Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 96

The A-Class review for Gamal Abdel Nasser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the big hoo har of recent over Operation Charnwood, i would like some feedback on the Operation Goodwood article in regards to the outcome. While it is no where near the finished state of the Charnwood article the few sources i was using did provide enough information to provide sourced info for stating it was a strategic victory. However in regards to the tactical side the outcome was based purely off a quote from Miles Dempsey - co of British Second Army, the guys who conducted the attack.

"Dempsey is quoted stating the battle was not tactically very good but strategically was a "great success". ...[2]"

Seems a bit flimsey when considering the previous discussions plus since last editing the article i have not had chance to go back and do more work on it and consult further sources in regards to the outcome. Any advice would be great.

Cheers EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well... didn't the UK/Canada lose half their tanks? That could be construed as not very good 76.66.192.55 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilmot: "Goodwood was accounted a failure by SHAEF because Second Army had gained neither a strategic break-through nor all its tactical objectives. The fact that the operation had achieved Montgomery's major purpose was ignored, for this purpose was not understood." (p. 362) He then goes on to describe how, on the eve of Cobra, two German Pz divs en route to St Lo were diverted to the British sector and reinforced with elements of a third, leaving only two Pz and one grenadier div opposite the Americans compared to seven Pz divs and all the heavy tanks in Normandy opposite the British. Wilmot would therefore support "strategic victory", though as usual it's not that simple :) EyeSerene^talk 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that as akways these things are never just simple :)

There is additional information, if i recall from AShley Hart that supports the strategic outcome as well that is already in the article. Am quite happy that point is covered for the time being. Its the tactical side am a little concerned with - Hart doesnt state the tactical battle was a victory for the Germans, he states that the battle was mishandeled.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Wilmot supports that (and Hastings certainly does). The trouble is, as before, neither of them use the exact phrase "tactical defeat" or "strategic victory". however, I stand by my earlier reasoning that these are common (if subject-specific) terms and don't need an exact cite as long as the text supports their use. EyeSerene^talk 10:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot about this discussion; looks like the status quo is fine but thought i should check it out to gain consensus. Cheers EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

eyeseren: I stand by my earlier reasoning that these are common (if subject-specific) terms and don't need an exact cite Wrong!! If a historian doenst say tactical then its not up to you to claim he means tactical victory especially if you dont know what tactical victory means, what some comments of yours do indicate. I think its violation of wiki rules if editors take words like victory and then write a tactical in front. If somebody should maybe do this, then the historian should have said some equivalent statements which justify this and the editor should be able to understand what tactical means. Regarding goodwood , german lost more then 6000 men and a decent amount of equipment. So its doubtful that this was tactical victory. Until no historian claimed this. And please stop interpreting historian words!!!Blablaaa (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you re-read my post above you'll find I wrote "tactical defeat". EyeSerene^talk 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

and if you re-read my post you will see that i cleary dispute your "that these are common terms and don't need an exact cite", which is a violation of wiki policies. And especially if people say this who are not fimiliar with these "terms" . And spare these "uff" in your edit summary pleaseBlablaaa (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And does one have a source for these 6,000+ German casualties?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

primary source i only said this to illustrate my pointBlablaaa (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my edit summary offended you Blablaaa. However, I no longer have the time, patience or goodwill to endlessly go round in these circles. You've single-handedly caused more disruption and grief to a set of articles than any other editor I've encountered in four years here. I won't be responding to your posts again. EyeSerene^talk 07:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But i guess its a bit overreacting. I only told you that its not up to you to decide what a historian means if he did say this. And iam not alone with this opinion WP:SYN Blablaaa (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if the community could have a look at the following new page: Faciat Georgius? I am trying to not bite the newcomer and would like an outside opinion. The user means well but this award likely does not meet WP:N I could not find enough WP:RS to back it up... I have cleaned up the page but would like another opinion prior to doing anything with it... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight I am glad I waited. The article has been fleshed out and cleaned up and now has a number of sources. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Midshipman 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Borodino class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional, unprovable claim or not? Keep or remove? Please see Talk:Chinese armies (pre-1911)#What to do with this claim?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Tower of London 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for British Commandos is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I came across this article while researching the next Empire ship article. The article should be much better than it is, and it should be possible to get to GA if not FA class. There must be a wealth of info in books and on websites about the supply of Malta during WWII, but the article is severely lacking in references. It also seems to me to be POV laden. I've done some copyediting, but this is mostly display of names and wikilinking ships. Any members of this project fancy the challenge of improving the article? Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind having a go at this. I did create the article as a summary with links to detailed articles which would have full references - is this a legitimate approach? (Details unsupported in this way should be verified in this article.) Two points: could you id some specific points which are POV and there's a suggestion elsewhere that the improvements need to be done before a deadline; is this true and why? Folks at 137 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If a section has a main article link, then referencing is not an issue as what is stated can hopefully be verified via the main article's refs. There is no deadline either. The feeling of POV applies generally across the article, but it may be that by referencing various statements they can be shown to be fact rather than opinion. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some more coverage of the grand strategy (if there was one) of the convoys. Did the British alter their plans, did they react to changes in Italian and German activities. Equally how did the Axis forces modify their actions. Who was in charge? That sort of thing.

Some summary of the effect would be good too. Did the volume of materials convoyed go up or down over the period. By how much did materiel and stockpiles on Malta benefit. Could the article use, for instance, a table of materiel sent and recieved so a reader could understand how much was getting through? I think these sort of additions would add depth and move it further away from a simple list of the convoys/operations.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 10:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for Third Battle of Seoul is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has reached 114KB, well past the size recommended for spliting and I have proposed that it be split into two separate articles, 330th Bombardment Group (World War II) and List of Combat Missions of the 330th Bombardment Group (World War II). A discussion on the proposed split is here and comments (both for or against) are invited. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 08:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have commented to the effect that the article is oversize due to unnecessary content, but I would like to hear other opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just corrected a flag error on the HMS Speedy (1782) article. The correct White Ensign for all RN ships in service between 1707 and 1800 is this, which was changed to this effective 1 January 1801. Are there any other articles on RN ships in this period displaying the wrong flag? Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

More information 1707 - 1800, From 1801 ...

1707 - 1800	From 1801

Close

Thanks very much for correcting this. The only way I can think of to check is via ensign of the United Kingdom.svg links to File:Naval ensign of the United Kingdom.svg... but it's not a short list. Any better ideas? EyeSerene^talk 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not idea about an easy way of checking, but Benea informs me that if a ship served under both flags, the correct one to use is the 1801 flag, not the earlier one. My instinct in these cases would be to display both flags side-by-side, but if this is to happen then it would probably need discussion at WP level. Another option would be to have two separate Career sections, with the correct flag for each. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Displaying two ensigns is not the way to go, IMO. It's not as if there is any change of allegiance, just a change in the design of the ensign. Using whichever was the latest ensign flown is the way to do it, as is done for USN vessels. Incidentally could the template for the white ensign be modified to work in a similar way as {{USN flag}}? NtheP (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that's there's absolutely no need to display both flags if the service crossed the change over - the Royal Navy remained exactly the same body - there was no Royal Irish Navy to merge into it. there was no change of "ownership" indicated by the change of flag. David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask why we wouldn't display both flags? It seems like it might be an interesting snippet to add to an article (at least, it interested me). This isn't intended as a challenge to the established practice btw, more just a request for information :) EyeSerene^talk 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with David on this one, seems like a little too much clutter in the infobox to use both IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki has the name as William Reginald Cotter, however official sources have him as William Richard Cotter, CWGC. Can anyone assist with sources for his correct name. Google is not providing much tbh. Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the CWGC and his citation in the London Gazette give "William Richard", which I'd think should be good enough for our purposes. Error at import, perhaps? Shimgray | talk | 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry has his service record and it records his middle name as Richard throughout - I'll move the page Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Gamal Abdel Nasser; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for SMS Rheinland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has two different start/finish dates in the first paragraph and in the infobox. Which one is correct? B-Machine (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All we can really go by are citations, which is why WP:VERIFY is such a vitally important core site policy. The text has a cite and the infobox doesn't, so I'd probably change the infobox to match the text. However, this is on the assumptions that (a) the citation is for the dates and not something else earlier in the sentence, and (b) there hasn't been any subtle vandalism on either set of figures. A quick check through the article history might be worthwhile just in case. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible somebody vandalized and changed the dates in the first paragraph just to be an a**hole. B-Machine (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox matches the article text, more or less. The introductory paragraph is wrong, but is just confused - if we go back to an earlier version, the first para reads:

The Inca Civil War, Inca Dynastic War, or Inca War of Succession, sometimes the War of the two brothers broke out after the death of Huayna Capac between 1525 and 1527 August 2009; or even earlier

The Inca Civil War, Inca Dynastic War, or Inca War of Succession, sometimes the War of the two brothers broke out after the death of Huayna Capac in 1527 (full-scale fighting did start as late as in 1529) August 2008

In other words: the infobox gives the dates of the war, whilst the lead gives, rather confusingly, the dates of the event which led to the war. Someone presumably misunderstood this, "corrected" it, and we got what we have today. Shimgray | talk | 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of detective work Shimgray :) Thank you for that. EyeSerene^talk 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Massachusetts in the American Civil War 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for British Commandos; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't Eighty Years' War and Dutch Revolt the same thing? B-Machine (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The wreckage of Robert McClure's ship in his Arctic expedition to find Franklin's lost expedition has been found. I have expanded news of the discovery, but I wwill appreciate help from this project from here on to expand the ship's Career section as I have little knowledge on the topic. Thanks! —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has two different start/finish dates in the first paragraph and in the infobox. Which one is correct? B-Machine (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All we can really go by are citations, which is why WP:VERIFY is such a vitally important core site policy. The text has a cite and the infobox doesn't, so I'd probably change the infobox to match the text. However, this is on the assumptions that (a) the citation is for the dates and not something else earlier in the sentence, and (b) there hasn't been any subtle vandalism on either set of figures. A quick check through the article history might be worthwhile just in case. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible somebody vandalized and changed the dates in the first paragraph just to be an a**hole. B-Machine (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox matches the article text, more or less. The introductory paragraph is wrong, but is just confused - if we go back to an earlier version, the first para reads:

The Inca Civil War, Inca Dynastic War, or Inca War of Succession, sometimes the War of the two brothers broke out after the death of Huayna Capac between 1525 and 1527 August 2009; or even earlier

The Inca Civil War, Inca Dynastic War, or Inca War of Succession, sometimes the War of the two brothers broke out after the death of Huayna Capac in 1527 (full-scale fighting did start as late as in 1529) August 2008

In other words: the infobox gives the dates of the war, whilst the lead gives, rather confusingly, the dates of the event which led to the war. Someone presumably misunderstood this, "corrected" it, and we got what we have today. Shimgray | talk | 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of detective work Shimgray :) Thank you for that. EyeSerene^talk 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Massachusetts in the American Civil War 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for British Commandos; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't Eighty Years' War and Dutch Revolt the same thing? B-Machine (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The wreckage of Robert McClure's ship in his Arctic expedition to find Franklin's lost expedition has been found. I have expanded news of the discovery, but I wwill appreciate help from this project from here on to expand the ship's Career section as I have little knowledge on the topic. Thanks! —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For the past few days, I've been monitoring a dispute that two users are having in the aforementioned article. It seems that the issue being discussed is whether to state that India has nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in the lede. Personally I find the matter somewhat trivial and would rather not get involved in such a silly issue. Although neither user has violated WP:3RR, it doesn't appear that either user is going to stop the revert war anytime soon (One of NPGuy's edit summaries is : I'll keep reverting until someone engages on the discussion page). Since both users are auto-confirmed, semi-protection won't solve anything and until some discussion takes place on the talk page, I don't think said issue is going to get anywhere. Vedant (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a week to encourage talk page discussion. I'll keep it watchlisted for a while, but if edit warring breaks out again when protection expires perhaps we'll need to think about other means to prevent it. EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for Arado Ar E.381 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Courageous class battlecruiser 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Action of 1 January 1800 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For the Medal of Honor recipients that require disambiguation, an editor has moved them from "John Doe (Medal of Honor recipient)" to "John Doe {Medal of Honor}". 1) I have not seen any discussion of this. 2) The person is not a Medal of Honor, he is (as the moving editor has pointed out!) a Medal of Honor recipient. The new name is, to put it politely "unclear," and ambiguous, particularly for a person whose first language is not English. Does the Medal of Honor have a name? Is the name "John Doe"?

The editor claims "consistency" with other misfiled articles. I am not aware of this. I would like some support for accuracy in titling. Student7 (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's conceptually consistent with article titles such as "John Doe (United States)" - John Doe, of or pertaining to the United States - but I agree with you that "recipient" is perhaps better. Interestingly, the Victoria Cross recipients are usually disambiguated as "(VC)", which strikes a balance between this style and the standard postnomials. Shimgray | talk | 12:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is only meant to give guidance to the reader to tell apart one Joe Doe from another so the shorter or clearer the dab statement the better, even better not to have one at all!. In this case just Medal of Honor does the job, it is only a finding aid not a lesson in the English language. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: There is a concurrent discussion thread about this at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Medal of Honor article disambiguation. Hqb (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I believe that I am the editor in question let me start by saying I do not have a strong preference either way. I simply used the DAB that was most common amongst the recipients and seemed to to jive with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#people. As I stated on one of the article talk pages recently the parenthesis does not infer what he is in my interpretation of the MOS, its what he is known for!. Also, there are a lot of Medal of Honor recipient articles that are disambiguated and this is to allow consistency between them. The vast majority already said Medal of Honor so I changed the rest that said Medal of Honor recipient to the same. I can provide you with a listing of all the disambiguated ones (both the ones that are already created and the ones that have yet to be created) with Medal of Honor, Medal of Honor recipient, soldier, sailor, etc if you need it. There are a lot by the way. I went on to instruct the user to present their argument to either the WP:Biography talk page or the talk page for WP:MOS. But here and Article title is ok too. I also told the user that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#people is a little vague and could stand to be clarified in my opinion but basically the gist is to make the disambiguation only long enough so that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name. Thats why we only need to say Medal of Honor, vice Medal of Honor recipient. We arent saying he "IS" the medal, were just clarifying the subject the individual is known for. I hope this helps but again please let me know if you have any more questions. --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume I were to disambiguate your name. Would it make more sense to you to say "Kumioko (Harvard)" or "Kumiolo {Harvard professor}". It seems to me that the former example leaves too much to the imagination, IMO the latter way is clearer. Student7 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking up Shimgray's post above about standard postnominals for medal holders (VC, DFC, DSO etc), is there a standard way of abbreviating the full title of Medal of Honour holders? Is MoH or something similar ever used? If so, it might make an acceptable compromise: John Doe (MoH) is brief, to the point, and doesn't have the potentially confusing implications that seem to be the main concern. EyeSerene^talk 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In a tangential conversation at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Medal of Honor article disambiguation and through inferrence in WP:MOS we shouldn't use abbreviations for DAB's. To abbreviate VC for instance there are a number of things that VC could mean (Victoria Cross, Viet Cong, Very Creepy, Vietnam Campaign, etc) so what might make sense in the country it originates may not in another. Additionally the modern American military is famous for its dizzying array of abbreviations for things. For this reason its my opinion we should spell these out. Whichever we decide to go with (Medal of Honor or Medal of Honor recipient) it should be clear that there are HUNDREDS of articles affected. Also, if you review the Article title page conversation, I have started a page in one of my sandbozes which identifies all the Medal of Honor recipient articles that currently exist (over 200)and I am in the process of cleaning the list for those that still need articles (over 350 more) and combined we are looking at about 4-500 articles with some kind of disambiguation not counting redirects. Also, as I pointed out in the other conversation some of these dabs need to be cleaned up as well and its possible that some dont need to be dabs at all and I will review those as well (probably based on the military action they recieved the medal for) to ensure that we don't have a bunch of unnecesarily dabbed pages. But that will take me some time and I would like to wait for clarification here before I start moving pages to new names. Certainly though haveing a DAB like veteran, US, sgt, USMC, etc is less approriate as Medal of Honor or Medal of Honor recipient. I also belive that using the Medal of Honor or recipient as the DAB makes more sense that soldier, sailor, etc since it is the act of receiving the Medal that establishes their notability in WP, not the soldiering. But thats another argument. --Kumioko (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your question student7, in my opinion, the dab title should be based on the basis of the individuals notability. If they are notable for being a professor (regardless of the location) then it shoudl be professor. If they are notable for being asociated with Harvard, whether based on the length of tenure, significant contributions to the college, or if there are multiple professors with that name then I would say Harvard would be more appropriate. But that is a good example because that one could be argued multiple ways because they could be notable for multiple reasons. Although some Medal of Honor recipients are notable for multiple reasons such as Charles Lindbergh, Powhatan Beatty, Audie Murphy and Douglas MacArthur to name a few, they largely are notable solely for the acts that they received the medal for. Looking at sports athletes such as baseball or football players for example we usually just say baseball or football (althought this is also clarified between american football and international football/american soccer) because that clarifies there name to the reader so as not to be confused with a politician, writer, soldier, etc. of the same name. I also want to state that you have identified a weak point in our naming conventions of articles because the instructions are extremely limited and need to be expanded, there are a lot of articles that I would consider to be poorly named such as those identified above and this is a good opportunity for us to fix some of those issues. Well done. --Kumioko (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really accurate to state there's a consensus against using VC, two people have said they think it might be confusing, and I've argued, that in context it's unlikely that any of the other meanings would actually be used as a disambiguator. If you're actually looking for an article on a specific person, you probably already have some idea what they are famous for, so VC is going to be sufficient to make people realise that they are the Victoria Cross recipient that you are looking for - not to mention theat VC is the specific postnom and the name is widely written including that anyway. David Underdown (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This conversation has really gotten off point anyway. The orginal submitter was trying to get a concesnus on whether using Medal of Honor or Medal of Honor recipient was more appropriate. Does anyone have any further views on this? --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Medal of Honor" seems fine and is in line with other disambig titles, though I don't really have strong views either way. EyeSerene^talk 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eyeserene, I don't really care either way but to me there is no reason to take the time or spend the effort to move several hundred articles for what amounts to symantics. Based on what I have seen here and on the other related conversation on the Article titles talk page there doesn't seem to be any obvious concensus about what is preferred but most don't seem to have a problem with the status quo except student 7 so I suggest we stick with Medal of Honor. --Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, the following A-class reviews need some more participation:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British Commandos (currently has two reviews/supports, needs at least one more);
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gamal Abdel Nasser (currently only has one review, needs at least two more reviewers).

Please take a look and leave some comments if you can help out. Also, the list of military-related Good Article nominations is still quite long and could do with some more reviewers if anyone is keen. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems an oxymoron to combine the two opposing concepts as done in the article Vietnam War, opening sentence and infobox. Then I realized there are many instances where such parings have occurred. Therefore I would like an opinion from this project on the best course forward. To me it doesn't convey the idea I believe was intended which is to say occurring during the era but not part of it. Keenly interested in other views. My76Strat 20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth stepping back to Clausewitz for this, military activity is always in support of political objectives; politics by other means. In that sense I can understand the usage although it's a little clunky and really would benefit from a proper explanation somewhere. The cold war was a political exercise, the relationship between two opposing ideologies, and it was played out economically, diplomatically and militarily. Those military activities included the proxy wars (Note that's a dreadful article and I would disagree with much of the analysis) like Vietnam.

ALR (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Air Ministry (Germany) was moved without discussion to Ministry of Aviation (Germany) today, with the edit summary "wrong translation". Is the new title a better translation? Even if it is, is the former translation a more common term? I honestly don't know, but I wanted to be sure this is the best title. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no major difference. It's like the Department of Justice or the Justice Department in the U.S... one way is how people say it, the other way is the proper name. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have though a "proper" translation would translate the Reich part, perhaps it should be at Reichsluftfahrtministerium. For comparison Ministry of Aviation is different to Air Ministry in the UK. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking "Reichs" is "Imperial", but it's not quite like "Bundes" which means "Federal" and I see no need to translate it as National Air Ministry. I guess it depends what the remit is of each of the UK equivalents. AFAIK the German ministry controlled all things air or aviation-related. Perhaps the UK equivalents didn't exercise such total control, especially since I know that the Ministry of Supply controlled aircraft procurement for a time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a bit of leeway with translations. It is probably better to keep them consistent once a format can be decided upon. This seems to get in to "Article titles." I would prefer the "French way" of adjectives last. It seems more objective if less interesting. "Air Ministry" makes the reader wait for what the "Air" modifies. Very English, but wrong for an encyclopedia IMO. Not terrifically important here, but elsewhere, objectivity is dramatically wanting in some titles. Student7 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, what a depressingly long list :( I realise they aren't all milhist articles, but there's a lot of work there. Maybe we could try to drum up participants for the cleanup via the newsletter? EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Having had a quick look, some of the edits are quite trivial in nature, barely more than a sentence eg added to Peter Fleming was "He personally met the Chinese muslim General Ma Hu-shan during his travel in Asia." A good excuse though to visit an article you wouldn't normally go near and give a tweak or two to - I found some bad grammar (an article lacking a lot of definite articles) and patched it a bit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Raid at Cabanatuan 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for December 1964 South Vietnamese coup is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Armed Forces of Liberia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 11:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The strategy think tank has started a brainstorming session about notability criteria for military units and formations. All members of the project with an interest in this area are invited to join the discussion at the strategy think tank talk page. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Arnold's expedition to Quebec is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed recently that User:PINTofCARLING had deleted the MILHIST banner from several talk pages stating "already assessed via military bio work group". I left a message to the user on their talk page stating I did not agree because "I noticed that you removed the MILHIST banner from several talk pages because the Biography banner had the milhist workgroup. I do not agree with these changes and heres why. Althought the bio banner contains the Military workgroup it does not contain the task forces that are available in the MILHIST banner such as Location (such as US, Korea, China, etc) Maritime, WWI, WWII, etc. Additionally the Biography banner does not support the B class checklist and therefore the articles would not show up on any of the maintenance categories for that either. I do not know if any of these apply to the articles you removed the banner from but I wanted to point that out in case you were unaware.". But in case I am wrong in my warning I wanted to leave a message here to allow others to correct me if necessary. --Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the MILHIST banner to several pages recently and then realized that for some of them the bio banner had already been added. At first glance I thought this meant that these articles are registered "somewhere" in MILHIST because the military biography task force is part of the MILHIST project. I didn't want to cause confusion by putting another banner on them and therefore decided to revert my edits for those pages. At second glance and considering the arguments above it seems that this was unnecessary especially since I have found several articles which have both banners. But it shouldn't be too complicated to put the banner back on those pages if necessary. Seems like I created the confusion I wanted to avoid. Sorry for that. I'll take more care next time. PINTofCARLING (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I didn't mean to call you out I just wanted to make sure that I was interpretting the issue correctly myself. --Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are currently several discussions of the content of the World War II article at Talk:World War II which editors may wish to participate in. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a strong push in all articles regarding Soviet and/or russian related battles and wars, in which the russian casualties are attempted to be severely downplayed. Furthermore there is a revisionist push for an acceptance of Soviet/russian pre-1991 explanations of foreign policy.

An example of this is the article regarding the war in Afghanistan where there is a push from Russian contributors to refrain calling it an invasion: "The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan. Rather, it deployed troops in order to assist a regime whose regime was under attack by an externally supported and organised rebellion" and to calling the mujahedeen "external Arab invaders". Both of which is contrefactual and nonsensical.

There is also a MAJOR problem in the general tendency and bias where it is now a "Military stalemate and consequent withdrawal of Soviet forces". This war in fact was one if not THE pivotal points that led directly to Perestroika and Glasnost and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union in general and the Soviet Army in particular.

Also the numbers for the Soviet casualties seem WAY off: "Casualties and losses Soviet: 14,453 Killed (total) [3]

9,511 killed in combat [3] 2,386 died from wounds [3] 2,556 died from disease and accidents [3] 53,753 Wounded [3] 311 Missing Afghan Government: 1000+ Killed[citation needed]"

Firstly the numbers for the afghan government seems insanely low with 1000 killed being completely ludicrus, and secondly the general casualties seems COMPLETELY off when compared to the material losses:

Material losses were as follows:[3] "451 aircraft (includes 333 helicopters) 147 tanks 1,314 IFV/APCs 433 artillery guns and mortars 11,369 cargo and fuel tanker trucks."

Which means that LESS than one person lost their life for every piece of euipment lost in battle... Other figures can be seem here where they are FAR greater:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6737621/Soviet-Losses-in-Afghanistan

Or here:

http://se2.isn.ch/serviceengine/Files/ESDP/16007/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/17E7754A-A217-4FAC-8D2F-9D4CF8E1144E/en/rp_26.pdf

Here the losses are something along the lines of 450.000 wounded russians.

Are we really to believe that a war that lasted for as long as the US´s engagement in Vietnam only cost a fraction of the same casualties:

US 58,159 dead;[7] 1,719 missing; 303,635 wounded[8]

This in spite of the fact that the US had FAR better medicinal and first-aid facilities...

There are similar problems on all other articles involving the soviet union/russian includin the one on the Winter war and the war in Chechnya.Nick-bang (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet KIA totals always seemed semi-reasonable to me because the Soviets never deployed anywhere near the same number of troops in Afghanistan as did the US in Vietnam, aside from the initial invasion forces. But the wounded numbers are way off. Note, however, that the two sources you linked to combined wounded and sick, which may be the cause of the major discrepancy. Especially since I have a vague memory of some absolutely astonishing numbers of Russian sick, partially because of poor hygiene among the Russian troops.

We're having a similar debate over on the Battle of Kursk talk page and you may have to add notes to the article discussing the numbers, their sources, and their biases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. However allthough I can consede to your point about the number of deployed tropps being dissimilar, then that does not explain the inconsistensies between the material losses and the casualties.

Also it still does not adress the Meta-problem around Russian readers trying to massively and concertedly redraw history to the nationalistic pre-1991 revisionist status. This is also a problem regarding the articles on Gulag, the history of the Baltic states and the Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff.

How can we and how should we react to that?Nick-bang (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this on the talkpage of Battle of Kursk, but it is equally relevant here:

To my astonishment I find this discussion resurfaces across WiKipedia, whenever and whereever Soviet and by extension Russian battles and wars are concerned. There is a tendency from russian contributors to downplay russian casualties, wounded and to portray many battles who are internationally and by a consensus in academia regarded as Soviet/russian losses and defeats into the exact opposite and at best as draw or variations thereof. It is something that is disturbing and annoying and if not handled properly, will cast into doubt every article in which Russia/Soviet union is a part. This was the case with the article on the Winter war where Russians tried to establish completely irrational and unrealistic low casualty rates for the Red Army. It is the case in the Article on the war in Afghanistan 1979-89, where russians are trying to establish the contrefactual and revisionist claim that it was not an invasion as well as posting completely unrealistic low casualty rates as well. The same can be seem across the articles with revisionist and sometimes pure pre-1991 Soviet propaganda finds its way into the articles. This includes allusion to the wild claim that the fall of the Soviet union was a conspiracy by NATO in general and USA in particular. As a writer it annoys me, but as a historian it deeply troubles me. The last time I saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was when Hitler and NSDAP rewrote the story of WW I to establish the myth of 1) german military invincibility and 2) Dolchstoßlegende ("dagger-stab legend") which claimed that the army, "undefeated in the field," had been "stabbed in the back" by civilian leaders and Marxists back on the home front. Now I am not looking for a fight or undue polemic debate - but it is a generic problem which is also very clearly here. And on a final note: Krivosheev is NOT infallible - he has produced much of the volume of his impressive work of figures previously confidential and from the Red Army. But that does not mean its accurate - by a long shot. Therefore the same procedures and techniques which any historical event should be subjected to so be applied liberally here. Which means that it is not the number of sources but rather their validity and international acceptance that should define their worth.Nick-bang (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Nick-bang (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Rivadavia class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a user who keeps inserting the claim of the siege of Leningrad being the most lethal in history and removing the wikilink to List_of_battles_by_casualties#Sieges_and_urban_combat which claims otherwise. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Without looking at the articles in question, any such claims should (a) be reliably sourced, and (b) be attributed to their source in the article text. Doing this avoids giving the false impression that Wikipedia itself is making the claim, rather than just reporting some else's claim as we are supposed to do. We shouldn't actually care if it's true or not, only if it's reliably sourced. For example, it's better to write "According to historian J Bloggs, the siege of Leningrad was the most lethal in history" instead of "The siege of Leningrad was the most lethal in history". There will always be competing claims for 'biggest', 'best', longest', etc, and as editors it's not our business to decide which are the most valid.

That said, this should really be resolved by you discussing it with the other editor and, if necessary, following the methods outlined at WP:DR. If the other editor is edit warring or being otherwise disruptive you can ask for administrator assistance at WP:ANEW (edit warring), WP:ANI (general disruption) or WP:RSN (sourcing issues)... but be careful you don't end up sanctioned yourself if they can claim the same about you! Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good advice. May I add that "[[Bloggs]] claims that...(footnote)" should only be used if Bloggs is notable. Otherwise you are reduced to saying "a historian claims that....(footnote)" Obviously their should be some kind of prima facie case for being "the most lethal." If it isn't even close, the other editor may be suspected of disruption. Student7 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone look over these major unsourced changes to autoloader? mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some unfounded and to my knowledge erroneous statements in there - how should I give my Input to you?Nick-bang (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it bad enough to just undo it?Sadads (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits for now. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Civil war in Ingushetia still ongoing? And aren't Eighty Years War and Dutch Revolt the same conflict? B-Machine (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the 80 Year's War and the Dutch Revolt are not the same conflict. Did you read the articles?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

On your first question, B-Machine, how would you define a 'civil war?' Then do a bit of research about continuing reported incidents, and if that matches your definition, then you've got your answer. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Quebec (1775) 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been working to expand Category:Artillery by war, and it now has the following subcats:

• Mortars by war (4 C)
• American Civil War artillery (2 P)
• Second Boer War artillery (17 P)
• Cold War artillery (9 C, 2 P) F
• Falklands War artillery (5 P)
• Iran–Iraq War artillery (2 P)
• Korean War mortars (3 P)
• Spanish–American War artillery (2 P) V
• Vietnam War artillery (2 C, 9 P)
• World War I artillery (8 C, 1 P)
• World War II artillery (8 C, 41 P, 1 F)

If any other redlegs and enthusiasts have ideas on arty articles that can be combined into a subcat to cover other conflicts, or ways to fill in the above subcats, I think this has the makings of a useful navigation too. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would create cross populated subcats of each war in Category:Artillery by war with Category:Military units and formations by war, Sadads (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea! I just created Category:Artillery units and formations by war, is that kind of what you're thinking? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Sadads (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A minor point, but the naming conventions (WP:MILMOS#CATNAME) for by-war categories put the name components in the opposite order (e.g. "Artillery of the Second Boer War"). It would be good to fix the names before we create too many sub-categories; if I recall correctly, WP:CFDS should cover a case like this. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Went hunting for more arty units not yet filed in arty categories; dumped them into Category:Artillery units and formations for now to be sorted out. If anyone wants to help sort, that'd be appreciated. If you want to track down more orphaned arty articles, know that I went up to 17 pages of Google searches under "artillery regiment site:en.wikipedia.org", so searching that query further, or using different keywords, might find more. Not that most the American Civil War artillery units did not have any link to the artillery category tree until I found them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadads, most of the artillery units you put into Category:Artillery units and formations from the Union side of the Civil War ought to go into Category:Artillery units and formations of the Union Army. Just a thought. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Any reason for starting in the late 19th. Century? Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars would be worth having, especially as there are a lot of articles on Gribeauval system guns out there. Monstrelet (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call, created Category:Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, just needs populating now. In answer to the why, one problem is that the earlier we go the less standardised artillery was, so it's harder to get a clear distinction between articles on X tube and Y tube. My general impression is that prior to the mid-19th C. you get a lot of basic vague terms like "six pounder" or whatnot, while by the late 19th there are specific mass-produced designs/models that are easier to categorise. But I'm certainly open to any ideas on how to address that issue. Plus, we could always have basic overall articles like Artillery of the War of 1812, not unlike current articles focusing on tank warfare, airpower, etc. in specific wars. More like an expanded section of the main war articles, in which we can delve into documented technical details too geeky for the main overviews. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See here for details. Lists falling under this WP are affected. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've hit this particular issue head-on. Interested users are invited to monitor List of ships of the Russian Navy and it's talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - it seems like a variation of the problem that I described above.Nick-bang (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for 1965 South Vietnamese coup is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 09:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Although this may not be the best place to pose this queston it bares heavily on military history topics so forgive me. I have a question regarding the use of {{ACMH}} or the other related templates for establishing US government attribution. My question is, should any article that has a link or inline citation to say the United States Army Center of Military History (ACMH) also use the ACMH template, and if so, should max parameters be used (which could be redundent of the inline citation? The reason I ask is because the ACMH template adds the article to the category establishing attribution to the ACMH site whereas simply linking to the site or using an inline citation does not. Another problem to consider is that by using only the ACMH template (even when max parameters are used), without the inline citation, less information is provided about the source because the Cite web and Cite book templates have many more paramters for information about the source than the attribution templates do. The easiest (although it would require some effort too) would be to add additional parameters to the attribution template which would also require modifying the Template:Include-USGov meta template that most of them use. It is also possible that we could just split them off and use the Cite web (as is done with {{Find a Grave}}) template. Just to discuss the scope of this question for a moment, the ACMH template currently only links to about 750 articles total. There are more than 2000 articles relating to the Medal of Honor recipients alone that could and probably should link to it. --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ACMH applies to any article that uses/reproduces text produced and/or published by the Center of Military History, i.e. Medal of Honor citations (they/we are the official repository of the text as much as other groups would like to be credited as the publishers), Lineage and Honors certificates, CMH books, CMH articles, webpages etc. Everything they/we produce is public domain, the idea is to give them credit for producing it legally, without having to cite every single line that you reproduce. I agree, there should be more variables in the ACMH template, but not every article that cites the CMH needs the ACMH template, as long as you are summarizing like on regular scholarly citations, however any copied texts or extensive quotations should have the ACMH tag. I don't represent the official voice of the Center, but I think I am fairly representing how are text should be dealt with, Sadads (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First I want to clarify that I used the ACMH as an example but this applies to others as well such as DANFS, the USMC, Congress, etc. I think we are saying basically the same thing, just explaining it two different ways. Since all of the MOH recipients contain the citation, mostly from the CMH site, it is my opinion that it should have the ACMH attribution, but most do not. And, just for clarification, it would be rather easy to add, I just want to clarify before I add it to 1300 pages with redundant info because in many cases I would need to add it from multiple sites (ACMH, USMC, DANFS, Congress, etc). Adding the ACMH template would also be a more efficient way of tracking what articles use it as a source then counting the articles that link to it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if text or information taken from the ACMH was properly formatted in the first place. Eg in a similar manner to {{London Gazette}}?

Yes, but im a little confused about the question. --Kumioko (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not formatted to sit well as a source (we still ought to credit it correctly) why specify public domain at the start. Why doesn't it appear in this sequence

• John A. Lynn, "Medal of Honor", United States Army Center of Military History public domain material (retrieved on 2009-07-20) ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly we already do this sort of. If we use the Cite web format it will look like this:

• "Oviatt, Miles M. entry". Medal of Honor recipients, Civil War M-Z. United States Army Center of Military History. July 28, 2010. Retrieved August 4, 2010. (and basically we can use the full list of fields available in the Cite web template)

and if we use the ACMH template it will look something like this:

•  This article incorporates public domain material from No author in this case. Medal of Honor. United States Army Center of Military History. Retrieved August 4, 2010. {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help)(here we are limited to basically 4 fields)

What I am trying to say above though, which maybe I didnt do a good job of was if we use the ACMH template we get the attribution and the categories that go with it but we have limited fields of data to use. If we use the cite web template we get more fields and a better inline citation reference but we don't get the attribution. And since the ACMH uses the Include-USgov meta template we cannot easily modify it without affecting other templates as well. If we do not use a template at all and simply type it out as you have then we lose the ability of using tools like AWB to ensure that the references are properly formatted, there are no categories associated with it (unless we manually transclude them), and theres no standard structure (basically each one could have the items in different orders because presumably different editors would do it differently. I hope that makes more sense. --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The template could be altered and still retain the categories, the attribution for US Gov could be directly incorporated into the template, there's nothing particularly sophisticated going on "under the bonnet".GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately thats not exactly true the acmh template uses the Include Usgov meta template and that template also drives a dozen or so others. So if we modify the Include USgov template, we could then also modify all the others to be more inline with the te web citation template. Your right in that it is doable but there is a degree of difficulty. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That definitely sounds like a very good idea, though it may mean a fair bit of work. Sadads (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can modify the code for the appropriate changes but I will have to do it in the templates sandbox and someone else with admin rights can make the changes live. This template is restricted so I cannot access it. Which is fine, just means someone else has to share in the effort. --Kumioko (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Without altering any templates (code), you can use some other template and wrap it in {{citation-attribution}}. Or just cite it in the usual way and add {{source-attribution}} in the "References" section. How to instructions are included in the documentation for both templates. -- PBS (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Being in the process of making a draft for the current danish force composition, then I really need access to a tool that will enable me to draw it in the symbology of similar articles.

But i cant seem to find and/or make anything accessible work.

Any one have any ideas? Thank you all in advance. Nick-bang (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The man for this is User:Noclador in Kiev. Go ahead and e-mail him through the emailthisuser feature if he hasn't contributed recently. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I have contacted him, and hope he will get back when he has the time. Thanks for the help!Nick-bang (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered Nick-bang through mail, and thanks Buckshot for helping Nick contact me, cheers noclador (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 12:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a large number of articles in this cat that should really be in subcats. Accordingly, added Foreign volunteers in the Spanish Civil War, Fortifications of the Spanish Civil War, Internment camps of the Spanish Civil War, Spanish Civil War military equipment, Spanish Civil War prisoners of war massacres, and Veterans of the Spanish Civil War. There are a lot of remaining articles still on the main cat, many of which involving foreign policy, military units and political parties, etc. Any help in filing those remaining pages would be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Action of 9 February 1799 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Who deleted the template box for Kosovo War? Can it be saved? I'm tired of vandalism. B-Machine (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. I got the son of a bitch. B-Machine (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

B-Machine, please refrain from unnecessary all-caps in section headers, and avoid offensive language. This is not a blog, nor a place where using such terminology will gain respect. Show us you know how to use the English language fully, appropriately, and properly; not its' informal and potentially offensive elements which you would not expect to find in a written encyclopaedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify in order for me to understand the issue at hand - Is this another example of users with a political agenda attempting to do their own historical revisionistic projects? And if so what are our recommended course of action? And finally is this in the same vein as two of the posts from above? If so then to reiterate: there is a serious problem regading what I can only see as a concerted effort to rewrite history primarily to absolve some of the great despotic regimes of any and all blame, point of fact being the article on China, North Korea and Iran which all to greater or lesser degree have very uncritical approaches. In particular its applicable in many of the articles regarding the warcrimes, lost battles and generally embarrasing items of fact for the Soviet Union and by extension the Russian federation, which are under continuous and concerted attempts to downplay anything which goes against the prevalent consenseus in the Russian Federation (and coincidentally also against the pre-1991 Soviet propaganda version of varying subkects) .

This is not an attempt at unfruitfull, lopsided and polemic debate, but rather an attempt to evaluate wheter it is me who constitute a minority and are seeing ghosts? If not then where isthe proper forum for this debate?Nick-bang (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick-bang, without writing screeds and screeds more paragraphs about allegations of POV editing, would you please present as concise list of articles which you feel are in danger of damaging changes. I would note however that part of the reasons for the changes you perceive is English's status as an increasingly world language; dictionaries have had to include a significant number of new 'upstart' words and phrases due to this factor, and wikipedia's portrayal of controversial events will be altered as well away from the U.S./Western Europe common consensus on these matters to some degree - it's absolutely inevitable. However, with that fact noted, please give us a list of articles: Buckshot06 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure no problem: In no particular order then its the following articles (the list is not neccesarily comprehensive, but rather indictive of the problem):

1) The article about North Korea which decidedly downplays the North´s well-docuumented attempts of innfiltration, kidnapping of foreign nationals, nuclear program, inability to feed themselves etc.. Nor does it describe the completely erratic behavious of the present Dictator. Nor does it actually call it a dictatorship - which is made all the more glaring as Mthe article on Myanmar is called a "military dictatorship"

2) The Article on China does not mention the brutal and bloody regime of Mao and the later gang of four, other than in half a sentence. Nor does it mention the pressure against the gowernment of Taiwan. But most embarrasing of all then it makes NO mention of the genocide in Tibet, the murder of dissidents, the butchery on the place of the heavenly peace in 1989, the irrational persecutiuon of Falun Gong and so on.

3) The entire article on the Soviet union is likewise slanted and with the same results.

4) Specifically for this forum then ALL the articles on soviet battles and campaigns during WW2 are CLEARLY under pressure from revisionist russian contributors to downplay soviet mistakes, number of deaths etc. Amongst these are the articles on the battle of Kursk, the Winter war, Operation Barbarossa etc. Likewise for the article on the Soviet war in afghanistan. This tendency repeats itself with modern articles regarding russia, specifically the incredibly bungled russian attempts of russian hostage-rescue operations in the 90´s and 2000´s and coincidentally also regarding articles like the murder by FSB of Alexander Litvinenko.

I could go on and on - but I MUST make it clear that this is NOT an attempt to propegate a political agenda or slander Russia et al - rather I believe that this is a clear and present danger against the objectiveness and therefore the validity of several WiKi articles. Hence it should be discussed in an open, informed and academic fashion to avoid controversies in the actual pages.Nick-bang (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand you're talking about North Korea, People's Republic of China, Soviet Union to start with? We need to be clear on the exact articles you're talking about, so it would be very useful to link them when you mention them. Now, for the other specifically Milhist articles, have you raised this issue at the Russian & Soviet taskforce? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is correct - I did not realize that those taskforces existed. If you bear with the question, then how do I contact them?Nick-bang (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top of this page, you will see a sidebar on the right. There are a couple of major headings, but one is task forces. Both functional (including the maritime warfare task force) and regional (including the Russian and Soviet task force) are accessible through pull-down menus. Post a note on the talk page of each task force; this is the kind of place where such discussions are supposed to take place. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you don't mind me bringing his up here, but I think this is something members of this project could help with. There is some work going on by User:Nihonjo, User:*Kat* and me, to improve a series of lists, most of which contain war films based on books. The lists have had a number of issues for a long time, relating to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OWN, to name a few. The original author of the lists, User:Varlaam has long been reluctant to allow others to make improvements, although changes are finally being made. I would like to get others involved if possible, as three editors does not necessarily make "consensus". More info can be found at User:Nihonjoe/Films and User talk:Nihonjoe/Films, as well as at various article talkpages including Talk:List of war films based on books (1775–1898) and Talk:List of war films based on books (1898–1926). (Also, check out the article histories of any of the relevant articles.)

It would be a great help if other editors could join in, either to help out, or just to say they agree with changes being made, or they don't agree, or they have better ideas, or that perceived problems aren't really problems... or whatever! One of the problems we'll be tackling next is trying to remove films that aren't really about the topic of the list (ie. not really a war film), so if anyone wants to run their eyes over the lists and remove films that they know shouldn't be there, that would be great too.--BelovedFreak 09:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

The FAC review for this article is open open. Your comments are welcome. All editors are invited to participate. TIA   Perseus 71 ^talk 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on what seemed like a fairly trivial matter about Churchill's birthplace as displayed in the infobox. It's already got fairly heated, so if anyone wants to come by to add some other opinions to move us towards any sort of consensus, that would be appreciated. Discussion is here. Benea (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This image. I have absolutely no experience with Featured pictures which is why I'm refering here. ResMar 03:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I got it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for Walter Ohmsen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was quite shocked to see that commons:Category:Maps of battles is very underpopulated; commons:Category:Battle maps by war has only two wars... I think we need to do something about that ASAP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of maps in there though - ones like the normandy campaign ones for example - I for one do not know how to get those cats in - is it the same as here, just copy and paste ? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories on commons work just like categories here. Our goal of course is to categorize the military related maps, which usually represent battles or campaigns. So, a map should usually have a "Map of the battle of x", or "Map of Operation/Campaign/War y" category, that should be part of relevant overcategory (Maps of battles by war, maps of operation/campaigns by wars, maps of wars, etc.). In addition, maps should be assigned to "maps by language" categories (or blank maps). Overcats, such as wars/operations/campaigns, at their top level, should, in turn, be assigned to time period (incl. a year where possible) and geographical/country categories. I hope that helps, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok - pretty tentatively I have created the first category "Battle maps of World War II" and entered the parent category so it now shows on main category

I am still not quite sure on how this works in parent and sub categories. The WWI maps I looked at seem to have the categories in reverse order of size - ie Map of battle XXX : Map of campaign XXX : Map of War XXX

They also seem to contain extras in the Category field such as which has [[Category:Battle of Broodseinde|*]] and "Category:Battles maps of World War I" has [[Category:Battle maps by war|WWI]] and [[Category:Battles of World War I|*Maps]]

Can you explain why they have the |* in there and what the |WWI does in relation to the main cats ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also just hit first main problem. I created "Battle maps of Operation Overlord" and added it to but if you look at Charnwood you can see that there is already a category called "Maps_of_the_Battle_of_Normandy" - the next I was going to create was to be "Battle maps of the Battle of Normandy"

I will not proceed until instructed/discussed now as it seems AWB would be better to do any cat changes etc and I do not want to cause problems by cahnging things without discussion Chaosdruid (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Explore the various categories and subcategories on Commons and any appropriate categories here throughly ChaosDruid, and run any potential categories you wish to create past User:Kirill Lokshin, who set up most of the original category trees, and you should be all right. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maps of the battle of..." seems better then "Battle maps of..."; I've already filled a request to have those categories renamed. I'd suggest the ones we create are in the "Maps of..." format. You can ask for renames here. The pipe is used for ordering the cats (so, if you want Category:Battles of World War I to appear in the listing of categories under W, not B, you would have |W. In fact, "| " is often used to have the category listed at the very beginning of a list, and it is even more often used in articles, to list them at the very top and to indicate they are main articles for a given category). Sometimes you'll see * and other symbols, because the system is not (AFAIK) standardized, and some people will prefer to use stars (where I prefer to use spaces) and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that you are not changing the ones for Operations in that way as "Maps of the battle of Operation Overlord" does not sound correct lol

"Battle maps of World War II" was in keeping with "Battle maps of World War I" which already existed. I am sure that "Maps of the battles of World War II" is not such a big problem though.

The point I was trying to make is that I created them under the parent "Battle maps by war" and as the next down is operational then "Battle maps of Operation XXX" or "Battle maps by operation" is IMO better than what you are suggesting "Maps of the battle of Operation Overlord" and the alternative "Maps of Operation Overlord"(as this could include any map not related to the battles). When it gets to individual battles though it may be better to keep them as "Maps of the battle of Kursk" etc. It would not be a problem apart from the "Battle of Normandy" is not really an operation but a collective "unofficial" name given to the Normandy campaign

(lost session addition) However it seems that as there were two in the initial post "Maps of battles" and "Battle maps" then some clouding has occured. I am suggestiong a line where "Maps of..." is only at individual action or individual battle levels and "Battle maps of" is at Operational or above.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Maps of the battles of Operation Overlord"? After all, the operation was composed of numerous smaller battles...? There could also be a parent cat "Maps of the Operation Overlord" for maps of the entire operation. Not all military maps are maps of battles, so there is nothing wrong with having two partially overlapping category trees. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I have missed somtething in the comments I can see that there is little point in me getting involved. There is nothing wrong with "Maps of the battles of Operation Overlord" per se

What was wrong with "Battle maps of World War II" or "Battle maps of Operation Overlord" ? they were specific categories for the battle maps and yet you decided they should be renamed. The original statement was "Battle Maps" and "Maps of battles" and now rather than create the other options separately you renamed the ones I created - that is not having trees overlapping. Now you are suggesting that there should be "Maps of Operation Overlord" and "Maps of the battles of Operation Overlord" what happened to the categories "Battle maps of" ? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Maps of is better than Battle maps due to style (Commons MoS, if it ever had one). I expect they will be renamed by bot, if I missed any (because they were recently created) please use the link above to queue it up for a bot.

The reason I reported the issue here is to interested editors in categorizing mil-hist-images, and likely, in creating more categories. Thanks for the help! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The following articles have been nominated for an A-Class Review for at least one week and have not had enough editors comment/review:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/December 1964 South Vietnamese coup
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Armed Forces of Liberia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arnold's expedition to Quebec

The nominators would certainly appreciate any and all feedback that could be provided to them. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 17:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for St Nazaire Raid is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for a second opinion on a source I located reagrding a Medal of Honor recipient. This link 1862 USMC MOH has some additional details regarding an article I created today for Christopher Nugent but I am not sure about the credibility of the site. Does anyone have an opinon on whether this site has sufficient credibility to use this info as an inline citation. --Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well he's listed his sources at the bottom of the page. If you have access to any of those and they verify what you wanr, don't worry about the middleman. NtheP (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess thats true, I have some of them and I will try and get the rest. --Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I created the template {{FortBragg}}. What does everyone think about it? I assume this is the correct place to discuss this matter. I am also the creator of {{NCMilitary}}. PGPirate 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look and I think it looks okay, but the best place to discuss is probably the United States military history task force. Good work, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They both look pretty good, I would suggest redlinking topics you think are notable but don't have articles yet. That is a great way to prod other people into creating them.Sadads (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm about to try to draw my first battle map with Inkscape. I've searched this project for resources without much success, but Google found File:Template of Military Symbols.svg, which looks excellent but appears to be unused by any Wikimedia project. Wouldn't it be useful to link to that resource from somewhere within this project?  Sandstein  16:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty bizarre to me, but I know little of SVG. Could you (or somebody) categorize it? I am stumped as I don't know what that file is for :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a collections of icons, such as unit symbols. Mediawiki doesn't render the preview correctly, you need to open it in Inkscape to make use of it. I've categorized it as Commons:Category:SVG map symbols.  Sandstein  11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've used File:Maps template-en.svg and File:Maps template-history patch-en.svg as toolkits for military map styles and icons. I'm not the world's best svg-ist, but you can see maps I made using them at Battle of The Cedars. Magic♪piano 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, these look useful as well.  Sandstein  11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Creating maps. The template you referred to was created in SVG and PNG format (one can select elements or symbols from the template) and can be accessed from there Farawayman (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I still had User talk:Blablaaa on a watchlist and was not at all surprised, to see some edits just a heads up. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If MBK or Kirill happen to read this, the message he left concerns aspects of the arbitration committee and I can not answer them in good faith because the truth is I am not sure myself. Both of you have had experience in the matter and would be a position to answer his question with the proper advise needed for arbcom related matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

An un-recused clerk is handling this matter (I'm recused due to the MILHIST issue here), but the main thing is that he will be unblocked only for the limited purpose of defending himself and presenting evidence during the arbitration case. If he makes any edits outside of this to any page not in the arbitration remit he can be immediately re-blocked by any administrator. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. For reference, I'm recused myself, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for HMS Indefatigable (1909) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for SMS Westfalen 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for German Type UB I submarine 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are currently four ships (I'll also post to the Ships Project) and four other MilHist articles at FAC, and I've been concerned for some time about review of these nominations, considering the FAC backlog and the need for independent eyes to check for issues like jargon. Some of the prolific FAC nominators rarely review other nominations, and many of the MilHist FACs rarely get review from independent editors. Perhaps if MilHist and Ship FAC nominators would spend more time reviewing other articles, that would encourage more independent review of these nominations and help reduce the backlog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for FN Five-seven is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kirishima is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for HMS Courageous (50) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Cartagena de Indias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for Unternehmen Paula is now open; all editors are invited to participate. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for No. 410 Squadron RCAF 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! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I unsubscribed from receiving the Newsletter, as a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/Options will show. However, it still appeared on my page. Please fix this, or I will have to shut down the bot until it is fixed. (And I'd rather not do that.) Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll let the bot's operator know about this; my apologies for the inconvenience. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I don't know why that happened, no one else on the opt-out list got it. It could be because your username was shown with the first letter lower-case on the options page and the first letter upper-case on the members page, so I changed that. (That shouldn't change anything, but AWB does have its quirks...)

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't threaten to "shut down the bot" for a minor issue that's only happening to one person, just a simple notification to the bot operator's talk page is good enough. Cbrown1023 talk 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, this is just a quick reminder that when adding the task force parameters to the Military History project talk page banners that you need to be careful to get the mark up coding exactly right. For instance "|us = yes" will not place an article in the United States military history task force, but either "|US=yes" or "US=y" will. If you wish to find out the exact mark up code to use for the various task forces, these can be found by going to the task force pages (found here) where it will be listed in the Tagging and assessment sections. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway we could diversify what parameters work, allowing more options that are intuitive to editors?Sadads (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think so, but I don't know really, sorry. Can anyone help with this? AustralianRupert (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Regular expression maybe?Sadads (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough. {{{US|{{{us|}}}}}}. However there are drawbacks in that this then creates a for-ever-after need to support the two (or more) variants. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

That breaks if the user specifies both parameters, unfortunately. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In the sense that if you want a different behaviour for "US=yes|us=yes" to "US=yes|us=no" it does break it. However if you allow "US" to dominate "us" then it's not a problem, since in both cases the value of {{{US|{{{us|}}}}}} will be "yes". Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

I was actually thinking of a simpler case: the way MediaWiki distinguishes between "missing" and "empty" parameters means that US=|us=yes would not be interpreted as a "yes" response if we used the default parameter value method. (This tends to be an actual problem because people copy the entire template boilerplate from the documentation, leaving empty parameters in place; an editor that comes along and adds a flag to the end of the template invocation without carefully examining every preceding parameter will then see a rather unexpected result.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I like it, Any thoughts on getting support for both US and us on the template?Sadads (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's already support for aliases for the TF parameters in the template; it would be trivial (if a bit time-consuming) to add at least a subset of possible alternative capitalizations. What we need is a list of the aliases that should be added for each tag. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

the template code is complex enough as it is. Wouldn't it be more effective to run a bot to look for "us" and correct it. If it is expected that an editor should spell "British" correctly for the template to work, it shouldn't be too much to expect another editor to get their Capitalization correct.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really add much complexity; the aliasing feature is already there in any case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Kirill)Don't think its trivial, makes it more intuitive to sort pages and allows more users who don't normally task force tag to do it without double checking (i.e. me adding all kinds of tags, thinking "oh I have seen "us" as the taskforce so I might as well add it"). It is a user friendly experience kind of thing, Sadads (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"trivial" = "easy" :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, Sadads (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But most of the rest of Wikipedia doesn't use capitalized template parameters, take Infoboxes and cite templates for example,Sadads (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Except for things that are normally capitalized. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

The A-Class review for SMS Kaiser (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for USS PC-1264 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)