only refers to the two parties as the royalists and parliamentarians not once does he use the colloquial terms (well one does tell a lie, in the further reading section there is a book called ‘Roundhead Reputations: the English Civil Wars and the Passions of Posterity’). Just to note the university states that Austin is much respected in this field.

Additionally there is a book on the subject, sort of, called ‘Royalist Conspiracy of England, 1649-1660’ by David Underdown.

Editor Rachel Gibbons uses the term Royalist, I don’t personally see Loyalist or Cavalier, in the chapter on the Civil War in her book ‘Exploring History 1400-1900: An anthology of primary sources’

Now am by no means an expert or even that educated in this field but one would argue that the use of the term ‘Loyalist’ is erroneous; Royalist appears to be the correct term that one would venture a guess was in common use.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to avoid possible confusion, as noted on my user page, I am not that David Underdown mentioned as an author above. David Underdown (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, what about creating Royalist (English Civil War), at the start importing material from Cavalier and English Civil War (an article which refers to royalists 41 times throughout and cavaliers precisely never), then giving cavalier a few tweaks? Seems like a plan to me. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to a debate on Talk:Falaise pocket, do we have a consensus way of referring to the Polish forces that fought under various Allied commands (including their own) during the Second World War? This is mainly relating to the infobox, which has been changed from "Polish forces" to "Poland". Some points to consider might include:

• A Polish government-in-exile existed, but although it was recognised by the Western Allies can it be said to represent Poland - at the time an occupied country - or just those Poles that had escaped the occupation?
• The Poles made one of the largest contributions, even after their defeat, to the Allied war effort.
• A distinction is generally made in the case of the contributions of other defeated nations. For example, the French forces under Allied command are referred to as the "Free French Forces", not the "French Forces".
• Wikipedia uses "Polish Armed Forces in the West", but this is a bit of a mouthful for the infobox.

I'd like to try to come to some consensus if we can, as I've noticed an increasing amount of pro-Polish 'tweaks' to articles recently and I think a project-wide decision to point to would be helpful. EyeSerene^talk 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment for now: Polish government-in-exile represented the Polish Underground State, hence many more people then just the ones that escaped the German-occupied territories.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

One could see there being three different parties representing Poland: those fighting with the Soviets, those fighting with the West and those of the Home Army. Prehaps use the most relevent article in the infox box but renamed as Poland i.e. [[Polish Armed Forces in the West|Poland] etc?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Polish fought mainly with the British. They proved to be great pilots in the Battle of Britain shooting down numerous fighters. Also, in the Battle of Monte Cassino they where the 1st ones to reach the monestary. They fought with the British since the Polish-government-in exile was based in London.--Coffeekid (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevence of what they achieved as to do with this?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since Poland was the 1st country to be invaded by Nazi Germany the Polish wanted payback for invading Poland. They felt proud when they reached the top of the monestary same with the Battle of Britain.

'Poland' seems adequate and reflects the legal status of these forces and what they're commonly called. Large numbers of Poles fought with the USSR, by the way, (the Polish Armed Forces in the East) including two full Armies. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Poles fought with Soviets in the Battle of Berlin. Sorry didn't added it/--Coffeekid (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems we're largely agreed on 'Poland' plus a pipe to whatever article best fits the specific forces for that article. Thanks all! EyeSerene^talk 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok next question. What flag is correct to use for the Polish force fighting along side the Western Allies, the Polish flag with or without the coat of arms?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that they used the same Polish flag that they used today--Coffeekid (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They used the same flag. Soviets desided not to touch Polish flag of the Polish forces in the East controlled by them, so they could mislead ordinary Polish soldiers that they are actually fighting for free Poland (as most if not all of them thought) and to win public support in the "liberated" Polish territories.--Jacurek (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So what is the correct one to represent the country, the one minus the coat of arms?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just white and red without the coat of arms.--Jacurek (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How did the Polish Forces help the Free Polish forces in Poland?--Coffeekid (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Frank Bladin is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Yorktown class gunboat is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) 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! Magic♪piano 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) 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! — Bellhalla (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A new task force has been formed. If you're interested in particpating, please add your name here.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the instigators of this TF is a sock of the banned Strider11 (talk · contribs). The other is an SPA... hmmm YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, if a sockpuppet and an apparent SPA can form a taskforce with no real members, can I form an airborne warfare taskforce, which will have more articles and (hopefully) more members? Skinny87 (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Was there any discussion regarding the creation of this task force? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not on any page I'm watching. I assumed I just missed it, but if you haven't seen any either I don't know where it came from. – Joe N 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

the Strider sock, like many Pakistani users likes to remove mentions of India whereever possible (except when negative) Looks like he created the Pak TF so he could delist a whole bunch of stuff from the India TF. A few other banned Pakistanis like to go around doing that sort of thing. Maybe that was why Teckgeek started teh TF. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another fellow is on my talk page asking if the TF and the other token WikiProjects that the Strider sock created can be deleted. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting it might be justifiable, but probably isn't worth it in practical terms; the rump task force does actually cover an area where we have a gap in task force coverage, and people do seem to have gathered a fair number of articles for it. My suggestion would be to just let it sit there inactive rather than deleting it outright; we can always clean it up if/when we go through a general task force reorganization, if it hasn't gathered any real activity by that point.

As far as airborne warfare is concerned, that seems like a good use for the new working group model (since it can be parked under military aviation initially) rather than the independent task force one, but I have no strong feelings either way. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The TF can probably be made to work with a bit of effort. We do, after all, have plenty of Pakistani editors. I'll give it some thought and attack the problem once I have a little more time.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A working group seems like a good idea, thanks; I'll look into it. Skinny87 (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please fix this stub. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How would you like it 'fixed'? Skinny87 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you could turn it into a Featured Article by next Monday, that'd be great. —Kevin Myers 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain it should not be a page at all: it seems to be exactly the same as the battle/siege described at Battle of Jamrud (1837), and should therefore, be turned into a redirect. Is this not the case? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirected. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is, is there another Battle of Jamrud that requires this one to be disambiguated? If not, the current article should be moved to the undisambiguated location. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think so: same place, same year, same armies. Given that the stub contained about two sentences, this seems as likely as we are to get. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I was asking if there was a "Battle of Jamrud" in 1563 or whatever that would necessitate the current article being at Battle of Jamrud (1837). If there isn't, then the article should be moved to the plain Battle of Jamrud, because we don't disambiguate articles if there is no need to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I had actually considered that independently, good poin; I have no idea. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, is it one or the other? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

Barring any sort of official rules of usage, I would use brigadier general (in all lower case) for referring to the rank and Brigadier General (initials caps for both) when used as a title. Examples:

• John Smith was promoted to the rank of brigadier general on 12 May 2009.
• The appointment to the position was filled by Brigadier General John Smith.

Hope this helps. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now look at the article Brigadier general- is that correctly titled? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

Going off other ranks such as Maj-General and Lt-General i would say the second word should be capatlised along with the first; allot of historical works support the two examples used.

A few websites also support this hypothesis. Do a quick search on the below pages for the term to see how they have spelt it:

http://www.army.mod.uk/signals/museum/9859.aspx http://www.army.mod.uk/6285.aspx http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/general-interest/891-structure-army-british.html http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/BritishGunnersHelpAfghanArtilleryFireUp.htm http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/FittingTributeToWwiiPolishAirmenUnveiled.htm

The below book, available on google supports Bellhalla:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KWrLJj-iTlAC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8

For example "Brigadier-General Anthony Wayne's two brigades were successfully pushing back the British left," (p.6) and "But, unlike the American use of the grade as a substantive rank, brigadier-general had developed in the British army as a positional grade" (p. 8)

Hope this helps--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it kosher to move the article to the more accepted spelling? FWiW, this may need an admin to administer his/her/their/its power... (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression the wiki software automatically capitalises the first letter of the article title regardless. EyeSerene^talk 07:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's at the appropriate location now, and since Brigadier General redirects there, see no compelling reason it should be moved. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Military career of L. Ron Hubbard is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet has entered into the featured article candidacy phase and awaits your participation. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine if the article meets or is capable of meeting the criteria for featured articles; all editors are welcome for their input. Thanks! Jappalang (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just started a stub for this specific plane, a variant of the Lockheed Ventura, which was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places. I wondered if someone with more aircraft/military knowledge that I might enjoy developing it. Lvklock (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Historic Naval Ships Association (www.hnsa.org) has added some key references for Naval guns and ordnance that should be of help to a variety of editors (both Naval and Air, they have bombs).

http://hnsa.org/doc/

Navy catalog of Gun Mounts and Turrets that includes almost all the U.S. Navy WW II equipment. Close to 600 pages. http://hnsa.org/doc/guncat/index.htm

U.S. Navy Projectiles and Fuzes, was created by the U.S. Navy Bomb Disposal School in June of 1945. Over 400 pages. http://hnsa.org/doc/projcat/index.htm

British Bombs and Fuzes 1944 http://hnsa.org/doc/britord/index.htm

Pekelney (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent find! And since the manuals are works of the US Government, the photos and illustrations therein are definitely suitable for uploading to Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nice! :) Has anyone notified Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) about this? He's the only one that I can think of off the top of my head that does a bunch of naval weaponry articles... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Wikipedia listing Fifth Battle of Ypres should be changed to Fourth Battle of Ypres. There was no official 'Fifth Battle of Ypres' in World War One. It was officially called the "Fourth Battle of Ypres". People who call it 5th Ypres do so because they mis-name the Battle of the Lys "4th Ypres". Since Wikipedia correctly lists the Battle of the Lys, and since there is no Wikipedia listing for the Fourth Battle of Ypres (other than the incorrect link to the Battle of the Lys), I think this ought to be adjusted to match the official nomenclature.

Mis-naming the battle "5th Ypres" confuses anyone looking for the battle, which may be part of the reason the entry has not been significantly expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.213.51 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to make collaboration among editors easier in cases where a topic is not broad enough to sustain a separate task force, we're introducing the model of "working groups". A working group will be an informal cluster of editors collaborating on a single topic within the scope of an established task force; they'll have much less infrastructure set up than full task forces do, and managing them will mostly be up to the participating editors.

A list of current working groups, as well as a form to create new ones, is available at WP:MILHIST/TF#Working groups. Everyone, please feel free to join any of the current groups or create your own for the topics that you're involved with. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just created a sixth one, the Airborne Warfare task force, concentrating on all articles associated with airborne warfare. Skinny87 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Super Punch-Out!! (Super NES), an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! MuZemike 00:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre article was discussed by members of the project when it was created. It has now been nominated for deletion, and the AfD discussion is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The following articles:

• Tucker-class destroyer
• USS Tucker (DD-57)
• USS Conyngham (DD-58)
• USS Porter (DD-59)
• USS Wadsworth (DD-60)
• USS Jacob Jones (DD-61)
• USS Wainwright (DD-62)

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The article Siege needs inline citations. Or else it could lose its featured article status. See Wikipedia:Featured article review WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever suggested Operation Uranus as TFA, whether one of the editors or Raul. Summer is here and I only have one calculus class, so I might have some time to take some of the articles I left at A class to FA. We'll see. :P Wikipedia is addicting, and I rather not rebuild the addiction! In any case, thank you for everything. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Catalan! Long time no talk. Nice to see that you still check this every so often. :-) Congrats on the TFA; I think that Raul did it, as I didn't see it on WP:TFA/R. Cheers dude! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Sd.Kfz. 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A small question has come up over on the talk page of the 101st Airborne Division that I thought could serve as an example for the overall question about naming conventions to the rest of the MilHist community as well. About the unit naming conventions: they were designed largely to prevent confusion between similarly named/numbered units throughout the world. A case has been made that conformity would call for the 101st Airborne to have the (United States) disambig attached since most other numbered units have the country, too. I've made a case against its inclusion since the 101st Airborne Division is unique and therefore the distinguishing country is unnecessary. And then the question was brought up about other things in parenthesis. Technically, the 101st Airborne Division has (Air Assault) attached as part of its official name. However, the unit naming conventions don't seem to make room for parenthetical exceptions like this and if I recall from years ago when we were discussing this to begin with, any parenthetical addition besides the country or branch of service if necessary was discouraged. I don't recall the consensus of that discussion, however. So what do we do in cases where units already have parenthetical attachments added typically to their official name but are not country or service branch in nature? Are they allowed and/or necessary? A couple of other units have a similar situation and it would be nice to get a final word on the subject. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally I dislike the disambigs so long as there's no possibility of confusion between national forces. Units like the 101st or 13th Panzer or 76th Guards Airborne Divisions have unique names and don't need disambiguations, nor are they ever likely to do so. I'm a little conflicted about using the full formal name, including parenthetical titles, as opposed to the shorter more common name because it's a PITA to build links to pages using the full name when you just want to reference the unit and drive on. But as long as there are disambigs set up so that people can find the article using the unit's full and short names both, I suppose it doesn't really matter. On a related note GraemeLeggett and I were discussing naming conventions for equipment over on the Talk:Panzer 35(t) page and I pushed for the full German name of the tank rather than the short Panzer x name we're currently using. I'll admit that the Germans didn't usually write out the whole thing, rather using the abbreviation of Pz.Kpfw. x, but Panzer x wasn't much used during the war, people often using the British Mark x. So if you want to go for the most common English name that should be used rather than the shortened Panzer x used because most of us are too lazy to spell the whole thing out. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(Simultaenous post) I was going to say - IMHO, stick with the (short) common name, include the parenthical in the opening sentence and infobox, pick up alternative spellings and combos through redirs. Meets all MoS and guidelines. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for the History of the United Kingdom during World War I is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and, as ever, any input there would be much appreciated. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Henry Burrell (RAN officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guys

Can you please help with protecting these articles from vandalism:

• Nuclear Triad
• Strategic Bombers
• Indian WMD Delivery mechanisms

The Problem

Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M) to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. The above listed articles are continuously vandalized with blatant misinformation, such as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" and "The indian Tu-142 and Il-387 are already fitted with nuclear payload delivery systems", (which we know) are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.

Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M.

Can anyone please help, as for any good reader, this type of systemic misinformation campaign (by large number of indian-orgin users) on an interesting article is very very annoying.

Thanks -- Ash sul (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded at some length in the Indian WMD article and am watching it. I don't expect more of the same in the other two, but if it does, please let me know on my talk page. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys want to be in the loop before we delete an article like this one, so I've added your project tag, and opinions are welcome on the article talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw, while I'm here, I notice that you guys don't have your WP:Article alerts page in the default location (maybe it's somewhere else), but you do have a link on your project page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. If some of you actively check for articles in the deletion process but you don't check prodded articles with your project tag, then I'll be happy to put in a request for a bot which will look for articles that are in both cats (prodded, MILHIST) and slap a deletion-sorting tag on the talk page; do you want that, or would you rather check the Article Alerts? - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article alerts are on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks; but I'm not sure whether people prefer to use that or the deletion sorting subpage.

(It might be nice, incidentally, to somehow combine the two separate pages into one; but I haven't come up with any neat way of doing so yet.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming to the same conclusion; some people look at deletion sorting but not article alerts, and some look at article alerts but not deletion sorting. I think we probably need a bot that makes sure the relevant notifications appear in both places; I'll add it to my bot wish list. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

Ref. William Windsor (goat), a Lance Corporal in the Royal Welsh, retired 20 May 2009.

I would appreciate it if anyone could take a look at this quirky article, which is currently very much in the UK news.

I think it fits within the remit of Mil Hist; I have nominated it for a DYK, and would appreciate any help - perhaps adding it to this project, and assessing it?

Many thanks for your time,  Chzz  ►  06:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate, interesting article. It probably needs a photo to make it to B class. Also you could maybe add an infobox as per other biography articles, including details of years of service, rank etc. That would look pretty good in my opinion. I would suggest expanding the introduction a little to explain why a goat would be serving in the British Army. The article is slightly confusing as it says in the lead that he is a 'goat in the military' which has been wikilinked to military mascot, however, later it says that Windsor is not a mascot but a ranking member of the regiment. This probably needs to be cleared up. However, the article is well cited and has decent amount of information. Grammatically there are a couple of short paragraphs that could probably be consolidated. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just have to say that is a throughly enjoyable article :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So the original goat wandered onto the battlefield during the American Revolution and wound up leading the Welsh colors by the end. Does that mean the goat was an American traitor? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all above for feedback. I will work on improving the article as suggested. I am trying hard to find a picture - I'm on the phone now to the UK MoD media folk. The article is now a DYK candidate here, and per my comment there, his retirement has generated significant press coverage. Thank you again,  Chzz  ►  16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At USS Iowa (BB-61) a difference of opinion is emerging over the inclusion in the introductory paragraph of a line pointing out that Iowa was the only US battleship to have been equipped with a bathtub. We had a revert skirmish on the article earlier this year over the issue, and since its come up again I would like some wider input to establish community consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of the line. The line in question is in bold text below:

USS Iowa (BB-61) ("The Big Stick") was the lead ship of her class of battleship and the fourth in the United States Navy to be named in honor of the 29th state. Iowa is the only US battleship to have been equipped with a bathtub, and was the only ship of the class to have served in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II.

From where I sit this is notable enough for inclusion in the main paragraph, as I have tried with all of the Iowas to pull one or two interesting pieces of information for the lead, but as I noted since this one keeps getting removed and readded I'd like input from a broader audience before making any further moves on this. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's trivia and have commented as such on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nick-D on this one. There is no reason why this information cannot appear elsewhere in the article, but the lead should be a brief introductory guide on the most important aspects of the article's topic, and I'm afraid that there is no way that the presence of a bathtub falls into this category. Its a nice DYK hook, but in my opinion not relevant for the lead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The tub is "Curious facts" at best. Note that WP is not meant to be a collection of trivia, either. PetersV       TALK 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

While it's an interesting fact that should be in the article, having it in the lead seems a bit overboard to me. – Joe N 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

←Consensus has unilaterally been for removal, so I have retooled the introduction to reflect this. Thanks to all who offered input on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Forward air control article is undergoing a massive retooling and expansion. While a good-faith effort, much of the changes are not inaccourd with WP standards, such as the use of aircraft infoboxes, no Lead, non-encyclopedic style, and several empty sections. It goes into great detail on individual operations; if this is repeated for every section, the article will be quite long. Due to the current half-finished nature of the article, it might be better if a preveious version were restored, while the current version is worked on in a userspace. I have not brought this up on the article's or the editor's talk pages, as I wanted to get other opinions on this first. - BillCJ (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree Bill - the use of the aircraft infoboxes and focus on US FAC units is inappropriate and strongly biases the article towards the United States. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree that for a rewrite of that magnitude, drafting in userspace should be suggested to the editor as the preferred way forward, if only to make life easier for them by stopping others from undoing his/her work while they are still working on it, while stopping the appearance of disruption for other editors or readers. -- saberwyn 05:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left what was hopefully a friendly note on the users talkpage, detailing the above concerns and ocffering several suggestions. Skinny87 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, you can pitch in and help me instead of picking at me. But be fair; my practice is to cite every source as I go, so there is no unconfirmed material. I feel it is fair to expect the same.

Georgejdorner (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article text for ease of communication. Georgejdorner, you're not being 'picked on'. There are just a few editors concerned with the manner in which your expansion of the article is taking place. It's an excellent job and you are to be applauded for beginning it - we just have some concerns over NPOV and MoS issues. That's why I suggested taking it to a userpage and building it there and soliciting editors help when and where it is needed, rather than continuing to do so in articlespace. Skinny87 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working towards creating a Good Topic for all of the British WWII military gliders, but I'm not sure what the 'parent' article should be. Should I create a British military gliders of World War II or somesuch as the parent? And does the Glider Pilot Regiment need to be in the topic for it to be complete, or is that a seperate article and focus? Skinny87 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes to the first - seems pretty promising for discussing the evolution of one design into another and the overarching ideas behind them - and the second seems like it could go either way. It's related, but not vitally so... there'd certainly be no problem omitting it. Shimgray | talk | 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Should British military gliders of World War II (or should it be British military gliders of the Second World War) be a related to Military glider which has a small bit about British use. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For we Brits it is the Second World War - pedantic i know :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the form usually used in article text, but categories mostly use "World War II" throughout the project - I suspect standard forms of titles might have an overall consistency as well. Shimgray | talk | 21:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Attalus I 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. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a mission - to get all the British WWII gliders to GA status for a future Good Topic, but I need your help! I've got General Aircraft Hotspur about as detailed as I can, but as it was only ever a training glider, it didn't see operational service, and so information is a bit on the thin side. So, now I'm turning to you, great MILHIST editors, for your help! Can any of you help me expand this article any further? I'm particularly looking for information on the Mk III - I know it existed, but details on it seem to be nonexistent, but they obviously need to be in the article for it to be comprensive. Details on the designs of the Mark I would also be appreciated, as would any expansion of the Mk II's specifications for the 'Specification' section. So, I set you a challenge - can any of you help? Barnstars will be awarded liberally, of course! Skinny87 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posted to Wikiproject Aviation, but I still need help; specifically, I need details on the Hotspur Mk III, as I know it existed but can't find any info on it. Skinny87 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Check my post there, Skinny. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on an article about Don Chafin, sheriff of Logan County West Virginia and a key commander in the Battle of Blair Mountain. Chafin never served in the military per se, but the Battle of Blair Mountain was more of a military engagement than anything else. As such does his command in the battle place him in this project's scope? Cool3 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes, adhering more to the spirit of MILHIST notability rather than the word; though no troops were involved, it seems to have been quite an organized combat, and Chafin was key to it. Still, I'd like to hear what other coordinators think. Skinny87 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote yes as well. There was an interesting piece of work a few years ago looking at the Johnson County wars of the previous decade (chapter seven in David Cohen's "The Combing of History", 1994) which addressed the classification of those wars (or social conflict, etc.), and the effect of different classifications. But yep, I'd vote in favour of it having a claim on military history too.--Hchc2009 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that his force passed under the control of the National Guard, this would seem to validate it as coming within our scope. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there seems to be general agreement, so I've gone ahead and added the MILHIST template to the article. Thanks for the input everyone. Cool3 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Rupert Downes‎ is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is interested I submitted List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Veracruz for FLC.--Kumioko (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Krag-Jørgensen‎ 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.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: the link to the FAR is here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone else review The Increment, created through a request at Articles for Creation. My inclination is that it can probably be culled as a hoax but I'm sure there are probably some tinfoil hat wearers out there who'll challenge it. fwiw neither of the two linked sources meet the provisions of Verifiability and the other two are to works of fiction.

Cheers

ALR (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have concerns, Articles for Deletion is probably the place to take it (nomination instructions are on that page). Hoaxes don't normally fall under the speedy deletion criteria, and the article does assert notability. EyeSerene^talk 07:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like bollocks, but it doesn't fit into a speedy deletion category and needs to go to AfD. Clear-cut hoaxes can be deleted under CSD G3 (vandalism) by the way. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't think it looked blatant enough for that (though I agree with your assessment!) EyeSerene^talk 08:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the only way to prepare it for a clear cut hoax deletion would be to significantly edit it, which would reasonably lead to me being accused of arranging it that way.

AFD is probably the way to go, thanks for the eyes on though.

ALR (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinarny sourcing ... which this does not. The article would be more viable if developed to discuss the book of that title. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a hoax. Tomlinson made the claim on "Charlie Rose" the night before last, in answer to Charlie's question. Whether the org itself exists is another matter... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuch as it's not a real organisation, it's a hoax. Tomlinson makes David Icke look rational. And you'll need to amplify on what you mean by Charlie Rose.

Anyway, the initial claim for a source was essentially based on ephemera, not a published source, hence it's not verifiable.

ALR (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've ProD'd it for the moment. Don't imagine it'll stay there, then to AfD based on lack of credible sources, assertion of notability etc.

ALR (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, an expert to three is needed. There's an objection to the title of this article given the content which appears to be a list of British military activity (raised by me). The discussion has since polarized and stagnated (try to ignore the name-calling and the British/Irish split). The question to be addressed is whether the current article is named correctly. If not, why not, and what would the most appropriate name be. A secondary question is whether it makes sense to create an article on the military history of the British Isles seeing as how most other articles are named after a political entitiy or country. Please participate. --HighKing (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WOW nothing like jumping in with both feet never mind the Irish wait until the Scottish and Welsh see it, What about Military History of the people in the islands off the North Western coast of Europe ? only joking. We already have the History of the British Isles so [Military History of the British Isles] could work missing out of the peoples --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is named incorrectly. The current title limits the article to the events that happened in, what is, the present day UK. The term "British Isles" covers both the geographical regions of the United Kingdom and the country of Ireland. Both countries, including the former states of England, Scotland and Wales; have had a long interconnected past i.e. The War of the Three Kingdoms etc. I would support the move back to the previous name, or something similar, if we want an article to cover the military history of the three kingdoms.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the term "British Isles" used to exist as a political term to refer to the areas owned and ruled by the British monarch. An article titled "Military history of the British Isles" would then only refer to that period of time. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To my understanding British Isles refers to two biggish islands and a bunch of small ones - it's never had a political connatation to a particular nation. Particularly useful when considering the dark Ages when there where any number of Kings. The "of the peoples" is redundant.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good - that's the geographical definiton which we use on Wikipedia. But it most definitely has had a political connatation in the past. Wikipedia is full of the fractious disputes between opponents and proponents usage of this term (and in all honesty, I have form guv). My advice is to keep away as it's stressful, unproductive, and very unrewarding. But check out British Isles and British Isles naming dispute for info. --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What those two articles show is that while there is a controversy over the naming and essentially from the Irish side (I suspect that most of the inhabitants of Great Britain aren't even aware of an issue) - the article is of little use on what the rest of the English-speaking world refers to it (certain named publications aside) and whether they would identify any political connotations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, some British based editors are very ardent in the pursuit of 'naming of articles', and much edit warring has ensued. Also many British editors take a heightened interest in Irish articles, and voting issues that arise from them. Purple ☏ 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme - what are readers likely to search for, and what are the realistic alternatives? EyeSerene^talk 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that readers are most likely to search for "British military history" or "Military history of the United Kingdom" (naming convention like most of the "Military history of X" series. Unless they're looking for British military history specifically related to the period when people referred to the UK as the British Isles. For example, here's some military history of the British Isles - Sketches of the war, between the United States and the British isles written in 1815. --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It was at Military history of the peoples of Britain, and written accordingly, then an editor changed the title to the Military history of the peoples of the British Isles, and the content didn't suit the title. I therefor propose to move the article back to Military history of the peoples of Britain, or something in keeping with its content. The term British Isles is political in origin, and should only cover Ireland from 1603 to 1922, during the time period when it was a political term, although it is used in a geographical since Ireland severed ties with British rule. Purple ☏ 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern nationalist feelings should not outweigh actual history; Ireland has had a rather big role in the history of the rest of the isles well before the 1600s. Its rich heritage is not brought down any notches by using a simple term that defines a geographical region. I believe the actual term originates from the Romans – something like Britanniae used to originally define the islands to the north of the mainland. Using more modern term would appear to be giving into nationalist demands over a silly issue and would appear to alienate the past; the focusing of the issue in regards to the politics of present day Ireland and the United Kingdom have nothing to do with the ancient kingdoms (which one would assume would take up a large part of the article).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hispania is the name the Romans gave to the Iberian Peninsula, and that would be unacceptable today, the Roman argument is somewhat of a 'straw man'. I was bringing attention to the fact that the title was changed from 'Britain' to 'British Isles' by a British nationalist, but the content stayed exclusive to Britain. A bizarre situation to endure. The article should fit the title, imo. Purple ☏ 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not a straw man argument; the article covers events that have happened in the geographical area of what is known as the British isles - note in the article, for example, various wars the Irish people have been involved in (although the article could, imo, be expanded a bit to show a more varied range) not to mention wars and events that took place before the British nation was founded. Modern day nationalist feelings should not effect the naming of articles, the point I was making was that a ‘similar’ name was in use over 2,000 years ago to describe the islands off the coast of Gaul, nowadays it is socially acceptable to call this island chain, off the north coast of France, the British Isles. Considering the United Kingdom of Great Britain was only constructed around 300 years one asks in between the Romans and the evil British nationalists, coining a term to spite the Irish, what were these islands called – how best would one describe the multiple kingdoms that have existed here?

On that note wars that have taken place outside of these Isles, even if the populace of these Isles have been involved, should they really be mentioned in this article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The term British Isles is a political term that still has its connotations with British military might, it no more geographical than the German Rhineland, or the Swiss Alps. It is also quite offensive to Irish people, as historians estimate that up to 6,000,000 Irish people perished at the hands of the British, and I'm afraid that it's akin to labeling a Jew a Nazi, although the atrocities are in the past. The 'British Isles' became defunct in 1922 when Ireland left the UK, and the term is now avoided by organisations like the UN, National Geographic, British Government, Irish Government, American Government, and thousands of organisations throughout the world. It's generally a British 'thingy' to still use the term. Purple ☏ 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Am sorry but to compare hundreds of years of abuse from both sides is in no way comparable with the industrial genocide with the intent of wiping out an entire section of society via mass open air shooting and gas chambers! The comparison is appalling!

Although instead of attempting to guilt trip people into agreeing with you how about answering the question posed, modern nationalist feelings aside what has been the common name to describe these islands throughout the ages?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"The 'British Isles' became defunct in 1922 when Ireland left the UK, and the term is now avoided by organisations like the ... British Government..." I would suggest having a look on the UK gov's website where there are quite a few references to such; stating the same that the Isles consist of the two soviegn states. Doing a few searches on the Irish govs website and one finds quite a few hits for the term including Irish projects discussing eras prior to 1600.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not trying to guilt trip you, as my own ancestry is both Irish and British, so I share some the guilt too, and what's wrong with honesty. Cromwell did not have the weaponry of gas at his disposal, and there were other tyrants too, to put it mildly. To answer your question, the British Isles from about 1600 AD when Britain more or less controlled Ireland in totality, but that would naturally end when Ireland left the UK. Yes you will find Google hits, even on IE.GOV website, and it's usually a quotation from third party writings, as permission would have to be sought from copyright holder to change words. Purple ☏ 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Share the guilt? I find it laughable that events that happened so long ago are being used to fuel arguments now; how many people here were around when the Gaelic Irish and Old English settlers starting massacring the newer protestant settlers? Or when Cromwell and his Ironsides were running amuck in Ireland? Changing the wording, that was used then, to fit in with modern day politics is just plain wrong. To go off your own example it would be like writing a book about early 20th Century politics and not mentioning the Nazis or Soviets because it might offend some people; we may mock the Germans on a regular basis but we don’t harp on at them reminding them of their “everlasting guilt” and attempt to rub out history. The United Kingdom didn’t even exists at the time of the War of the Three Kingdoms, there was no such thing as modern day “Britishness” prior to creation of the Union in 1707. If this article is covering a time period where a term was in use it should not be restricted from using that because of the Anglo-Irish war and the ROI breaking away from the British Empire.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PS but Cromwell never massacred 6 million Irish people...he wasnt even "British"!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell was responsible for 1.5 to 2 million. The term British Isles is attributed to John Dee, an advisor to Elizabeth I, so that would make him late 1500s, that fits in with my timeline. "Massacring", is it? I won't comment, but that 1641 stuff is often discredited by historians, the jury is still out on that. The UK went to war with Germany because Germany stole Polish land, I'm sure the old Irish and old English were aggrieved that "foreigners" came and stole their land. The bottom line is, though the term BI does exist, it does not have the universal usage as some would claim it has, there is a bit of the Barbary Coasts' about it. Purple ☏ 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Overgeneralisation of what happened, the "land stealing" in Ireland had been going on long before Cromwell showed up or the Civil Wars even started; there is "guilt" on both sides for the events that took place it is never one sided. So you have established that the term was possibly coined before the War of the Three Kingdoms and was then made "defunt" following Ireland breaking away from the British Empire - so where is the fault using it in its correct time period?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

PS "Cromwell was responsible for 1.5 to 2 million" seems to be pushing it a little considering the footnotes on the Cromwell article regarding his possible genocidal actions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)OK, my intention to ask for help here wasn't to provoke yet another "Nothing wrong with the term British Isles / Yes there is / No there isn't" debate. Many people have strong feelings on the term either way. Both right. My request for help is really asking for opinions around the following questions:

1. Since "British Isles" was term in common use to describe the areas owned and ruled by the British monarch in the 18th and 19th centuries (a little like the way the term "Britain" is currently used synonymously with UK), does an article spanning a greater period of time than the "political" usage of "British Isles" make sense? It's much the same argument being used to say that the article shouldn't be entitled "Military history of the UK" because that title wasn't in use before 1700's. For example, the Military history of Italy covers the period before there was an "Italy" in the modern sense....
2. Does it make more sense to keep military history articles aligned to current political areas? For example, the "military history" series appears to conform to what is largely current political blocks.

Thank you for all your help and opinions. Just trying to get opinions from experts on things of a military nature, not necessarily of an Irish/British nature (we've enough of those on other articles already). --HighKing (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Romans referred to the area as Italy/Italia, so thats not a good comparison.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your questions HighKing, 1) It all depends on the actual subject of the article (as opposed to the subject of the title). If the article is solely concerned with the military history of Britain then the title is inappropriate. If it is concerned with the military history of Britain and Ireland (i.e. the geographical British Isles) then there is nothing wrong in principle although it can lose the "people of" as redundant. At the moment it is a bit of a mess and its hard to tell exactly what it is trying to say. 2) It is normal for articles on general military history to confine themselves chronologically to seperate political entities, either in the past or present. However, I can see interest in and possibly a need for geographical articles too (if people are willing to write them) e.g. Military History of Iberia would cover Spain, Portugal and all the medieval kingdoms that existed on the Peninsula, without having to focus on one and could describe the interactions between them. Thus there may be a need for both, and I see little point in trying to limit editors to one or the other.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Military History of Iberia would seem a bit contrived, as if the area stood cocooned in a universe of its own. We would probably end up with a 'stunted' article of little real value, and guess that's why it's still redlinked. Purple ☏ 14:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a peninsula, so in a sense it is mostly cocooned by the sea; on what grounds do you consider that we would end with a "stunted" article? Such an article seems an ideal place to present a merged military history of Portugal, Spain and the other nations that occupied the pensinsula, which has fouught a great many wars that did not involve any nation outside them. An article is only as good as the people that write it make it and despite your assertion, I see no reason why an article about military history by geographic region (such as the one under discussion above) is inappropriate or unproductive.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in people's opinions on point 1 above. --HighKing (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything that confuses the reader should be avoided. Nesting two subjects together would be a new way to go. That could to a whole plethora of articles like, Military history of Britain and France, Military history of Britain and Portugal, Military history of Britain and Germany, Military history of France and Germany. Interesting, is that the way Wikipedia should proceed? Purple ☏ 00:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you advocating or criticising this approach? Assuming you are being serious, such articles would certainly be interesting but should be careful to avoid simply repeating France – United Kingdom relations etc. and focus very closely on the military aspects of relations between each country. The Britain - France idea is especially interesting as these historical enemies have been allies for (give or take) almost 200 years now, a transition that has been bumpy on both sides. As with all Wikipedia articles, their use and clarity depends solely on the ability, knowledge and interest of the editors writing them. I not certain however what this has to do with the question in hand?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem writing these articles if this is the way Wikipedia wants to go. There is a commonality between the subjects as laid out above. Purple ☏ 01:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for deletion. The AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009.

The more comments/votes/consensus, the better. We really need to firm up consensus by community input into some of these areas to reduce the drain on admin and editor resources in policing naming disputes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for the Battle of Bosworth Field is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and, as ever, any input there would be much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is a fairly big job, but I'm troubled by the casual use of "miles" (here, for instance), & the presumption it means "statute miles" & can readily be converted to kilimeters. Navy writers (not least Morison) may habitually use nautical miles, especially in reference to sea distances.... So, what may be needed (& we would do with having IMO) is a) thoroughgoing check of mi/nm/km (which IMO is a major task) & b) standardization of usage where confusion may arise (presuming it doesn't already exist). My question amounts to, "What form is the source using, & has it been converted correctly?" Confirming it, or correcting the mistake, is important, IMO. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. According to Wikipedia:Units#Units_of_measurement all articles should specify the units of measurement used - using nmi or NM as the abbreviations for nautical mile and kn for knots. I have also seen a lot of spurious precision in unit conversions, deprecated by WP:Units. Cyclopaedic (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

TREKphiler brings up a good point. Personally, I haven't come across many uses of statute miles in ship/maritime articles I've edited, so I'm not sure how widespread a problem it really is. But it is a good reminder that many sources for maritime and ship articles provide distances in nautical miles and our articles on those subjects should give distances in nautical miles (when the source is not ambiguous).

Also, I highly recommend using Template:Convert—which bases its conversion on the number of significant figures, helping avoid the problems of excessive precision brought up by Cyclopaedic. And, as an FYI, kn doesn't have universal acceptance as an abbreviation for knots; I personally think its more clear to the casual reader to just to spell it out. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone involved with Wikiproject Military history please explain to me why the project's template is on the discussion page of the article about this film? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was tagged in February via AWB, I'm assuming because it picked up on the mention of "World War I" in the plot summary. I've removed the project banner, since it's outside the scope of this project. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It could also be because some of the events of the film take place during World War II, including the ramming of a German U-boat. (Not that I think it should be within scope, though.) — Bellhalla (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it fell within the scope of this project, which is why I asked. Thank you both for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

German Unification

This article had a major overhaul in the past 6 weeks, and has had a Project Germany review, is getting the project history review, but needs the military history review as well. Comments are welcome, please. Also, I am completely baffled by the instructions on how to move/copy/relink an archived peer review from 3 years ago to this new review. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay 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! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Otto Becher 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! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Will someone nautically-minded and experienced please consult the article's talkpage? User:IronShip is adding countless requests to the talkpage for info to be added and/or modified, but seemingly doesn't know how to properly cite it. Skinny87 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't even need to be nautically-minded, just able to fact check with sources for the DANFS stuff. Thanks in advance for any help, everyone. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposal for re-categorizing ships which may affect this project. Please see WT:SHIPS#Ship categorization. Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Selle is currently a redlink. This surprised me, as Battle of the Sambre (1918) claimed that "unprecedented" numbers of prisoners were taken at the Battle of the Selle. Sorry for posting this here, but I didn't see a WikiProject Military History page on which to request an article. Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A member of the project, Backslash Forwardslash, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Backslash Forwardslash's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Great candidate YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ship, along with other related templates like Template:Sclass, Template:USS and Template:HMS, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to comment, please go to the TFD. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been closed as keep per WP:SNOW. —Ed (Talk • Contribs)

The following articles:

• O'Brien-class destroyer
• USS O'Brien (DD-51)
• USS Nicholson (DD-52)
• USS Winslow (DD-53)
• USS McDougal (DD-54)
• USS Cushing (DD-55)
• USS Ericsson (DD-56)

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Werner Mölders; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The following articles:

• 7th Infantry Division (United States)
• 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)
• 2nd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)
• 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

would someone who is an editor of the "Military history WikiProject" please contact and advise me. i am trying to contribute to wikipedia. i wrote a template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Comparative_military_ranks . i attempted to add this template to template:US officer ranks. my template was called a "copy edit" and deleted. i have also run into trouble with template:Military ranks which just gives commonwealth info and is not in military format. one reason i want to contribute is that when i tried to compare the rank of my brother-in-law, a navy seal captain, the obvious searches turned up irrelevant or confusing info. thank you. diremarc (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Template talk:Military navigation. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Army of the Tennessee is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for AHS Centaur is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Shogun article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not currently meet the GA Criteria. My review can be found here. I will put the article on hold for one week and I am notifying the interested projects and editors of the possibility that the article will be delisted if it is not improved. If you have any questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask for assistance from interested task force members. In the last couple of weeks, I have received multiple talk page comments on American Civil War battle articles questioning the use of the term "demonstration." I created a brief article called demonstration (military) that defines the term in the military context, but it immediately received criticism and a proposed deletion notice for the reason of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." I would prefer to not have to define this term in context in each of the articles. Would anyone be interested in helping to expand this article? I added a brief paragraph about the demonstrations at the Battle of Gettysburg, but other examples of important demonstrations in military history might provide enough content to make the article legitimate. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've run into similar difficulties many times (most recently with "local adjustments") :P While we're rightly asked to avoid jargon, it is sometimes frustrating that the accepted term for an activity causes problems too. However, I view it as part of our mission to educate, not only our readers but also other editors. One alternative to creating an article would be to link the word to the Wikitionary definition - although at present this doesn't include the military meaning of "demonstration", since Miriam-Webster does it should be easy enough to add it to the Wikitionary article. EyeSerene^talk 16:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I've just added it ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Battle of the Coral Sea is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe N 15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Battle of Ticonderoga (1777) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Magic♪piano 15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We are looking for volunteers to help recruit members for some of our smallest and quietest task forces. These are:

• Taiwanese military history (2)
• Polish military history (4)
• Dutch military history (6)
• Military historiography (6)
• New Zealand military history (7)
• Baltic states military history (8
• National militaries (8)
• Southeast Asian military history (8)
• War films (8)
• Early Muslim military history (9)
• Intelligence (9)
• Lebanese military history (9)
• South American military history (9)
• Spanish military history (9)

What you can do to help

The easiest way to recruit new members is to invite them personally to join the task force. To do this, pick a task force and you look through articles within its scope. Check the article histories to see who has contributed in the last few months, and leave them a message on their talk page. A suitable message might say:

Hi! I am contacting you because I see you are interested in XXXX and have contributed to articles about it or its armed forces. To help improve Wikipedia's coverage of this important topic, and to provide support and coordination of individual editors, the Military history WikiProject has a link to task force. If you would like to join up, please add your name to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/[insert task force name]#Participants|Participants' List]].

If you can help, please do so. All comments welcome!  Roger Davies ^talk 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of German World War II jet aces; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How did it hit F-L without further review, or have i misunderstood the process?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Military history of Australia during World War II 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) 11:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone more knowledgeable than me please merge Republic of South Carolina and South Carolina in the American Civil War before the copy/paste and subsequent changes get out of hand? I suggest the first should redirect to the second. I'm sorry it's not my area of expertise (and the taskforces looked like it would too long to get a reply). The other thing is that the infobox for Confed states is a bit rubbish, but the data could and should be saved. Anything would be appreciated otherwise I fear it will fall as SEP. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Helgoland class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done a GA Reassessment of the George Washington article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need work on referencing. My review is here. I am notifying all the interested projects that this article is on hold for a week pending work that needs to be done. I don't think it will require too much to satisfy the GA Criteria and I sincerely hope that someone will step forward and take this project on. It would be a shame to delist what is in all senses but one, a good article. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Kammerlader 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. Tom B (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Ford Motor Company → Ford - a WP:RM rename request has been filed. The discussion is occuring at Talk:Ford Motor Company. As the act of fording is an action commonly related in articles related to your wikiproject, this is an informative notice.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for German battleship Bismarck is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Ticonderoga (1777); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For those who haven't seen it, our lead coordinator is quoted in this NYT story about the Scientology ArbCom decision. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Epic; positively epic. Cam ^(Chat) 15:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The author of that article did a great job; that was an engaging and interesting read. Congrats Roger, you're famous! :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kudos, Roger – and the rest of the ArbCom team, for boldly treading where angels fear to go! Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. People mentioned in newspapers like the New York Times are Notable. :D --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean Roger gets a wiki article? :D Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger Davies is the lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject on Wikipedia, and the deputy coordinator of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, the highest court of appeal in Wikipedia. A European editor, he made his first edit on 03:14, 17 September 2005 to the Patrick Balfour, 3rd Baron Kinross article. In Auguest 2007, he was elected by WikiProject Military History to serve as an assistant coordinator under Kirill Lokshin. Since then, he gained rollback rights on 02:43, 10 January 2008 from YellowMonkey, and became an administrator after his unopposed RfA ended on 15:10, 05 February 2008. In the same month, he became the lead coordinator of the Military History WikiProject, a position which he still currently holds. Roger Davies also holds Checkuser and Oversight rights. In December 2008, Roger Davies was elected to serve as an arbitrator by the English Wikipedia community.

Yeah, I have too much spare time. :D --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, and you could cite all of that with links to Wikipedia, the Wikipedia signpost and, of course, NYT. When a couple of regular Australian editors had their AfD comments quoted in major Australian newspapers last year one of them was 'rewarded' with a faked Wikipedia entry. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, is there anyone who could help me with references and other work for this article. Recently discovered to be a very distant ancestor of mine, so thought I would take a bash at improving it. Thanks in advance, SGGH ^ping! 13:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Requested move, which seems to be spending literally more space on Russia's war guilt, or absence thereof, than what English-speakers actually call this war.

I hope input from this project will help get the discussion back on track; I don't care what we call the war, as long as we consider our readers in the process. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

The featured article candidacy for Battle of the Coral Sea 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) 01:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Battle of Bosworth Field is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Jappalang (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done a GA Reassessment of Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need considerable work on the references. My review can be found here. I am notifying the interesting projects of this review. I have put the article on hold pending work. If there are questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I know how quiet it is here at the moment, so I apologise in advance for this. However, I've been involved with an issue today at WP:ANI that should be brought to the attention of my fellow milhistorians. A long-time editor has apparently been adding copy/pasted text from various sources - mainly US military ones - into a large number of US military related articles. While my initial concerns about large-scale copyright violation seem to be mostly unfounded, because the material is generally unattributed there are definite issues with plagiarism, and in some cases the copyright status of the original material is unclear. The related ANI thread is here, and a list of the editor's contributions can be found here. As WP:COPYCLEAN is run off its feet, I think this is our problem ;) Any assistance looking over the editor's contributions would be greatly appreciated. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The user is now blocked indefinitely, but there's a possibility that he'll get unblocked. Comments are still useful. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. As the blocking admin I'm staying out of the dialogue on his talk-page; I don't want to seem to be badgering the guy. However, thank you for your (and everyone else's) constructive comments there. It's a real shame that a long-term contributor with good edits under their belt has such a significant blind spot, but at least the situation isn't nearly as serious as the last copyvio emergency we had. EyeSerene^talk 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my two cents in, as most of my English papers are done and I have some spare time before I go cycling tonight. Cam ^(Chat) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cam. EyeSerene^talk 12:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I discovered this after looking at other creations by the creator of Raids of Hadrian's Wall which should probably be a redirect to Roman Britain. Another new article by the same author Sieges of Haddington had me looking for a place for it, and I found The Rough Wooing. This read so professionally that I suspected copyvio, and I quickly found that most of it was copyvio from My wound is deep: a history of the later Anglo-Scots wars 1380-1560 By Raymond Campbell Paterson. I was going to delete it back to a stub, and probably will, but look who wrote most of it! Rcpaterson (talk · contribs). I've got no reason to think it isn't really the author, and User:Moonriddengirl is writing to him, but at the moment we have an article that is virtually all copyvio, and other contributions of his such as Battle of Stanhope Park which has a lot of material from another book of his . Can anyone rescue at least The Rough Wooing which even in its form before I started to delete the copyvio had no inline citations.

Could I also ask that someone take a look at Scotland Rules (talk · contribs) who is an enthusiastic contributor to military articles and creator of a number of stubs which need help. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, two in two days. I hope this doesn't keep up. Perhaps the copyvioed articles from Rcp could be left for a few days until this is all sorted out? If we have no reason to believe that it isn't him, why go through the effort to change them when they don't need to be changed? (it's not like you can plagiarize off of yourself...right?) Plus, they've been here since at least 2006, so what's wrong with another 48 hours? :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We have to ascertain that it is him and that he has donated his copyright - he may not realise that's he's lost the copyright in that text. He's been emailed, we'll see if he replies and what he says. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It never rains but it pours :( I'm taking a look at Scotland Rules (talk · contribs) at the moment - could be another editor who'd benefit from some mentoring, but the total lack of response to messages is worrying. EyeSerene^talk 13:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Not at all responsive, creating a lot of bad stubs, some of which even if they were better are content forks, eg Raids of Hadrian's Wall which at the moment claims that Pictish raids made the Romans leave Britain, with an infobox containing "180-410 Result Pictish Victory: Romans fled from Britain." Maybe a redirect would get their attention, but I think they'd just revert it. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So Gibbon had it wrong all along? I've deleted the page (which may be a slight stretch of CSD but there's no chance AfD would have resulted in a keep, it had been previously deleted, a redirect seemed pointless as the title is grammatically incorrect, and it seemed an ideal candidate for IAR). I'll keep it on my watchlist, and I've left Scotland Rules a clear final warning. EyeSerene^talk 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We shall see what SR does now. It would be nice if he/she started to discuss things with people. I'm waiting for a response about the username issue, if there isn't one then I'll do a username block. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the appropriate next step if they don't respond. Thanks for bringing this up. EyeSerene^talk 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick update: as the editor has been active again in the same vein as before, and no response has been forthcoming, I've indeffed the account. EyeSerene^talk 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class Review for Operation Sky Monitor is now open. Please join in the discussion. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) is offering a unique "flaming wiki" barnstar award to anyone who can bring an article listed here up to FA status. Although marginal, there are a few articles that fall within our purview (H-bomb, for instance), and as the award is both unique and only offered for a limited number articles I thought I would post here to offer those within the project with an interest improving the milihist articles listed there for the award a chance to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I submitted Albert Einstein for FA.--Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the point was to improve the articles, not to submit ones you haven't worked on to FAC. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit I usually work on Medal of Honor recipients but whatever the intention I will get it to FA status, once I am done with this one I will work on getting Eisenhower and the Nixon up to FA unless someone beats me to them. In fact I think I will work on getting all the US Presidents to FA a couple at a time.--Kumioko (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

After a very distasteful experience with the FA process I have abandoned work on the Albert Einstein article. I have done a lot to it to get it up to status and if someone is interested they should be able to get it to FA status relatively quickly. Most of the remaining work is related to cleaning up and pruning down the references.--Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is at AfD, it has been extensively reworked but still may not cut it. More eyes would be appreciated whether it is kept, renamed, merged or deleted some perspective from folks likely to know more about military applications would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Bosworth Field; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Krag-Petersson 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.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This BLP is at AFD, could the good folks here have a peek and see if it can be helped and meets notability? -- Banjeboi 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Another article at AfD, I just added the milhist tag but no idea if it's rescuable or not. -- Banjeboi 09:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone interested please take a look at Human wave attack and my comments on the talk page? This has the look of an article that has run away with itself, with a lot of material added that may be generally interesting, but isn't about the subject as I understand it. At the heart of the problem is whether a "human wave attack" is any frontal infantry assault, or whether the term is much narrower than that. Most of the examples currently given seem to me to be retrospective application to historical tactics of a modern term where it has no place. Cyclopaedic (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm raising this issue as a result of the move, and discussion of the move, of Matilda tank to Matilda Mk II making the former into a disambiguation for both the "Infantry Tank Mk I" and "Infantry Tank Mk II" both being known as Matilda at some part of their lives. The discussion of the correct article name for the latter is on the talk page. Briefly it covers the issues of correct name/ common name (per WP conventions) and disambiguation of names as much as whether the latter Matilda is the primary topic. Currently as I have left it "Matilda tank" redirects to "Matilda Mk II" though it has been noted that this actually refers to a sub-model of the later Matilda, rather than the later Matilda in general.

The specifics of the Matilda case aside, one issue raised was whether a article named "xxxx tank" should be at "xxxx (tank)". An issue which potentially affects several articles (eg Crusader tank, Panther tank).

Currently there are no naming conventions for military vehicles. The convention for US equipment of Model Number and Name, as in M4 Sherman, seems to be well established. British naming creates unwieldy article names if followed to official practice. In the case of other countries, I'm particularly thinking Germany WWII-era, we have common names for most. Do we need a naming convention, or is better to work through each case on its merits? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To make a minor point regarding US equipment, the articles seem to generally follow the British naming conventions i.e. Sherman, Lee etc were all British nicknames applied to the tanks that ended up in popular culture iirc. There was a bit of similar discussion regarding weather the M10 Wolverine article should be called such too.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For efficiency I prefer xxxx (tank) to xxxx tank because we can use the pipe trick when wikilinking. I think each case can be treated on its merits though - something like the Sturmtiger doesn't need disambiguating, whereas there have been lots of things named Challenger (including different tank models). EyeSerene^talk 17:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For the current article in question there are two tanks called the Matilda, both were infantry tanks used during the Second World War. One was the Infantry Tank Mk I and the second the MK II. The name for the articles are Matilda MK I and MK II, which is incorrect. There is currently a discussion on the MK II page about moving the article. See (Talk:Matilda Mk II#Requested Move.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to judge each case individually since many tank names can't be confused. But while we're here can somebody tell me why the US designations are almost all missing the hyphens between M and the number when that's not how they're designated on TMs and the like? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the efficiency idea, we can use piping for any article name eg round red or greenish fruit from trees. If anything it requires more typing to pipe - [[Chieftain tank]] vs [[Chieftain (tank)|Chieftain]] . Where is the efficiency? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was obviously unclear. The pipe trick automatically omits anything in brackets when displaying a wikilink, ie [[Chieftain (tank)|]] (note the inclusion of the pipe) is equivalent to typing [[Chieftain (tank)|Chieftan]]; they display the same: Chieftain vs Chieftain (see markup). It's a minor point, but I thought it was worth a mention ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a specific naming convention for articles about armed forces, and the current usage is pretty inconsistent: we have Bundeswehr for Germany, Military of Italy for Italy, British Armed Forces for the UK, and United States armed forces for the US. Is there any consensus on naming all of them consistently (for example, "Military of <country>", or "<country> Armed Forces")? I'm asking here because there's an ongoing move discussion about moving Military of the Republic of China to Republic of China Armed Forces. Feel free to comment on that one if you have an opinion on the matter. Jafeluv (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Military" isn't generally used as a noun in British English, so the form Military of... wouldn't be right in articles written in BrE, and jars with us Brits. Where possible I would expect names to be the official names, or the most common English names - I'm slightly surprised we don't call it United Kingdom armed forces. For some reason German military terms (Bundeswehr, Luftwaffe) get assimilated into English more readily than any other foreign language. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ve have vays of making you use our language! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The form for joining up (Application for service) uses "Her Majesty's Armed Forces". Not one to please the republicans. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact in British english the term Military only realy applies to the Officer corps of the army.

I agree with GL, the term is HM AF, the crown adorns the uniform (we even let the light blue chavs use it on theirs)

ALR (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

LoL. "As a naval officer I abhor the implication that the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we now have the problem relatively under control, and that it is the RAF who now suffer the largest casualties in this area."(Lifeboat sketch) --PBS (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this. There is a reasonably clear understanding for how we name armed forces. If we know the actual name - whether we disagree over it, or not - we use it, thus Australian Defence Force. If we don't, we use 'Military of X.' From much editing and looking at many of these articles, that appeared to be the convention. Regards to all, Buckshot06(prof) 08:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot - aside from being logical, the official name for national armed forces is almost always the most common one as well. For instance, while Wikipedia generally calls the country of Timor Leste 'East Timor' (on the grounds that this remains the most common English-language term for the place), the article about its military is at Timor Leste Defence Force as its both the official name and the most common one as well - despite there being a lot of controversy over what to call the article on the country, there was consensus support to moving the article from Military of East Timor when I proposed it. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Where possible I would expect names to be the official names, or the most common English names - I'm slightly surprised we don't call it United Kingdom armed forces." Why? The official name (and most commonly used name) is the British Armed Forces (or Her Majesty's Armed Forces). "United Kingdom" is not an adjective and is not generally used as such in Britain - I've never heard the term "United Kingdom armed forces". And as a proper name, "British Armed Forces" should always be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! It might be a good idea to add a paragraph to the style guide about the naming of armed forces so that people like me find it in the future. Jafeluv (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objection to me adding 'Within the Milhist project, root pages for the armed forces of a state are named, if the official name is known, by the official name's English translation, viz: Australian Defence Force. If the native language name is most commonly used, this should be kept (viz: Bundeswehr). Other national armed forces are only provisionally located at 'Military of X,' and should be renamed to the translation of the official name when available. Alternately, articles can be renamed if there is consensus over how the armed forces in question are normally referred to in common usage (viz: recent decision on United States armed forces.)'

Thoughts? Improvements? Buckshot06(prof) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine, although the "Within the Milhist project" part is implicit and doesn't need to appear in the actual style guide. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, unless there's any other suggestions, I will amend the style guide within about 36-48 hours. Buckshot06(prof) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The direct link to the discussion won't work correctly once the talk page gets archived; I'd suggest changing it to an external link to the specific revision in question. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for 45th Infantry Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Maiden Castle, Dorset 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) 08:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A member of the project, Patar knight, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Patar knight's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In my professional hat, I was at a training session a couple of months ago when the necessary steps to be awarded a British gallantry medal were discussed, by members of the Armed Services, as:

• the feat of arms in question has to actually be written up by someone
• it has to be written up well
• it has to be the most worthy candidate for that medal at that particular medals board meeting

Now, I can't add this to any articles because it's WP:OR. But does anyone know of other sources for discussion such as this which might be able to source this, and thus add it? Regards Buckshot06(prof) 10:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there be a military guideline or equivalent you can use as a source? I've seen point one in various places (for instance, its one of the reasons raised against retrospectively awarding the Victoria Cross to people from World War I and incidents in World War II where there are no surviving witnesses). Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading the act had to be witnessed by an officer, that being the reason why many who deserved an award never got one --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading simliar but wasnt that only a requirement for the VC, not the others?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that anything that explicit would probably be ephemeral, temporary memoranda and the like, which may become more persistent if declared as a record. In fact I'd be very surprised if the first point is actually written down anywhere, it's very much implicit in the process which is citation based.

I suppose one would have to infer the latter two points from the reporting guidance and the specific guidance about each award, they are competitive so the report needs to be well written to make the cut.

I wrote up several members of my squadron after Telic 1 and what guidance there was came out of the 2*s outer office, although that was mainly about process. Writing well written reports is just part of the responsibility one has to ones marines/ sailors/ soldiers and it's ingrained from the first command lectures in officer training.

I can have a dig around in the files at my current unit, but would be very surprised it its usable.

ETA - were there handout notes from the session? Ephemeral I appreciate but potentially usable depending on the delivery unit. DefAc would be pretty authoritative.

ALR (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that was quick. No ALR, this was informal discussion and not the main subject of the meeting. Any other ideas? Memoirs of officers? Buckshot06(prof) 11:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if you could get hold of anything. The criteria are certainly classified and the exact process will vary between the services so you would have to generalise along the lines of the points you made in your first post. On the civilian side I think the police or fire service may have standard forms to complete; not sure if that's the case in the military, but they guide the writer towards indicating whether the candidate fulfilled the criteria. Also, gallantry awards do not have a complement so it seems a little odd that the boards you refer to would only take the best candidate at each stage. Talking of which, there is probably more than one board - I can't remember but I think each service has one, then there's an inter-service board. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither criteria nor process are classified, in fact the criteria are clear in every publication of a citation, although I have seen citations at everything up to TS.

Whilst there isn't a quota, these are highly competitive, so whilst I'd not be a restrictive about wording as above, there are very few handed out.

Generally there is a standard format, and it varies depending on the award one is nominating for. But in general I'd expect to see it in a formal letter, with an attached annex.

ALR (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The process won't be classified, but I'd be interested to see if you could produce a source listing the specific criteria for determining the level of a gallantry award. Certainly on the civil side these are not made available to prevent people from trying to bag a medal (there are occasional examples of individuals working out how to get an MBE and acquiring one by cheating the system).

"Competitive" doesn't sound right, but I'm not overly familiar with the military side - it shouldn't be like that imho - but I can imagine that's how it works in reality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect we have an interpretation issue here, there are no specific criteria for gallantry awards, they do tend to be a bit subjective, hence the need for them to be well written. That contrasts with the range of fairly standard good egg awards, like the MBE, that do have fairly clear cut criteria. They still need to be well written, and there is a touch of right job, right place, right time; as an example a friend of mine got the MBE as an SO3 for filling in for his SO1 for six months. In contrast Mne Croucher threw himself on a grenade!

There is also a contention that the three services reporting systems tend to lead to bias, the Army tend to write lots more citations than the Marines and Navy so get a correspondingly higher hit rate. Equally reporting styles are very different, and that has an imact. I recall writing an appraisal on an Army WO2 that would have been treated by a Marine WO2 as pretty good, he was convinced that if I submitted it his career would be over it was so negative. Dark blue and dark green tend to be a lot more reserved about these things.

You're right, competitive isn't the best word, but I'm struggling to find an alternative. There is no quota, but to win one needs the act to be observed, written up and to get through a host of filters. Units will only send the one or two top recommendations up to the next stage, so there is a steady culling throughout. It's naturally restrictive.

ALR (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a dig around and can't find anything substantive, not even the temporary memoranda have any references, other than to the timetable.

Essentially there are quite a number of warm words about good report writing and thinking broadly about who might deserve an award of some kind.

Sorry there is nothing more useful.

ALR (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All (surviving) British Army recommendations from 1935-1990 are online, see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/wo373.asp?WT.hp=Recommendations%20for%20Honours%20and%20Awards unfortunately there's not too much information about the process there (and generally you'll have to pay to view individual recommendations, for my own searching of these recommendations, it woul dalso appear that many for service in Northern Ireland haven't been declassified, though this isn't explicitly stated anywhere). I believe that for the VC and GC two witnesses are required (though I think the warrant still provides that if any action is directly witnessed by someone who holds the appointement of commander-in-chief, they may award the medal on the spot). The witnesses don't have to be officers, or even on the same side, Lloyd Allan Trigg, was awarded the VC purely on the recommendation of the surviving officers of the U-boat he sank! In the recommendations, for VC and GCs the witnesses' reports are annexed to the main recommendation. The page I linked to above shows some images of the WWII era form, the current army form seems to have been essentially the same since about the 60s, and as best as I can make out the form seems now to be an MOD form (for the 1990 version at least), and is tri-service. The first page has various boxes for whether the award should appear in one of the New Year or Queen's Birthday lists, Opertioanl lists, Immediate award and so on, full details of the person being recommended, full name rank (and any acting rank etc), number, parent unit, current posting; then the rank, name and posting of the initiating officer, and the award recommended. There are then a number of boxes for counter-signing by more senior officers, each of who also has to tick a box indicating whether they recommend, strongly recommend or very strongly recommend the award, there's also a small amount of space for them to make their own comment. The very bottom of the form has space to indicate the award's progression through the individual service, MOD and higher-level awards committees, approval by HM, and number of the London Gazette in which the award ultimately appeared (these don't always seem to get filled in). The second page repeats the name of the recommended person, the place where the actions for which they are being recommended took place, date or period during which the actions took place, the posting in which the actions were carried out, and if relevant information about numbers of flying hours. The very bottom of the page has signature, date, rank, location of the initiating officer, and the remainder (say four-fifths) of the apge is given over for the actual citation (with strict instructions that this space may only be exceeded in the case of VC and GC recommendations). I believe an officer has to initiate the formal process, but it was certainly reported in the case of Matthew Croucher that it was the other ranks who were on patrol with him who came back and told the CO that he should be recommended.

According to this National Archives research guide regulations regarding awards are usually in Army Orders, Fleet Orders or Defence Council Instructions. Older Army, Air Force and Navy Lists certainly used to publish the statutes for each award, I don't know if there was also info on the awards process. I'd suspect that King's/Queen's regs and equivalent would set out the process in some way too. I know there are copies of older versions of these at TNA, so I'll try to have a look when I have a moment. There's a brief outline on the MOD website too: http://www.operations.mod.uk/honours/honours.htm David Underdown (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The latest version of Queen's Regs on the open library shelves at TNA was 1975 (though it had been manually amended to take account of the passage of the Reserve Forces Act 1982 in March 1983). It wasn't particularly forthcoming, though there were references to an army pamphlet dscrbing the processes for initiating awards. David Underdown (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking back, the first signatory on most of the ones we did were at the SO1 (Lt Col/ Cdr) level, so the submissions were all written up and went to the 2*s outer office who then established our own batting order and then transposed those going forward onto the appropriate forms and circulated them for signature.

That approach allowed those of us actually doing the writing (SO2 and SO3) to have a common approach for uniformed and civilian recommendations, letting the outer office take care of the differences in process from there on.

I should probably add, what certainly won't be documented is the perception that the identity of the signatories carries some weight. That may or may not be true, but there is a hunt for the best signatures.

ALR (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)