Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 82

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85

Wikipedia:Featured short articles

Now this is has got to be of interest ... --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How many MILHIST articles fall under this category? How do we know how many words an article has? JonCatalán(Talk) 21:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
My low-tech solution is to select the article text by dragging a mouse over it, excluding the refs, footnotes etc, and pasting it into Word. There's a tool that does this User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js, which I've never used.
How many Milhist articles this applies to is anybody's guess.
It seems the day of the Featured Stub is moving ever closer :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I installed that code in my monobook, and it's actually quite nifty. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've just done the same. It's excellent. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a really good idea, and will hopefully go someway to overcoming the mindset that only bloated articles can be FAs - often there simply isn't much to write on the topic of an article. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely; there's a surprising number of firearms topics where there's really not a lot to say (Enfield revolver being a prime example) or there's just not a lot of information available. Having Featured Short Articles is an excellent way of saying "This is the best Brief Overview of (Topic) you're going to get". The only issue I can see is what to do if a topic that is a Featured Short Article gets expanded (say, new research becomes available expanding existing body of knowledge on the topic) and you end up with a Featured Short Article that's clearly not a Short Article anymore.Commander Zulu (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is, the main reason for the first oppose was 1a, and as for the second reviewer, most of the FAC people tend to ignore Kaypoh and disregard his opinions, so I don't think there is a clear consensus that the article is too short, eg see Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics. That's just a comment in case you hadn't renominated thinking that it is intrinsically too short to be acceptable. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Its been awhile since I seen the list of short FAs. but if I recall correctly both USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) were on it. That may have changed though, considering both are now over a year old. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Tom, don't forget that the new info I've discovered will add enough to Kentucky to make it a presentable length. Unfortunately, there is nothing more that I can add to Illinois except maybe a sentence. Illinois is a prime example (in my mind) of what type of article is ideal for this process. -MBK004 04:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be differing opinions on the subject of shorter-length FAs right now at WT:FAC. I wouldn't count on Wikipedia:Featured short articles being a done deal just yet. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at these two ship articles again, and they both will pass any word requirement that is being discussed currently. Also, I've found this (Tom I think this is what you were looking for): Wikipedia:Very short featured articles -MBK004 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually what I was looking for was this: Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics. You can see the big and small articles with bronze stars there, and one of those is Kentucky. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Substandard article

I've happened upon this article: Battle of Leyte Gulf, and for lack of better words, I don't have time to fix it. It seems as though an editor has expanded the article, but the references are cited in an extremely incorrect manner within each paragraph and there is even talk to the reader in the article. I'm not sure how much work is required but since this article is one of the showcase battles of the pacific theatre in WWII, I'm sure it gets read quite a bit. Any help to fix this article up to presentable standards would be appreciated. -MBK004 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few substandard articles on Wikipedia, including featured articles. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the point with this one is that it is a very important battle, and is normally viewed over 400 times per day. Joe (Talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Fwiw, the references aren't cited in "an extremely incorrect manner": the majority are in Harvard style, which is accepted in Wikipedia. Some aren't done quite correctly, of course (no page numbers, too much comment) but the principle is ok. See Battle of Red Cliffs for a FA example with Harvard referencing. Gwinva (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same article? I count 2 fn, no comment in either. Or did it get reverted? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, strike that last. I don't see xs comment still. (I'm not a fan of the citation style, but...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well I actually did not know about that citation style. I'm definitely not a fan of it and prefer the in-line variety, but if you say it's okay, then I guess there is nothing left to do from this. -MBK004 03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't go as far as saying there's nothing left to do: the principle is ok, but they're not all managed correctly, and there is some mixing of styles, which someone should tidy at some point. (As an aside, I'm not a great fan of Harvard referencing on Wikipedia, but it works well in some other contexts.) Gwinva (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front, continued (!)

Update: The debates about naming Soviet-German WWII operations have been consolidated into one discussion, with a proposal to move 36 articles. As the outcome of the discussion will probably resolve this, all interested editors are urged to comment here. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Longtime readers will be aware there is a continuing disagreement over the naming of major Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front. This has sucked up a massive amount of editor time over what is really a small point - where the main name is located, as by now, most of the alternate names have been added in the introduction and infoboxes. Currently this includes things from Battle of Berlin/Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation, to Soviet invasion of Manchuria/Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. Mrg3105 is insistent on the use of 'Strategic Offensive Operation.' I and one or two others who've spoken occasionally think this is clumsy English and 'X Offensive' would do just fine. As a method of moving forward, Roger Davies suggested a sources along the convoy example above. The test case we're bickering over at the moment is currently at Battle of West Ukraine (1944) which is not very satisfactory.

Comment - the current name is derived from a requested articles list! This is better known as the tail wagging the dog :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, I don't believe there is anyone arguing for that name anymore. As I have said before, and Buckshot agrees, we agree that the current name is not the best option, and either Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive, Denpr-Carpathian Operation, or even Denpr-Carpathian Strategic Operation would be better.Joe (Talk) 23:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A potential compromise is 'X Strategic Offensive,' which Mrg has some level of agreement with.

Citations include:

Battle of West Ukraine Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive
Placeholder
Placeholder
Fallen Soviet Generals p.257 Dnepr-Carpathian offensive operation
Absolute War Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive Operation p.xiv

I'm sure all involved would like to get this cleared up once and for all, with a definite answer. Please let's work together here and be willing to compomise. Buckshot06(prof) 07:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note, would it be better to move this to the WW2 task force's talk page? Nick Dowling (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Those familiar with me will not be surprised by the length of the response below. Those with short attention spans may not appreciate it so I will just ask that articles are titled per policies Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, Verifiability, Citing sources, and No original research.
I am not interested in this discussion as it comes with a stated preconception of my character to which I object
I am not insistent on the use of 'Strategic Offensive Operation.' I am insistent on using sources that allow editing of good quality, fully cited article content. These sources reflect more recent research which Buckshot06 and others find unpalatable - literally. This research confirms, based on military theory, the difference between strategically significant operations on the Eastern Front and those that were sub-phase operations. My insistence is therefore within the framework of Wikipedia policies, and is not personality driven as I have been portrayed due to the "incivility" blocks.
I'm not sure what Buckshot06 means by "let's work together here and be willing to compromise". I mostly work on the articles about the Eastern Front either alone or with one or two other editors. In this case another editor, UserBorg Sphere is working on it, and I can assist. Buckshot06 has been the only one consistent non-compromising objector to using sources, while not actually contributing.
If he means that I should compromise on the name of the article, he must assuredly recognise that words have meanings, and those meanings reflect article content. Why does he use Russian Ground Forces and not Russian Army? Because he has it Redirected from Russian Army while using the more correct name. Why should the rules be different when applied to me and a four word title rather then three?
I don't see "compromise" anywhere in article content policies Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, Verifiability, Citing sources, and No original research.
I also don't see any tables in any of those policies. I don't see a need for such a table which to me is just a multiple choice opinion survey/vote.
The issue is articles' titles. A title is part of the article content. A title is important because it describes what the article is about. For example Operation Overlord is a bad article title because its a codename! It actually requires the reader to remember which operation it refers to. There are over 600 operational code names in German list of Axis named operations in the European Theatre. It is an assumption that someone will remember Operation Overlord just because it is more commonly seen in the media.
In the case of military operations there are scales of combat. This is an acceptable concept in much of military literature written by professionals. A military operation can be a campaign, a strategic operation within a campaign (usually an offensive or a defensive one), a battle within a strategic operation, an engagement within a battle, and an action within an engagement. Just because less professional authors in the past slapped "battle" on every scale of combat in the past does not change the incomparability of fighting between two infantry battalions and that of two Army Groups.
Do not tell me this is a general reference work and not a specialist one. There are many VERY specialised articles in Wikipedia, and anyone who wants to know about the Eastern Front is likely not to be looking for mainstream fields of knowledge like a TV show of popular music. In any case, a general reference work is only acceptable on approval of experts, and Wikipedia suffers in currently being banned by many academic and educational institutions, which is surely a far worse outcome than the banning I am issued every month it seems.
My position is very simple, and based on a quick summation of justifications I have offered:
that the naming be consistent throughout the range of what are expected to be well over 100 articles about Red Army operations during the Second World War
that the titles of the article reflect their contents (only some are "strategic")
that ultimately the names are derived from those who coined them, i.e. the Soviet General Staff (as is true for other countries) and not misinformed/outdated sources or votes by Wikipedia editors.
that more recent and authoritative research is better as a substantiation of, and reference for the article rather than "Googlecounts" and counting up all books published, since a great many are lacking in authority, and reflect old and often biased research
Those that have tried to bully me into accepting non-historical names have offered as arguments:
mythical "consensus" (a guide to how discussions are conducted, not how facts are established) that has been tested only once via a stacked pro-Rumanian vote
the equally mythical perception of the "common English-speaker" for which there is no evidence of course, but which is linked to the naming convention of "common name" which is of course not the same since one is about what 309–400 million people think Red Army operations are called, and the other is about what they are commonly called, usually by those interested enough in them to bother gaining the knowledge, the military professionals, military historians, and military history enthusiasts such as board gamers and wargamers
and the aesthetics of any given article name - dare I say look and feel, expressed as needing an article name that doesn't "look lousy"
Hence I don't see a need for any tables as the one above to name articles. I do the research and reference my articles (eventually, currently a backlog). I do not need a community vote of what "looks" best, this not being the American Idol competition. If people want a discussion on the sources used, I am more than happy to discuss them as I have with the current participating editor
Sources used to establish consensus need to be usable in providing citations for the article in question - i.e. relevant
In the area of Eastern Front research there had been a substantial change since the late 1970s first with professor John Erickson, and later with Colonel (ret) David Glantz. I corresponded with the later to clarify a 25 year old misconception about Operation August Storm which highlights how many published authors were prepared to accept it unquestioningly. I think that critical thinking in compiling a reference work is a must. This clarification was outvoted based on opinion, original research and irrelevant Googled sources - I call this unacceptable as an editing practice, and an abuse of administrative tools as I was subsequently banned from the article with an implied threat of being blocked
In the list below, the two top books are those most available on the Eastern Front from Authoritative sources (except Jukes which I do not consider authoritative). The authors of both correspond with each other, and I with them. They supplied me with the list of the operations which I had correlated with that from Soviet sources. Glantz added a couple of operations that were not publicised for political reasons--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandboxing: Mrg3105's list

  • Armies Of The Bear page 45: Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation
  • When Titans Clashed: p.356n Dnepr-Carpathian strategic offensive operation (March-April 1944)[1],
  • Role of intelligence by Glantz it the "new strategic offensive" after Kiev and lists phases
  • Slaughterhouse doesn't mention it
  • Dupuy in his 1970s "encyclopaedia" calls it what the Germans called it "Soviet Winter Offensive of 1943-44, but forgets to mention two out of the four Fronts
  • The road to Berlin "right-bank" of Dnieper (the western Ukraine) or "Christmas eve....offensive operations" because he deals with each sup-phase operation and not withthe entirety of the strategic one as a whole (perspective again)
  • The Almanac of World War II (Brig Young) fails to mention it
  • Haupt in Army Group South fails to mention a 2 million men offensive by four Fronts
  • Buchner calls it simply winter offensive of 1943/44, but talks about "middle Dniepr"
  • Seaton in The Fall of Fortress Europe doesn't call it anything
  • A World at Arms is a very general work which I don't have

part 1 sandboxing Buckshot06(prof) 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Vol. 8 of Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg (German official history), p. 387: Strategische Dnepr-Karpaten-Angriffsoperation. Parts of the operation are given titles of varying worth: "The retreat of the 4th Panzer Army and the counterattack of the 1st Panzer Army", "The 8th Army at Kirovograd", "The break-out of the Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket", "The fighting withdrawal of the 4th Panzer Army", and "The break-out of the 1st Panzer Army".
  • Vol. 2 of Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS by G. Tessin, p. 9: Defensive battles in the south Ukraine
  • Vol. 8 of Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkreiges (DDR Army translation of the Soviet official history), p. 80: The winter offensive of the Soviet troops in the Ukraine west of the Dnepr. On p. 611 (chronology), the start of the operation is simply indicated by mention of the Zhitomir-Bertizhev Berdichev(sp) Offensive Operation, and all other phases are indicated individually. The start of the "Leningrad-Novgorod Strategic Offensive Operation" is however mentioned on p. 612.

--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What does the Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg call the disintegration of the 8th Army?
Yes, I'm aware of the different names given to different parts of the German/Rumanian defensive operations on response to the strategic offensive unleashed on them. However, this is supposed to be an article about the Red Army's offensive, not what the Germans thought about the Soviet offensive. I am unaware that there is a single definitive name given to the overall planning and execution of the Army Group South retreat to the 1941 border of Soviet Union because Germans had a problem with saying "von Manstein" and "retreat" in the same sentence.
Also, consider this, Battle for the Ukraine by David M. Glantz & Harold Steven Orenstein is in fact about The Red Army's Korsun'-Shevchenkovkii Operation, 1944 (the Soviet General Staff Study). Lets not try to name articles from book covers, ok? I would have hoped that Operation August Storm would have served as a warning for this. Korsun-Shevchenkovsky Offensive Operation was but a part of the 1st phase of the Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation involving only two of the four fronts (operational 1/8th). It could not be literally a "battle" for the whole of Ukraine if only because the left-bank Ukraine had already been liberated. What authors and their publishers choose to put on book covers is not what should guide titling of reference articles.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 October 2008
I suppose the common factor in all those sources that choose to name it is "Offensive". --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ the name is only cited fro the second phase as the entire operation's 1st phase begun on the 24 December 1943

Comment

I’m glad to hear that mrg3105 is becoming more flexible in his views on article naming, as opposed to insisting on only Soviet nomenclature because of its simpler logical structure. That’s encouraging. However, it should be pointed out that using one side’s or the other’s terminology means subsuming their definitions and perspectives (i.e., POV) with it. Besides naming the action, perceptions of beginning and ending dates often do not align between German and Soviet reports – and such vagaries and other vaguenesses are often reflected in the scholarly literature. I point this out because in some cases, the most NPOV approach may be to use neither or even mix a little of both – if only to provide a broader context.

To use a non-Eastern Front/GPW example, what is commonly known in the English-speaking world as the “Battle of Britain” is traditionally treated as having run from 10 July 1940 – 31 October 1940; for the Germans, however, it was the Luftschlacht um England (“Air Battle against England”) and ran from mid-August 1940 to May 1941. The first phase, for the Germans, was their initial phase of attacks, code-named Adlerangriff (“Eagle Attack”), against British airfields from 12 – 23 August; however, one could just as easily point to the preceding “Channel Battles” (Kanalkampf) of 10 July – 11 August as the opening move, since it was obviously a necessary action to take to enable a cross-Channel invasion. The Wikipedia article Battle of Britain does just this (in its “Phases of the Battle” section) while employing the name most well-known by English readers (and often, by default, in a loose way by scholars). While such an approach will no doubt not find favor with purists, it should prove a useful reminder is that sometimes the best approach to titling an article might be to use neither side’s unique (POV) preference but rather instead one that simply clearly conveys the nature of the topic. If mrg3105 is comfortable with a formula of “X Strategic Offensive” and there is no strongly preferred English usage, that would seem to be a good compromise. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. Maybe mrg can add all his information from the Soviet point of view from his Glantz and Erickson sources, and I can add information from the German point of view, from the Ziemke source (the Werth source is closer to the Soviet point of view as well, seeing as he was in the USSR during the war), with the hopeful result of creating a balanced article that includes both points of view, seeing as the Soviet advance was obviously contested (look at the casualty figures). Joe (Talk) 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Askari Mark, your assessment of me is just wrong. You seem to attribute my "unreasonableness" to some quirky behavioural trait that suddenly came good. Nothing can be further from the truth. Aside from a logical approach being usually a better option to a blind shot in the dark (i.e. with no night fighting equipment), the what you refer to as "nomenclature" is in fact Stavka:Naming conventions :) I am not becoming more flexible, but simply recognise that in English the use of "offensive" and "operation" together is not necessary because the replacement of the translation "advance" with the "offensive" makes the later redundant.
I think what you and many others misunderstand is, that the article, in fact almost every article I have been trying to rename, is a Soviet operation! Axis did not have an East->West offensive in on the 24 December 1943. Just like writing a history of Overlord from predominantly German accounts is unlike to produce much of an idea on Allied plans and their execution, so too here. This article is not an attempt to produce an NPOV account of both sides, but the account of Soviet operation and its success or failure based on enemy reactions.
At some stage I will produce an operational correlation between the two sides on the Eastern Front. Then, the Axis operations that correspond to the Soviet will be more clearly seen in their own right. What you are looking for in this case is Axis strategic defence of the Western Ukraine 1943-1944. This is because that is how the area was referred to by them (due to earlier support for Ukranian Nationalists), and that is what their posture was in attempting to prevent Red Army advancing
Please DO NOT CONFUSE a reference work and a book! While an author may have the luxury of 300 pages to detail and analyse plans and actions of both sides, this is an article that deals with one subject only, the Dnepr-Carpathian strategic offensive.
One can not have a neutral point of view when describing an event which was intended to be extremely prejudicial in that this was an offensive intended to destroy the Axis forces.
Again, I stress that claims of "preferred English usage" have nothing to do with using the correct name. And this is particularly true for areas of knowledge where this usage has been denied and misconstrued for much of the post-war history. What Wikipedia should strive to do is to reflect the best research available on any subject for its readership, on any subject, and not use outdated research because it represents a more neutral point of view--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I probably speak for all of us when I say I'm glad you've reasonably happy with 'X SO,' for whatever reason. I will move the Battle of West Ukraine, as I said on the talk page, by tomorrow at the latest if there's no further input. However I'd like to try and avoid another huge argument which may be lurking from what you've said. We, or at least I, and Joe above, are trying to write an article on the battle, abiding with NPOV. Not just the Soviet side of it. Not just the German side of it. Very many people would see 'Axis strategic defence of the Western Ukraine' as a WP:CFORK and to try and present the Axis defence and the Soviet advance in two pages would not insufficiently describe their interaction - the combat action. I've only just realised, because of this, that part of your insistence on naming the operations the way you have is that you're only trying to describe one side. That is, frankly, inconsistent with WP guidelines. Please help us all produce depictions of the battles, without trying to divide things into two. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
lol
Do you know how condescending you sound? I had read Joe's original comment in talk. Moved the article, discussed it, expanded it, and then you show up out of the blue sprouting your "I speak for the average English speaker" mantra, waving your "have a vote in consensus" flag, and now you are going to move it because no one has actually deigned to offer any alternatives to an article which is a Soviet operation!
Neither you nor Nick had actually tried to discuss the article with Joe. Neither of you had offered any insight on the article subject. Neither of you have offered any suggestion or analysis of sources. BUT, YOU now give your permission to start by YOU YOURSELF THE BIG NEW CIVIL ADMINISTRATOR moving the article, something I have done twice, because you could not live with the word "operation" in the title
Well, I hope your German and Rumanian are better than your Russian or French--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Quite apart from the POV issues raised above, what naming policy says is that an article's title should "prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". To apply this to the present issue, and I stress that I am giving this only as an example rather than expressing a preference, "strategic offensive operation" fails on a number of points.
  • "strategic offensive operation" is an unusual and verbose collocation, it must be learned, and it is therefore not intuitive ("intuitive" means "does not need to be learned"). It is not therefore "second-nature" to link to it.
  • "strategic offensive operation" is military jargon and only specialist students of the subject are likely to understand it: can it there reasonably be said that the name is what "the greatest number of English-speakers would most easily recognise"?
  • How does "strategic offensive operation" sit with the policy requirement to use the "common name" for a thing? The common name for a military offensive of whatever nature is the plain unvarnished "offensive".
  • I'm not sure it is possible to determine what, globally, is a "correct" title for an article though it is a relatively easy matter to give an article a purely descriptive one. The use of descriptors instead of names is already well-established in policy, for example, with the emphasis on using non-evocative descriptors in place of evocative or POV names.
  • Finally policy says that "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another" and that seems to be the case here. It is safe to say, from the opposition it has attracted on many occasions here, that "stragic offensive operation" is a controversial name and it likely to be viewed as controversial in the wider world too.
These probably point towards the simplest possible form of name. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I see that both the German and Russian Wikipedias use the simple "operation" as the article name: de:Dnepr-Karpaten-Operation and ru:Корсунь-Шевченковская операция. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (1)

Replies to above

  • Because most Soviet operational names are linked to the geographical names, "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" is not applicable. The titles have to start with these components, or they would be talking about something else entirely. However, what you neglected to quote is that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." I have provided these sources, and four use "strategic offensive", all verifiable and reliable.
  • For no average English speaker "making linking to those articles easy and second nature" is going to be possible due to the geographical names involved, so inclusion of English words in the title is the least of their problems, but that is just part and parcel of reading about military history that did not happen in the UK or other English-speaking countries. Care to tell me how many English speakers find it second nature to link US battles in the Vietnam War or those of the UK long colonial military history?
  • a "strategic offensive operation" may be unusual, but not as individual words, and a quick Google also suggests that the "strategic offensive" is found 130,000 as well as in 1880 published works, so not that strange either. The question is, is it unusual to find mention of strategic offensives in military history? It was in September news articles 21 times in Google, and I bet a lot more in printed press.
  • I would next direct you to US News programs that I see from time to time. They are today using a veritable plethora of military jargon, and have advisers to interpret this jargon on camera! However, given the subject is of a specialist nature, i.e. military history, and one about Soviet military history, do you propose to use terms "most easily recognise"? How does one determine this? Are you going to take time of to do a quick survey of the English speaking world, or write a dictionary that translates all Soviet military terminology into simple English? I would suggest that when a reasonable reader ventures into an unfamiliar area of human knowledge, they probably expect some to be introduced to terms they are not familiar with. However, I hardly think that a strategic offensive is considered military jargon. There is for example a book Offensive Marketing: An Action Guide to Gaining the Offensive in Business by Warren Keegan, Hugh Davidson, Elyse Arnow Brill which has Ch. 5, Strategic Offensive Business Analysis. Its on sale at Barnes and Noble. Jarymowycz in his 2001 Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Lorraine, a book no doubt widely read by English speaking readers interested in the Second World War, he says "The best example of the Allied strategic offensive par excellence is the Normandy invasion." Its an interesting read on Page 286. Given this is a book that has been around since 2001, and I had seen widely and deeply discussed in several boardgaming and wargamning forums back in 2003-4 before the Normandy commemorations, at a guess I think you don't give as much credit to the Wikipedia readership as they probably deserve.
  • A common name for a military offensive, is offensive, unless the offensive is not common. However, we can test this. At the next Super Bowl, go up there and tell the first 10,000 fans its just another football game. :) I would suggest that some offensives are more common than others.
  • You find "strategic" evocative? Or do you find it an expression of a particular bias in the point of view? What about "overlord"? If an editor is not sure it is possible to determine what, globally, is a "correct" title for an article, then I put it to you that the editor is not sure what the article is about.
  • I'd like to find out what controversy is attached to using translations of Soviet operational names to refer to Soviet operations in English? The opposition it has encountered is mostly based on Buckshot06 insisting that they are too long. In 25 years of research I have never seen this mentioned anywhere, although use of fictional Operation August Storm is certainly controversial as it questions the reliability of many authors that used it in their works. The other controversy was that Eurocoptertigre thought the names of Soviet operations should be spelled in Rumanian. Raul654 thought they did not meet with his aesthetic appreciation, understandable in hind sight since to an IT systems guy look and feel is important. So, in fact the controversy was made in Wikipedia (better than Made in China I guess, what with artificial ingredients in the milk scandal) for reason that are not in Wikipedia policy, i.e., restriction on reasonable length, nationalistic bias, and subjective judgement.
  • There is also a policy that Wikipedia is a reference work, and not one that seeks to dumb down knowledge to simplest common form as a sort of knowledge processor where a perfectly good steak goes in one end, and a baby-food looking substance comes out the other.

Now that Roger has finally had his say, consider that in the article introduction the editors would still have to say that the operation was strategic, because quite simply that is how history, both Soviet and German (grudgingly), has recorded it. Given the Eastern Front is only probably going to be interesting for those over 16, and most probably of university age and older (so Joe seems to be somewhat above average), how interesting they would find a Wikipedia article that has "digested" the subject to the simple and non-controversial, completely neutral version of events described in most books as some of the most brutal winter fighting in the history of the Eastern Front as German troops realised they are loosing any hope of retaining even a portion of the conquered territory, or that they are about to retreat to the borders they crossed in 1941, and 2.5 years of fighting and millions of dead were all for naught? Hmmm, I'm ready with my FA-grade assessment questions :)

If we are going to play the google test, lets at least do it properly mrg. I'll be using the word 'War' to try to remove the articles on offensive clothing etc and go for Offensive as in the war sense.
  • "Strategic Offensive" : 84,400 hits
  • Offensive war -"Strategic Offensive" : 835,000 hits
  • "Strategic Offensive" -wikipedia : 78,000 hits
  • Offensive war -"Strategic Offensive" -wikipedia : 730,000 hits
So thats 10:1 difference there, allowing for vagueness of google I'm still less than convinced the term is as wide as you say. So, lets look into google books, shall we?
  • "Strategic Offensive" : 1,890 hits
  • Offensive War -"Strategic Offensive" : 30,800 hits.
Even if we said, well, half of those can't be right on both of the tests, we are still looking at huge disparity. Even if we removed 80% of the results on offensive, it still has a 2:1 on google search and over 3:1 on books. NOt to say this is authoritative or the way we should be deciding things, but just in retort to your use of google to try to prove the use is widespread, relativly. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Roger claimed it was "unusual", I used the simplest way I know to show it is not--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I claimed "strategic offensive operation" was an "unusual" collocation. It is, for a variety of reasons. The string "strategic offensive operation" generates 3800-ish hits, of which over 2000 are on Wikipedia (add switch -Wikipedia). Of the remaining 1600, large numbers are trivial. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. I was simply trying to point out that it is not that unusual in the area of military history to link the three terms--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My replies to mrg's replies:

  1. I don't buy your argument that (1) the presence of Russian names complicates the title so much that additional levels of complexity don't matter and (2) therefore, somehow, policy doesn't apply. For the avoidance of doubt, policy does apply and we should apply it.
  2. Policy doesn't require us to distinguish between "Defensive Battle of XXX" and "Offensive Battle of XX" so it's difficult to see why we should do for offensives.
  3. However, policy requires us to disambiguate. So "XX Strategic Offensive" has a place if an article entitled "XX Tactical Offensive" exists.
  4. I disagree with your analysis of the readership. A growing number of readers are people seeking information on battles their fathers/grandfathers fought in/died in. In short, we can't predict with certainty who will read this.
  5. There is no element of dumbing down in being concise. In my opinion, "XX Offensive" or "XX Operation" conveys precisely the same amount of information to the general reader as "XX Strategic Offensive Operation" and a great deal more efficiently.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned that I had policy disputes with others, and queried how they can all be wrong. This is how. You state that "you don't buy" my argument, but fail to offer a reasonable followup staring with the preposition because. Usually what my policy discussions come down to is that others either say something like "we will have to agree to disagree" as you already have done, but which I did not accept, or they just stop talking, as you have done by not answering direct questions, but merely offering the suggestion that I can't be right and a dozen other editors can be wrong. Alternatively they can switch into Wikilingo and call me a "troll", or claim I am being "disruptive", "tendentious", or some other uniquely-Wikipedia way to get out of a discussion while still seeking to preserve some belief in self-righteousness. Alternatively they claim they are busy, and have no time for discussions, but find time to revert my edits within minutes. I have never felt so "loved" with so many people looking at what I'm doing here.
However as you well know, saying that my argument is not accepted makes for a very poor logical continuation of a discussion which is encouraged as I understand.
What the policy you quotes says is that we "prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". Lets take the case of an operation which was not strategic, and accept that "operation" is unnecessary if "offensive" is used. Are you telling me that Proskurovsko-Chernovitskaya offensive is going to be easily recognisable or lacking in ambiguity for the greater number of English speakers? I only know three people on Australia who can say it correctly, and another correspondent some years ago offered $50 in his wargaming club to anyone who could say it with any reasonable correctness after hearing a recording I made three times. As it happens this will be one of the sub-operations in the strategic operation under question. Wikipedia policy can not make people speak Russian. Nor can policy change how operations were named by the Stavka. The name includes two operational objectives and is therefore at the core of the article about it unlike a codenamed operation.
Its just one of those things in history where a historian or the reader encounters the strange, and what I enjoy most about history, and not just military history. It forces one to learn.
However, disambiguation of "X offensive" and "X defensive" is ok?
Use of strategic is quite simply to convey the scale, and group non-strategic sub-operations within it. I do not see a problem, and quite frankly no IP has ever complained he/she didn't know what it meant. Given that once the first transliterated part is entered the search will bring up the other words automatically as the closest match in Wikipedia, I really fail to see the objection since no typing is required!
We can't predict who will read this, but we can predict that if they are making the effort to get to the Eastern Front articles, they are most probably prepared for encountering either Russian, German or military terms. I'm fairly sure they will not be deterred by the use of strategic in some of the titles!
I disagree that "XX Offensive" or "XX Operation" conveys precisely the same amount of information to the general reader as "XX Strategic Offensive Operation". We are not looking for efficiency, but for accuracy. Efficiency would be numbering all operations from 1 to whatever prefixed by any word you like, and thus creating ....a code name! Codenames have offer a grater ambiguity to the title as is pointed out in the naming conventions. Some operations were larger than others. Its just a fact of history. How that is reflected is through the use of "strategic". The word was also used in Allied and Axis forces, but in operational orders only
I know that in German and Russian wikis the use is different. In the Russian wiki the entire area is currently under development somewhat on the model I'm using. I will keep in touch with them. However in the untranslated form there is greater ambiguity, so they are also using three words for battle in Russian where there is only one in English, and therefore have greater degree of disambiguation. I have not been in touch with the German wiki, but I suspect there is less desire for precision in the matter of Soviet operations with understandably most editing effort going into the German view of the war.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. You're confusing accuracy with detail, and introducing instruction creep.
  2. Disambiguation of "X offensive" and "X defensive" would be okay if the term "defensive" was widely used as a noun to describe defensive operations, which it isn't. The two Baltic operations might be better disambiguated by date, ie "Baltic [whatever] (1941)" and "Baltic [whatever] 1944".
--ROGER DAVIES talk 05:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
For reference, the other article named in this fashion is Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation. There's also Baltic Strategic Defensive Operation which is named in the same way. Buckshot06(prof) 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I generally agree with mrg, I am not sure the word offensive is absolutely necessary. Usually the name of the certain battle comes from the side that holds a strategic initiative, i.e. the side in the offensive. We use Barbarossa for the "Eastern European strategic offensive operation"; we call the events in North Caucasus in 1942 a part of the "Fallen Blau", not a "North-Caucasus strategic defensive operation". Therefore the words "strategic operation" already imply "offensive". The German offensive during of the battle of Kursk was "Operation Zitadelle", and the phase when the Soviet started their offensive are called "Strategic offensive operation Kutuzov" and "Strategic offensive operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev". The Soviet historiography needed a unified name convention for their offensive and defensive operations, but, I think, English WP have no such a problem. Am I wrong?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Paul, but you are comparing apples and oranges since all of the above are codenames intended precisely for the purpose of denying knowledge as to the nature of the operation. Should this be perpetuated in Wikipedia when options are available?
All articles in the categories Category:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II, Category:World War II aerial operations and battles of the Eastern Front and Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II (European theatre) are by their nature military, and therefore operations. There is no need to restate this. However, the nature of the operation as being offensive, defensive, siege, or other, certainly belongs there.
I am not going to address every operation, but on looking at Barbarossa, I see that it is deficient since it says the operation was an "invasion of the Soviet Union", that "The operational goal of Barbarossa was the rapid conquest of the European part of the Soviet Union west of a line connecting the cities of Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan, often referred to as the A-A line" and that "Tactically, the Germans had won some resounding victories and occupied some of the most important economic areas of the country, most notably in Ukraine." - all these are of course laughable. An invasion does not nearly describe the massive scale of the undertaking and "Eastern European theatre offensive operation" would be a much better description in the introduction. The goals of Barbarossa, as stated, were not operational, but planned around "strategic campaign goals". The victories were certainly strategic although achieved at the operational level of warfare due to the new operational mobility offered by the use of mechanised divisions and Panzer Groups. Do we actually want to say something to the reader that they can repeat to others, or are we just copying 1960s books?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
PS. No Soviet or Russian source would call Operation Kutuzov or Operation Rumyantsev either strategic or offensive. They were the Orel Орловская наступательная операция (операция "Кутузов") and the Belgorod-Kharkov Белгородско-Харьковская наступательная операция (операция "Румянцев") strategic operations. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"intended precisely for the purpose of denying knowledge" I hope you don't mean (& I don't think you do) we should resort to the likes of "D-day" rather than "Operation Overlord" (or "Neptune") because that's the more common name. It's for that reason (if no other) I don't find a "Google poll" persuasive. I have a concern we're going to end up with pablum in the name of accessibility. I'm not persuaded by the "drive-by reader" argument; anybody coming to one of these articles is likely to already have some basic knowledge of the subject. (How many "random article" hits go to one of these in a week? I'll bet the number's pretty low.) As stated elsewhere, I'm of the view we should be aiming for the top of the class, the brightest & best-informed, not catering to the least-informed. Beyond that, I'm not competent to comment. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
While I agree to a point Trek, the wiki guidelines and policies are set up to cater to the reader with no prior experience, as well as reader over editor (hence why the idea of uniformity finds an ill home). It is a battle that should be fought on guideline/policy pages, or on the pump. We shouldn't be trying to ride out infront of the crowd yelling 'Rally!'. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I didn't understand your analogy with apples and oranges. My point is that Russian names of battles are "Russocentric" whereas German names are "Germanocentric - and that is quite natural and understandable. We do not use both names simultaneously and, as a rule, when the German is in offensive, the German name is used and vise versa. So any operation is "offensive", I cannot imagine the battle where both sides were in a defensive. Simultaneous offensive is also rare if possible: even the battle of Kursk had two phases: German offensive and Soviet counter-offensive.
"Strategic offensive operation" is not precise, because we need to specify which side was in the offensive. (It is obvious for national historiography, not for WP).
"Strategic offensive operation" is redundant, because any strategic operation implies an offensive of one side.
However, I fully agree that the name should reflect the geography and scale of the battle: it is ridiculous when, for instance, "Barbarossa" and the battle of Beirut are listed as the similar range items in such a list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll make no argument to change policy; when this came up before, I was clearly in a tiny minority, so I wouldn't expect to achieve a revolution, & I'm not one to fight futile battles. (Not when I have any say about it, anyhow. ;) )
Given the guideline won't adopt page changes to operational codenames (presuming we here could agree on whose to use, which I doubt ;D), & given a choice between two (about equally) uncommon names (even people here, moi for 1, couldn't necessarily name the Rus/Ger Kharkov ops, say, & Joe Average sure can't), I'd adopt the name of either a) the side with initiative or b) the victor, & stick to that in all cases. Using the victor's name has the advantage of consistency & simplicity, IMO. My C$0.02, FWIW. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

World War II Airborne Warfare Photos

I've just finished re-writing Operation Tonga, the British airborne landings during Operation Overlord and I'm starting work on American airborne landings in Normandy, but I'm rapidly finding a distinct dearth of photos for Allied airborne operations pre-Operation Market-Garden, especially for the American airborne divisions. I can find one photo positively identified to be about the 101st Airborne Division for the Normandy article and one in Commons that might be, but no others. I've put about six photos in Operation Tonga, as the IWM provides excellent photos for the British operations. I can write American airborne landings in Normandy quite easily, but it will lack in photos if I start at this moment. Does anyone have any idea where photos for the article can be found online, and how to verify they can actually be used by wiki? Apologies for the complex and long-winded question, Skinny87 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If any image in your sources are attributed to the U.S. National Archives or U.S. Armed Forces they can be used on Wikipedia. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's helpful. However, I'm not sure how to verify the authenticity of some of the photos I come across in, say, a google search. I tried searching the US National Archives, but I can't make head nor tail of that website. Skinny87 (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Just 'bumping' this to see if anyone else has any ideas where I could locate suitable photos for the article and how I could identify them as usable by wiki? Skinny87 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried searching the Imperial War Museum Collections? The photos on that site would generally be available for use as pre-1957 British government works, see {{PD-BritishGov}}. Leithp 06:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have, thanks, but there are no photos of US airborne forces in the IWM Online Collections - it was the first place I looked :( Skinny87 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
On re-reading your post, I see that you mentioned it. Leithp 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, no problem, my writing is rather confusing at times. I tried to find the US equivalent to the IWM, and did find one site, but it was so byzantine I got lost after a few clicks. Skinny87 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's three here, if that helps? Leithp 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
One is already on commons, but the other two are brilliant. Thanks so much. One last thing - what's the process for uploading those so I can add them to the article when I finally re-write it. Is there an 'Idiot's Guide to Uploading' somewhere? Skinny87 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:UPLOAD or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? (Is that what you are looking for?) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ACR for Third Battle of Kharkov

An A-class review has been opened for the Third Battle of Kharkov. Your comments are welcomed! JonCatalán(Talk) 16:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Q

Ok guys, I know that Hazegray has the correct information on a bunch of warships....but is Hazegray reliable? I couldn't find it in a quick Google News archive search, but I figured that someone here might know off hand from something.....thanks, guys! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the Navy ships, but the coverage is really incomplete for Coast Guard cutters. Hardly any of them are there. Only the really old cutters are indexed. Cuprum17 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
U.S. Navy ships are well covered, especially battleships + aircraft carriers... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hazygray usually copies whatever DANFS has insofar as the USN ships are concerned, so in thereory anything covered by Hazygray is automatically covered by DANFS, thus its reliable. Thats the stance I have always taken. If you want an official edict though you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, the users there will be able to answer the question of reliability with the authority of wikipedia, and as such people listen when they say something is or is not reliable. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tom. I'm not talking about the DANFS copies; I'm talking about the lists (Toppan, Andrew (1995–2001). "World Battleships List: US Dreadnought Battleships". Hazegray.org. Retrieved 4 September 2008.) that are there! =) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. They should be reliable since the information has to originate from official sources, and those source all trace back to the USN. Its one of those citation paradoxes that an article can have multiple cites to questionable source that sooner or later turn out to be valid because their orgins are USN based. I will look into this more tommarow, but at the moment I am winding down my time on the wiki in advance of heading off to bed. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Stanley Goble now open

The A-Class review for Stanley Goble is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Clarence Smith Jeffries now open

The A-Class review for Clarence Smith Jeffries is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WWII operational naming on the Eastern Front

The lengthy debate about naming Soviet-German WWII operations has now been resolved. However, individual articles may have however point-of-view/balance concerns. It would be appreciated if editors could take a look at the articles with a view to improving them. This also applies to articles in Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of battle

Does the project have a "naming convention" for articles on orders of battle? Looking at the variety of article names in, for example, Category:Second Sino-Japanese War orders of battle, perhaps there should be one?

To pick just a few, forms include:

  • Order of Battle of the (battle)
  • Order of battle for (battle)
  • (Army) Order of battle, (battle)
  • (Battle) order of battle
  • Order of Battle (battle)
  • Order of Battle: (battle)

The most common seems to be (Battle) order of battle, and where necessary (Battle) (Army) order of battle. Is this the most commonly accepted form? Should "order of battle" be capitalised or not? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The "<battle> order of battle" form seems rather strained from a grammatical point of view, particularly in the more peculiar cases (e.g. "Battle of France German order of battle", etc.). Given that space isn't really a constraint, I'd suggest going with a somewhat longer form: "<country> order of battle for [the] <battle>" (e.g. "German order of battle for the Battle of France"). Kirill (prof) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

I've been doing a lot of work on this article and I've now got it up to B Class but I'm being advised on the edit page to consider splitting it as it's getting too large. I could do with some advice at this juncture, particularly from someone with admin status. That's not to say that non-admin advice isn't good but it's a very controversial article and it's been the subject of much bickering and edit warring so I want to ensure that whatever I do - I do it right, and with good guidance from someone who has a bit of clout.Thunderer (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Ed_17 for his advice on the article page. I have created three new pages as a result and seek advice on how to upgrade the article to A Class. Thunderer (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Two new ACRs

Both Battle of Khafji and Clarence Smith Jeffries are currently being reviewed for A-class. Your comments are welcomed! JonCatalán(Talk) 19:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indiana in the American Civil War

A new FAC has been opened for the article Indiana in the American Civil War. All editors are invited to comment, and any input on the FAC page would be apreciated. Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Constitution now open

The A-Class review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Our newsletter: a bit of fun!

Discussion Closed - Consensus reached on "The Bugle". Cam (Chat) 06:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We (the coordinators) have been thinking of renaming the monthly newsletter* (if you don't subscribe, you can easily). So let's have a competition for a new title. Enter your suggestions below and add a simply '''Support''' ~~~~ under the proposals you prefer. There's a Bright Ideas Barnstar for the winner! The proposals can be as wayout as you like, and you can make as many proposals as you wish, the idea is to come up with something snappy and memorable! So get your thinking helmets on and get those ideas coming ... Thanks, in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominations:
Support I'll give it my highest praise: :I wish I thought of it". Perfect.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hmmm.... J. J. Jameson curse you, webhead! 05:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support JonCatalán(Talk) 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support --Narson ~ Talk • 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Lawrencema (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support J Costello (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2, Woody (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Think of the prestige Being Mentioned In Dispatches brings! Commander Zulu (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Already gone. It's the featured articles people's newsletter. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
(No? ; ) ) Bernard Smith Guderian don't shoot! 05:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Map Table (Kind of sucks, but best my non-creative mind could think of) (Borg_Sphere)
  • Martial Quartermaster Monthly (Catalan)
1, Woody (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The War Room (Cam)

We only need one more and we can a different name each month of the year :) Seriously though, let's get those supports rolling! --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter name competition: shortlist

I've removed the nominations which received no support to produce a shortlist. Can we have a few more votes on this please to produce a clearer consensus? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Support I'll give it my highest praise: :I wish I thought of it". Perfect.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Support JonCatalán(Talk) 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support --Narson ~ Talk • 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Lawrencema (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support J Costello (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Support (2) Woody (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Support YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Support —TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support (1) Woody (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Support but only if the capitalisation is corrected to Military history monthly or Military History Monthly ;) Nick Dowling (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Dang, beat me to it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The War Room (Cam)
Support —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support —TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Corps

Hi all, I have been slowly improving Chemical Corps (United States Army) over the last year. There's tons more to do and any assistance (fellow Dragon Soldiers come out of the woodwork now) would be appreciated by me, and the article's readers. There are some red links that might be fun to create, maybe some good DYKs there. Anyone who wants to help should stop by. I have compiled a bunch of sources on the talk page and there is an open question there that could use some input too. Thanks. :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Copied to the following task force talk pages: Military science, Military technology and engineering, Weaponry and United States military history. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on picture in Vietnam war

Not sure if this is the correct place.

The picture of the B-52 is the same, but the operations occurred in two different location. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Copied to the following task forces pages: Military aviation, Southeast Asian military history and United States military history. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A-class review: Battle of Vigo Bay

This article is undergoing an A-class review. All comments are welcome here. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

King Armored Car

I was wondering if I could get some opinions on the above article; specifically, what needs to be done to get it raised to B-Class (aren't you glad to see me setting my sights so high?). Thanks mates. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be referenced, using footnotes (<ref></ref>). It would be nice to see it expanded, but understandably there may not be enough information available to you, to do so. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
How about now? I'll add more info as I find it. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Copied to the following task forces pages: Military land vehicles and United States military history. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Banner

For the banner that is placed on the talk page of all articles that fall under WP:MILHIST, I was wondering if people would want/support a bot that added: 

<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=yes/no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes/no
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes/no
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes/no
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> 
|B-Class-5=yes/no

to all of the banners that do not have this yet. If this idea is supported, I would begin the design process for the bot to do this. If anyone objects to this idea, please say so now, so I don't waste time on a frivolous or stupid idea. TARTARUS talk 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maelgwnbot (talk · contribs) can already do this as he fixed up some ship articles a few months ago. But it is not a bad idea overall keeping in mind that Stub class articles do not recognize the checklist even if it is in place. Probably the best thing would be to make sure all of the Start class article have the checklist on them. --Brad (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that your criteria #1 is outdated. It should be: B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --Brad (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This might be useful if it placed it on all Start-Class articles. Then it would remind people to fill out the checklist, and make it easier for people who go around filling out the checklists on a lot of articles. However, it would make it harder to find checklists that have not been filled out, as Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists would be useless. Joe (Talk) 02:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
We can still keep track whether the list has been filled out or not. There is a list on top of this page where articles are listed according to their problems in B-class assessment. However, I question what benefit the bot would bring. Is copy&paste such as in the current version too difficult or time consuming? Wandalstouring (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a kind thought but there is more to this than meets the eye. First, it might be more difficult than it seems to identify the articles that don't have the checklist because it isn't always used in the full form. For instance, it might appear just in the short forms, without the supporting text, for example: |B1=no|B2=yes|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y or |B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=no|B-Class-5=yes. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Roger, but this is a good idea. If there is some way to allow for the above example then this should go ahead. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
When writing the code for this bot I can add in multiple variants of the setup, but I would need the list of ways that it could be set up, so the one I have given above, the one Brad gave and the one that Roger gave will be three, but there are more, some that I can come up with, but if there are obscure ones, I would need them given as well. TARTARUS talk 21:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Division insignia of the United States Army

I think this page might have been vandalized, but I'm not sure. Can someone take a look at it? Thanks. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes for the moment, but can someone review this too? (Someone who actually has knowledge about division insignia's?) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GAN of Alaska class battlecruiser

Hey guys: I just nominated Alaska class battlecruiser to be a good article. I'd appreciate a reviewer from here who has some (any) experience with maritime history-related articles to ensure that the technical aspects of the article are all there.....I'm not quite sure that I have included everything. I think I have, but you never know... Anyway, thanks for any help! Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 01:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Copied to the following task forces: Maritime warfare and United States military history. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese strategic thought

Chinese strategic thought has been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD 70.55.200.131 (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST Peer Review

We could do with some more editors over at the Peer Review area to help out. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween DYKs

Over at T:TDYK, they are planning a bunch of Halloween DYKs. I'm planning on doing a Ghosts of the American Civil War article. If anyone wants to get in on this, either do the ghosts of a war, or a military person/place/thing with the name or nickname of something "Halloweeny". (Sadly, the Gray Ghost in the American Civil War is already made and too big to expand sufficiently.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Military schools and military academies

The categories for these are in a complete mess. Category:Military academies, which is rife with overcatting at multiple levels, consists almost entirely of institutions for mid-career or career-starting military, except for the US sub-cat, which contains great numbers of high schools. Meanwhile Category:Military schools is a mix of both, and not a subcat of the academies. At the least the high schools should be split out from the places for actual professional military, and really the Military junior colleges and Senior Military Colleges segregated from United States Service academies like West Point & the places for lieutenant-colonels. At the moment the whole spectrum from 10 year olds to 40-50 year olds is jumbled up. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest? A complete structure? And, if so, how would you do it? --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
A name for the high schools - mostly in the US, many in India, one in France needs to be agreed. There is Category:Military high schools, which should have a US sub-cat. The Indian ones are already in a military schools sub-cat, and the US ones need segregating - there are certainly enough for a cat. There should be a global cat for these, & obviously they should feed into the national military education cats. Personally I would split out the ones for mature serving personnel from officer training schools like West Point, Sandhurst etc, at least for most countries. Again Category:Staff Colleges exists but is underused - I'm not sure how tight the definition is here. The quasi-military cadet universities like Texas A&M, which have US cats, may not have many global equivalents - every British university, or most, has a Cadet Corp, but would giggle at the whole university being classified this way - I suspect too many institutions are in these even in the US. I don't want to do it myself - it's your project - but at the moment its a complete shambles. In general there are enough categories, but they are not being used, or arranged together, consistently Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Estonia neutral during WWII?

I propose to discuss the Estonian war efforts during WWII. According to the Battle of Narva (1944) article, the Estonians were urged by their government to fight against the Soviets, and many Estonians responded with great enthusiasm. As a result, the Estonians (with Nazi help) managed to halt the major Soviet offensive for months inflicting immense losses on them. In other words, the Estonian war contribution per capita is comparable to that of Finland. That fits the definition of a belligerent. However, it contradicts to the common point of view that Estonia was neutral during WWII: the claim that some country protected its neutrality during prolonged bloody battle sounds logically inconsistent.
Therefore I propose to consider an opportunity to change a status of Estonia from Neutral to Axis co-belligerent in the WWII template, or to rectify that inconsistency in other reasonable way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What do sources say? --Narson ~ Talk • 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course Estonia was neutral. The three Baltic states were neutral. They were invaded by the Soviet Union, the Nazis, then the Soviet Union. The Estonians in particular were fighting the Nazis and Soviets at the same time to try to reestablish their regain their freedom. So, Estonia is an Axis co-belligerent because the Soviets attacked it?
The Latvians, too, held out in the Courland Pocket until the end of WWII, even attempting to reestablish their government. The Soviets invaded, pillaged, and murdered first. That any of the Baltics fought against the Soviets does not make them Nazis. To advance such a notion is utterly false WP:OR. Please study your history before making such contentions. (!) —PētersV (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That is pretty much what The White Book says, which is used as a source in the Battle of Narva article. The figures for Estonian volunteers in the article and in the source don't agree (footnote [36] on page 34). --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This inconsistency is caused by perennial struggle of Baltic historiography to walk a thin line between domestic "nation united in struggle against Bolshevism and Russia" narrative and "export version" of history, which tries to avoid accusation of willing collaboration with Nazi by painting respective Waffen SS units as "conscription-based". As those are impossible to reconsile fully, any curious scholar of Baltic history is bound to run into contradictions from time to time. Asks questions (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"The Estonians in particular were fighting the Nazis and Soviets at the same time". It would be interesting to see some examples of Estonian and Latvian armed national resistance to Nazi during WWII. Communist anti-Nazi resistance does not count as it was (1) associated with groups strongly persecuted in independent Estonia and Latvia and (2) should be viewed in context of Soviet anti-Nazi effort (to use Ukrainian example, UPA, very carefully and with number of disclaimers, could be called "national resistance against both evils", but Kovpak's forces could not). Asks questions (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Wast majority sources state Estonia was neutral, and I was always inclined to think so. However, the article mentioned above represents the 1944 events in such a way, that Estonia was the Axis co-belligerent, similarly to Finland. I see nothing wrong in the Finnish WWII policy: they had been attacked, and they continued the war to take their land back. As a result, Finland is considered the Axis co-belligerent, not the Axis member, and even Soviet sources didn't call Finns "nazi" or "facists". However, no one claims Finland was neutral during WWII.
To my opinion (based on Western and Soviet sources), the absence of Estonian government during 1940-1945 and minuscule Estonian war effort are a reasonable base to consider Estonia neutral during WWII. However, some Estonian WP editors (using Estonian sources predominantly) consistently put forward three ideas:
1. The underground government had existed in Estonia during 1944;
2. This government urged Estonian citizens to join German army to fight against the USSR;
3. Large amount of Estonians responded to that call, and their war efforts were sufficient to halt a major Soviet offencive in the strategically important direction.
Unfortunately, I cannot tell for sure if these claims are true (I cannot read Estonian). However, if that is the case, then, according to formal logics, Estonia was a belligerent during WWII.
There are two universal requirements we must meet: to be neutral and to follow the laws of formal logics. Both these rules have been violated here.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the Battle of Narva (1944) article needs looking at for POV? --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say, for logical inconsistencies. I pointed at some of them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Not that i know much, well anything, on this subject but following the Soviet invasion wasnt the country annexed thus Estonia (and likewise Latvia and Lithunia) could not be neutral as they techically did not exist as a seperate country/country in exile ala the Poles?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Absence of government in exile runs contrary to "legal continuity" concept, used to deny citizenship to up to 1/3 of Estonian/Latvian population after Soviet Union broke up, so unique legal conception had been developed of that certain individuals (high-ranking officials in last pre-independence government) carried legal continuity between 1940 and late 1940s, when formal "governments in exile" had been created. However, those very individuals are known to issue widely broadcast statements endorcing Nazi recruitment efforts, which muddies up the picture a bit more, but those inconsistencies are easily dealt with using accusation of sharing "Stalinist POV" levelled against anyone who dares to raise them. Asks questions (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Finland, Estonia had no national defence force of its own, so it can't really be considered a "co-belligerent" like Finland. Their miltary was disbanded by the Soviets when they occupied the country in 1940, and the Germans never permitted its re-establishment, choosing instead to draft Estonians into the Waffen SS. So while Finns could fight in Finnish uniform, Estonians were forced to fight in German uniform. Another point of difference is that Finland fought along side Germany from the beginning, whereas the underground Estonian government resisted German moves to mobilise the Estonian populace (which in any case was illegal under the Geneva convention) until the spring of 1944, when it was apparent that Germany was losing the war and they saw an opportunity to re-establish independence by stopping the Soviets re-entering the country. I guess the Estonian leadership had hoped for a replay of the end of WW1 (which had ended only 26 years earlier), where Germany was defeated before Imperial Russia could re-establish control over the Baltic states, leading to their independence. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Task forces

We (the coordinators) have just updated the task forces membership lists. This revealed that some task forces could be bigger :) If you have an interest in any of the following, and are not yet a member, please consider signing up.

Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: It would be helpful, too, if people who are members of individual task forces but are not members of the WikiProject, add their names to the active members list. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
War films could use some help as well.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 11:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
True, Bedford. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For completeness, these too are under-represented:

Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Films, and maybe Memorials and intelligence, are the only TFs I can really see getting an upsurge of members.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 13:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Captain class frigate now open

The peer review for Captain class frigate is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Mauna Loa now open

The A-Class review for SS Mauna Loa is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Black Osprey now open

The A-Class review for SS Black Osprey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Convoy article names

I had recently noted some inconsistencies in the names of World War II convoy related articles, and moved a few that were in one naming style into the naming style used by the majority of convoy articles. The current style is with a hyphen between the prefix and the convoy number ("Convoy SC-7"), while the other naming style was with a period between the prefix and the convoy number (Convoy SC.7). Xyl 54 (talk · contribs) has researched and believes that the hyphen notation is an American naming style and that the period notation is a British style. Xyl 54 wanted to move articles he has worked on to the British naming style since, he reasons, most of the convoy battles in the Battle of the Atlantic were British or Canadian affairs. I have no preference one way or the other except a preference for consistency of all the names.

Articles affected would be those found in both Category:Arctic convoys of World War II, Category:North Atlantic convoys of World War II, and would include "Battle of Convoy name" articles and "Order of battle of Convoy name" articles as well. Given that the previous de facto consensus was for the hyphenated names (which is why I moved the few that I did), does anyone else have any thoughts on the issue? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Like you, I'm not fussed either way though, subjectively (and with a devil-may-care-insouciance-about-the-historical-ins-and-outs), SC-7 looks neater than SC.7. I'd start by adding a note to the talk pages and see whether there's clear editor bias towards one option or the other. While 100% consistency would be nice, it's rarely possible on Wikipedia. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Nor me, tho I tend toward SC-7, which I think is U.S. preference. You may get some grief from Brits, who may prefer SC.7. Can we avoid a conflict by going to SC7? Or is that making a lot of needless work? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As a Brit I like SC-7 :-) Perhaps we could leave it for a while and see what the preponderance of use is? Knowing what the standard reference works use would be interesting, too. Shimgray | talk | 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, then. ;D I've seen a Brit preference to hyphens in other designations. I shouldn't presume. :/ TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As I started this I suppose I should chip in:
I’m trying to separate out my personal feeling from any WP issue.
Personally I suppose I’m miffed about it, particularly the "majority/de facto consensus" argument: when I started doing convoy battle pages there were only 3, and they used the "hyphen" format, so I followed suit; now I’ve used the "full stop" format I feel the ones I did before are being held against me. So that’s the personal bit.
On the WP issue, though, the English WP tries to cater for 2 (or more!) different but mutually intelligible languages; is there an over-riding reason for a single format here?
OTOH I don’t know for sure if it is a British/American difference, it’s just my impression; does anyone know for sure?
If we follow the majority argument, then User:Thewellman has done more articles than me (14 to 9), and uses the hyphen format; but I’d object to the majority argument. I’d be happy to see both, but if we are to insist on a single format then I’d have to argue for British usage (whatever that is). Xyl 54 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as what references use what style, I've started a chart to compare. I've started with some that I frequently use, and it looks like a third option with a space ("SC 7") ought to be considered. Please feel free to add any that you have access to. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hyphen (example: SC-7) Full stop (example: SC.7) Space (example: SC 7) No space (example: SC7)
Kemp's Decision at Sea (Br) Kemp's U-boats destroyed (Br) Kemp's Victory at Sea (Br) Woodman's The Real Cruel Sea (Br)
Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Roskill's The War At Sea 1939-1945 Volume III (Br) MacIntyre's U-boat Killer (Br) Macintyre's Battle of the Atlantic & The Naval War Against Hitler (Br)
Morison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II (US) convoyweb.org.uk (Much based on Arnold Hague's works) Gretton's Convoy Escort Commander & The Fiercest Battle (Br) Gretton's Crisis Convoy (Br)
Leckie's The World War II Reader (US) Wemyss's Walker’s Group in the Western Approaches (Br)warsailors.com Showell's The Evolution of the Wolf Pack & U-Boat Warfare (Br)
Winthrop's Ghosts on the Horizon (?US) Rayner's Escort (Br) Hague's The Allied Convoy System 1939-1945 van der Vat's The Atlantic Campaign (Br)
Waters' Bloody Winter (US) Rohwer & Hummelchen's Chronology of the War at Sea (Ger} Cressman's The Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II (US) Creswell's Sea Warfare 1939-1945 (Br)
Potter & Nimitz's Sea Power (US) Gannon's Black May (US) White's Bitter Ocean Tarrant's The U-Boat Offensive 1914-1945 (Br)
Kelshall's The U-Boat War in the Caribbean Middlebrook's Convoy (Br) Milner's Battle of the Atlantic (Cdn) Stephen & Grove's Sea Battles in close-up: World War 2 (Br)
Ruge's Der Seekrieg (Ger) Irving's The Destruction of Convoy PQ.17 (Br) Edwards's Donitz and the Wolf Packs (Br) Bennett's Naval Battles of World War II (Br)
Clay Blair's Hitler's U-Boat War The Hunters 1939-1942 & Hitler's U-Boat War The Hunted 1942-1945 (US)
Martienssen's Hitler and his Admirals (Br)
Hughes & Costello's The Battle of the Atlantic
Terraine's Business in Great Waters (Br)
Whinney's The U-Boat Peril (Br)
Blair uses the interesting approach, as far as I can tell, where most mentions in the text are given as "Slow Convoy 7" for preference. Shimgray | talk | 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, Martin Middlebrook in Convoy uses no space (but I can't seem to find my copy to confirm it...). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A Google books snippet of Middlebrook's Convoy show that he uses the "SC.7" style in body text (as well as the subtitle). Also, just out of curiosity, what does Blair call other types of convoys, like the PQ/QP series or the HX series? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Blair gives a full name (not necessarily the right one!) for a number of convoy series; for the Arctic convoys he uses a space (eg. PQ 17).Xyl 54 (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I think he uses our naming logic for PQ convoys - they're the ones famously known by their code, so use the code, and for everyone else use full name. Shimgray | talk | 09:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Another one - Donald Macintyre's Battle of the Atlantic (a 70s paperback that happens to be on the shelf in the library) uses no space, just SC7. Shimgray | talk | 09:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a plurality of our sample opts for a space, so how about we go with names with a space, then? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A fine idea. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Should we have redirects from the other alternatives? David Underdown (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely on redirects from other variations. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a comprehensive list of convoys anywhere? If so, I'll create a grid of redlinks so that we can ensure we get all the redirects... Shimgray | talk | 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, an example list is here, based off the details for SC convoys here, and an HX list here. If people would find these useful, and can give me the number ranges, I can easily churn out a big pile. Shimgray | talk | 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There isn’t a comprehensive list of convoys here; there were more than a 1000 in the North Atlantic alone, and most of them travelled without incident. I’m working on a list of major convoy battles; there were about 30 that saw the loss of more than 10 ships, or more than 2 U-boats. There were maybe 150 that saw any action at all. There isn't a comprehensive list of those either; there are lists of battles where u-boats clobbered convoys (like here, but they tend to be quiet about the battles where the escorts came off best. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
From memory, some convoy names were also re-used by restarting the numbering system after the numbers were judged to be getting too high. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the slow convoys of the ON series were re-numbered as ONS in 1943; there were a couple of other series that did this, but none of them were attacked, ( I think) Xyl 54 (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So there's no plan to create articles for all of them? The redlink list may be a bit excessive, in that case; I'll clean them up... Shimgray | talk | 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be lagging behind in this conversation; are you wanting to go with the space format now? ( I’m not averse to that, BTW, but my previous reservation still stands). And I don’t know that there is a format that the majority use.
I’ve added some more titles to the table, from where I am in the library now; Trekphiler was right, there are some British books that use the no-space format. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Convoy article names continued

This discussion seems to have gone quiet.
I can’t see that there is any consensus here about which single format to use, or even why there has to be a single format.
But as the suggestion here is to see if a pattern emerges, and the current situation is skewed by the recent moves, I’ve gone with plan B and moved them back.
I don’t want to take liberties with the articles in American English, but I’ve also moved those where there is a strong national interest, and where the main contributor (ie myself) uses British English, and labelled them accordingly. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks like the consensus was to use a space since the plurality of sources—whether regardless of the identified nationality of the source—use a space. Xyl 54 has moved quite a few of the articles back to names using the period and placed a "British English" notice on them. Although he/she sees this as an American v. Commonwealth English issue, I don't see it that way. Does anyone else see it this way? Was I wrong to interpret that we had agreed upon using the space rather than a period or a hyphen? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I thought there was consensus for the space too and that was the predominant form used by the sources. I don't see it as a British/American issue either. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that there was consensus for a space. I also think Xyl 54 has mistaken what is an editorial decision in the sources over how to render the convoy name as being down to differences between British and American English. Sources from both sides of the Atlantic are widely varied, suggesting that there is no one set policy, but that the author/editor has simply plumped for one way of punctuating it over the others. And I think it would be self evident why we would use a single format. I don't see the sense in the list going 'Convoy SC6', 'Convoy SC-7', 'Convoy SC.8', 'Convoy SC 9', etc. Like those authors/editors, we need to choose a standardised format for ourselves, and we chose to space it. I'd say it went quiet because the matter seemed settled, not because we'd reached an impasse. Benea (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, (and sorry, I'm late again to the discussion!) so your saying there is a consensus for using a space, and there isn't a British/American difference here? I certainly hadn't read it that way. I'm OK with using the space format (it's more familiar to me) but I would like to know what User:Thewellman thinks about this, before we change anything, as he's the one whose created most of the articles with the hyphen format. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea! Have you asked him to join in? The not Br/US Eng thing comes about because the proposed permutations don't seem to split down national lines. The Engvar guideline advises finding a dialect-neutral version and I think "SC n" and "SCn" both do that. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not! I've left a note on their talk page asking for input. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In haven’t as I was wary of canvassing, but I will, if that’s OK. I’ve also started moving the pages I moved before to the space format; either space or full stop fits the bill for me.Xyl 54 (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
PS Beat me to it!Xyl 54 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation to contribute. I am neutral on this issue and would happily conform to whatever style is preferred. My use of the hyphen is more a personal habit for any acronym-number combination (probably formed during my days with the USN) rather than having basis for this particular subject. I added a few more authors and titles to the list and rearranged them to illustrate the inconsistency of British authors Kemp, Macintyre and Gretton. Those inconsistencies may reflect preferences of editors rather than authors. Perhaps significantly, the (space) and (no space) formats appear to have been used by authors Gretton and Macintyre who participated in these convoys. Kemp and Creswell were also RN, but I'm uncertain of their participation. Thewellman (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Is there any chance of unanimous consensus on the "SC 7" option? It seems to be the frontrunner, and seems free of dialect-specific quirks :) Can we all live with this? --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I presumed silence implied consent. Sorry for hanging everybody up. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologise :) Because this principle applies to a very large number of articles, I'm trying to get positive affirmation on it to avoid further complications. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree standardising on space seems a good idea - it's clear, it's simple, and insomuch as there was a neutrality issue to begin with it's the most neutral. Is there anyone who previously had a strong stance for one or the other who isn't happy with it? Shimgray | talk | 08:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. As a further point of reference this search on the catalogue of The National Archives, for "sc" for files dated between 1939 and 1946, restricted to record categories relating to armed services, government, maps, medals honours and awards, merchant shipping & seamen seems to have a preponderance of spaces being used in convoy names. David Underdown (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the space format is fine. No problems whatsoever with me. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I remain neutral, and will conform to any agreed concept. The suggested (space) format appears nationality neutral from the tabular publications information, while the (hyphen) format appears to have been preferred by American authors and the (no space) format appears to have been used exclusively by British authors. I believe use of the (space} format in books written by convoy escort commanders Gretton and Macintyre is is a strong point for historical accuracy. Thewellman (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, thought I'd said; the space format is OK for me. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Using a space gets away from another potential problem over the MOS recommendations about the use of En_dashes and hyphens in page names - – an editorial area that I think is best avoid! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A space is fine by me too, just as long as we have a consistent format. Benea (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the goal of consistency following the plurality of historical usage. But has anyone consulted a style guide like the Chicago Manual?


Partnered peer reviews with VG project

Hi, the VG project has started a discussion about listing the partnered peer reviews on our Peer review page to give them more exposure. The Military history project's input would be appreciated on the idea. We would also like to ask if you would willing to do the same thing on your review page. See discussion. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

A-Class review for Alaska class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Alaska class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC on gore

I want to draw your attention to the following RfC

  • Talk:2008 South Ossetia war Is it appropriate to add pictures of dead/mutilated bodies of soldiers/victims and/or other gore, in the articles about wars/disasters?

(Igny (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

ACW Barnstar discussion

The American Civil War task force is debating a barnstar for the task force. Outside opinions are welcome.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 16:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea. I introduced a barn star for the military land vehicles task force, and I think that it motivated at least one user to continue working for the task force. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That's much the reason I'd like to see one. When I noticed the American Civil War article wasn't even a B, when at least four foreign languages have it as a FA, something needed to be done. I'd like to give the first one to whoever brings ACW up to GA.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, featured articles in foreign languages tend to be rubbish. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I was mistaken. The ACW is actually A; I was thinking of the American Revolution, I guess. Still, I'd like to see it become a FA.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Bruce Kingsbury now open

The peer review for Bruce Kingsbury is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 17:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk

I've added the project tag to Harvey Milk who served in the US Navy. I think this warrants inclusion. If someone could take a look it would be appreciated - the article is up for FA. -- Banjeboi 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of it. Joe (Talk) 22:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Discerning eyes required

Hey there. Whilst updating my Airborne Warfare Project, I came across Operation Berlin (Arnhem rescue), which I was unfamiliar with. However, I have previously found Operation Pegasus, which I believe to be the same operation. I think that Operation Berlin may have been made in error and it should just be Pegasus, but I'm not sure and wanted some outside eyes on the matter. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how the two can be confused? Berlin was a large-scale operation to withdraw 1st Airborne across the Lower Rhine. Pegasus was a secret operation (a series of operations if I'm not mistaken) a month later to assist those who had hidden from the Germans to escape back to Allied lines. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, my mistake then. Thanks for the help. Skinny87 (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject United States Navy proposal

Please consider commenting at Wikiproject United States Navy proposal. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Frederick III, German Emperor now open

The peer review for Frederick III, German Emperor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Basil W. Duke now open

The A-Class review for Basil W. Duke is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Chaps, the discussion from a handful of weeks ago related to a possible hoax article around the Aerospace Data Facility/ DCEETA/ Area 58 nr Fort Belvoir ended up recreated in user space and then transferred into WP space as DCEETA. There is a little bit of an ongoing discussion with the individual who felt it necessary to do so regarding the style. Essentially it started as a random selection of pasted content, as it is now. I culled quite a lot of the garbage to get it down to this version. The originator appears unprepared to discuss the various issues around style and use of sources on the talk page so it would be useful to get some experienced eyes onto it, to beat it into shape.

Sourcing is a bit of a challenge, there doesn't appear to be anything really significant about it. The other users main interest appears to be in proving that it exists.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Alerts

B. Wolterding has created a bot called ArticleAlertbot (talk · contribs) that gives alerts to different WikiProjects, based on the project's talk page banner. Your project was interested in a bot like this one per comments on the talk page. An example of a report is here. Instructions on how to add your project are here. Alerts should be generated daily. Any feedback is appreciated, and should go here. LegoKontribsTalkM 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Tribal class destroyer (1936) now open

The peer review for Tribal class destroyer (1936) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 04:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Revolt of the Comuneros now open.

An A-Class review has been opened for Revolt of the Comuneros. Any input would be appreciated; thanks. SnowFire (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Nevada (BB-36) now open

The peer review for USS Nevada (BB-36) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 20:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Hello all! A concern has been raised on Samoa that USS Philippines (CB-4), USS Puerto Rico (CB-5) and USS Samoa (CB-6) are too similar and should be redirected to Alaska-class battlecruiser...

I am fully aware that the articles are extremely similar, and I personally don't care if they are redirected. However, I don't like the proposal to shove them all in the class' article, and I instead think that they should be combined in a different article entirely...the question is what name should the article have? Feel free to comment here or there, and thanks for the help. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about List of Alaska-class battlecruisers? Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That would work... Hmmm. Alaska, Guam and Hawaii (the first 3 ships of the class) definitely deserve their own articles, so a name for just the last three? "Unfinished Alaska class battlecruisers" wouldn't work because Hawaii was never finished, though she was mostly built (84% done, if I remember right)....argh! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Those articles could probably stand alone if they had their own combat history, and instead of re-listing all the general attributes of the class, have a small section on its attributes and link to the class' main article. Otherwise, there is a lot of redundancy between the three articles. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem: Philippines, Puerto Rico and Samoa were planned but canceled before they were laid down.... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll defer to TomStar81 about this but I think this very thing came up about a year ago with regards to the Montana-class battleships. Those would also most likely have to follow what ever would come out of the discussion about these Alaska's. -MBK004 03:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Tom is the expert on this, but I guess it depends on how much unique material there is to write about each canceled ship. Unless there's at least a few paras to write on each ship, the material would be better placed in the article on the class, which isn't particularly long. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait for Tom's opinion, but I'll also start to prepare to combine them. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 13:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

MERGE I have scanned all three articles, and the main text of each are almost exact copies, with minor alteration to satisfy that particular ship. It is my opinion that theses should be merged as there is not enough material for each to have its own specific article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This will have to be brief, as I can only take a short break from an RL group project I am at the moment involved in: I have looked over the articles in question and am of the opinion that they may be able to exist independently if we can locate information on their intended construction sites (dry dock #x), can provide information about the materials to have been used in the construction (where they were built, when they arrived in the yard, where the were stored, what they were to be used for) and what become of the materials after the vessel's cancellation. We can also see if the presence of the vessels compelled any unique actions from the states (for example, the armor used on the Iowa class battleships came in part from a facility built specifically with the ships in mind). In this way the history of each ship can be expanded upon somewhat, and if we can recreate MBK's initial success with USS Illinois (BB-65) on one of the latter three Alaksa's then we may be able to keep the articles here. The catch with this method is that like Illinois we risk notability arguments again in any matter concerning GA/A/FA classes. If we are unable to locate the above suggested information then the best course of action would be to merge the latter three cruiser articles into the class article; creating a list of Alaska class battlecruiser essentially mimicks the ships section in the class page, and the class page is in a position to absorb the currently available material with the least amount of content loss. That's my take. If I happen to get a free moment before bed tonight I will elaboarate a little more on ways to possibly save the articles, otherwise look for me to put some time in over the weekend. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've copyeditied and linked to some articles in Tom's suggestion to make it clearer. Also, what I did with Illinois was a bit of luck since the particular details literally fell into my lap via someone letting me know about it (the crucial thing was the ship's bell that was cast and still exists). -MBK004 02:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
We can still make an effort to track down such info. I will try and put something togather over the weekend, although I am not sure how successful I'll be. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoa...really? Thanks a bunch Tom! :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 03:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Infantry tactics

Infantry tactics is one of the worst written articles on wikipedia. The sections before the Korean War section aren't as bad, but this article has more red links than almost any other I've ever seen. It would be great if someone more knowleadgable of this topic could fix it up. (All you former queens of the battlefield, here's your chance to show what you know). Thanks all. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Major WP:OVERLINK violations. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I took a gander trough the lead, but my battery is at 4%, so I've got to go.=) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It's got a few less now. It isn't rocket science. BTW I have a copy of "Basic Battle Skills" if anyone wants plates from it.Thunderer (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorted. Thunderer (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Basic battle skills sounds interesting. Various tactics is one of my longterm goals to improve. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was in the infantry, so I'll look around and see if I can find anything useful. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just purchased An Officer's Manual of the Western Front 1914-1918, compiled and introduced by Stephen Bull, ISBN 978-1-84486-072-2 Which is a compilation of all manner of training manuals etc produced for British Army officers of the First World War, particulalry focussing on the development of British infantry tactics. David Underdown (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Any idea if a copy of "Staff Duties in the Field" can be purchased or downloaded? I've been looking but can't seem to turn it up. It is similar to the one you've just bought but was (and probably still is) updated every so often. Thunderer (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Campus Radio - Request for source material relating to The Great War (1914-1918)

Hi,

Wiki Campus Radio ( an audio project currently hosted on Wikiversity) is trying to assemble material that could be used to produce suitable programming in respect of Armistice/Vetrans Day.

Because of the sensitive nature of Nov 11th itself, the plan is that the intended programming would not air on that day, but possibly on Nov 12th.

Some discussions have already been taking place on Wikisource as to possible material:

Feedback from this project's contributors would be desirable.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

C-class articles opinion needed

Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. WP:Milhist has been known as a a relatively big project that has produced a tremendous amount of quality input, and explicitly rejected the introduction of C-class. Could the coordinators from this project (as well as other members, particularly those who are involved in assessment) please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles?

Eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Helping improve the newsletter

A workshop has been set up to redesign and improve the newsletter. In our recent competition, a new name was chosen – The Bugle – and, among other things, we need a logo for it! All editors are very welcome to participate, especially those with graphic and design skills! --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Redmarkviolinist's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, Redmarkviolinist, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Redmarkviolinist's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Military Balance

An article within your project scope, Military Balance, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military Balance. Thank you. SpinningSpark 13:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that notification. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

O.O Tom has decided to leave Wikipedia for a time to handle RL issues...is anyone else in shock? 'Cos I sure am.... Not saying that I don't think that he should have gone, because I agree that he had to leave, but....Jesus. Please consider leaving a supportive message for one of the greatest maritime history editors to ever grace the pages of this encyclopedia. And Tom, if you read this, you already know how I feel, as I left it on your talk page. For everyone else, this is what we learned or got from Tom: he set the "bar" for naval FA's, he taught us all how to write those FA's, he always answered the questions we had, and he was the embodiment of AGF. What we didn't learn was how to spell, but (I'm pretty sure) we all got over that quickly. :) Just leave a message on his talk page, alright? I think that I just want to sit around for awhile and do some low-level editing, if anything, for now... That word "shock" that I used above doesn't begin to describe my feelings at the moment... Of all the times to NOT check my watchlist, it HAD to be last night... The only thing that I wish to ask all of you, whether you are or are not a member of MILHIST, is to keep Tom in your prayers....thank you. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone informed WP:SHIPS? I recall he added his name there a while back owing to the battleship work he did. I am quite sure they would like to be left in the loop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.221.24 (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Goodl uck with RL Tom and I hope we'll see you back soon. Kyriakos (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Hoax

I'd like to bring this ANI thread to the attention of the project: [[1]]. It appears that the article John R. Smith may be a deliberate hoax article written to get a DYK nomination. However, the user reporting the possible hoax has little experience in American Civil War matters and would like someone with more expertise. Google searches don't seem to support the assertations made in the article, but I'm no ACW expert. I'll copy this to the ACW taskforce as well. Skinny87 (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

An edit of Mrg3105 edit warred by unregistered users at Battle_of_Longewala

See Wikipedia:ANI#IP-hopping_user_edit_warring_and_adding_unsourced.2C_biased_content and Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Assistance_Please:. VG ☎ 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Watching page concerned. Thanks, Regards. Woody (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing now open

The A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SC21 (United States), CG(X), Zumwalt class destroyer

You know how it is, you notice one paragraph could do with a copyedit and suddenly you find yourself writing a whole new article of 26kb. So it was with the above articles. I've got to the stage where I'm going cross-eyed on them (as well as starting to think that tumblehome hulls look "normal" and flared hulls are odd...) so if anyone else wants to polish them, feel free. I'd have thought that it wouldn't take much more to get any of them up to GA, SC-21 in particular, whereas CG(X) probably needs to wait until the Navy work out what they're doing in a few months time. But I'm sure they could do with a bit of polishing. Another thing that's worth highlighting, I'm 50:50 whether Arsenal ship should be merged into SC-21 - I'm sure more could be written about it but on the other hand it makes a lot more sense in the context of SC-21. 82.3.242.144 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WHOA. Nice article rewrite! Definitely nominate something for that over at T:TDYK ...or I'll do it for you! ;D
I'd merge...but what is everyone else's opinion? (I.e. the people here who are way more knowledgeable than I...) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I knew there was something I meant to mention, SC-21 is DYKable. Feel free to propose something, my brain's too frazzled with it to think straight at the moment. ;-/ 82.3.242.144 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
=) Lol okay, will do. :D —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Done / feel free to offer up alt hooks. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool - made it in on 03:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC) - I guess it will be archived in Wikipedia:Recent additions 234. Does Milhist have a list recording DYKs? 82.3.246.14 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Stars?

Would it be ok to readd the stars to Tom's current userspace? 129.108.96.120 (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to the ones who know/knew him better, but I think that we should just leave his page alone....(plus, the old page is located at User:TomStar81/Archive)... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Honestly, I think that would be a little inappropriate. Tom left his page as he wanted, that is why he fully protected it from editing. If you wish to see his original userpage you can see it at User:TomStar81/Archive. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Tom's page should be the way it made it, after all, it's his page, and therefore if he chooses not to display the stars that is his choice. Joe (Talk) 21:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't think it rises to vandalism, but it rises to rudeness. He's decided to leave, put his house in order, & locked things up. Leave it be. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification of name change

Hi everyone, FYI I've changed my user name from Nick Dowling to Nick-D. All my edits and admin privileges should have been automatically renamed to the new user name. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators

With Tom's resignation, there's a discussion here about co-opting one or more editors to act as Milhist coordinators. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Following a lengthy discussion, there's a proposal here to coopt three new coordinators:
The purpose of the appointments is partly to fill the place left by Tom and partly to provide increased/improved coordinator capacity to cover existing coordinator absences and to help with upcoming major projects.
I take this opportunity to mention that coordinators are merely editors who have committed to go the extra mile for the project and that there are very few processes that require coordinator input. Specifically these are closing A-Class reviews, and endorsing two project award nominations. Any editors who wish to help with the nitty-gritty of this busy project (cross-posting A-Class review, peer review and featured article candidate alerts; responding to member questions and queries, helping with drives) are positively encouraged to do so. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

I am currently working on Tanks in the Spanish Army, and will be done with it tomorrow (by done, I mean the text will be completed; the copyediting won't). It is currently 55kB long, and will most likely be between 65kB and 70kB long when I finish. Is this too long? The solution would be to condense certain parts and make it more of a summary, but really, it's already a summary (the detail that I could otherwise go in would make it far too long). What is normally the tolerated length of articles that can have this much content? JonCatalán(Talk) 00:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that 70kB would be fine - with all of the information that naturally has to be in it (100+ years of history), it would be hard to not approach 50kB! Very nice article so far, by the way. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That length looks fine to me, especially taking the subject matter into account. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression 100 kb was the danger zone!! And there is the odd FA article which is well over 100 kb (about an Australian cricketer whose name I have just forgotten). Slightly worried as I'm working on an article which will easily hit 100 kb and I don't particularly want to see it split. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yea, it's good to see FAs that long. This just hit 80kB, and I'm not done yet (almost though). JonCatalán(Talk) 03:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hamlet (FA) has been around the 90-95k mark for ages. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide

Could someone go and edit that page please. I'm in the middle of Wikifing an article and I have no idea if it should be 88mm, 88 mm, 88-mm or 8.2cm (the last is currently in the article). I tried looking at other articles but there does not appear to be any real consistancy. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this a long time ago, and I don't think a consensus was reached. All are found in print publications. Stay consistent within an article. Here are some options:
  • 88 millimetres or 88-millimetre gun written out may look less obtrusive and read more smoothly in running text (like twentieth century and twentieth-century instead of 20th century/20th-century)
  • 88 mm (optionally with a non-break space) is an abbreviation of the noun 88 millimetres, used when naming the measurement: “the calibre is 88 mm.”
  • 88-mm and 88mm are abbreviations of the adjective 88-millimetre: “an 88-mm gun.” Bitter arguments may ensue if you ask which is correct, and eventually the units people will add &nbsp; to your wikitext and cite MOSNUM.
  • 8,8 cm is a German usage, to my knowledge.
 —Michael Z. 2008-11-04 23:55 z
In all of my featured articles, when it's used as an adjective there has to be a dash between the number and the unit. The conversion templates do it automatically, which solves the problem (conversion templates should really be used instead of manual conversions). JonCatalán(Talk) 00:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you mean I should be using 88 mm (3.5 in). Yep, that makes it a lot easier. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the unit shouldn't be abbreviated. The correct template is {{convert|45|mm|in|sp=us|adj=on}} (45-millimeter (1.8 in)). JonCatalán(Talk) 01:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's a Canadian article that mentions German artillery so {{convert|88|mm|adj=on}} (88-millimetre (3.5 in)) would probably be the better spelling. By the way you don't need the "convert to" in most cases. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you need to convert per MoS; in the main text the main unit should be spelled out, and what you are converting into should have the acronym. I found this out the hard way, through 7 featured article candidates. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 02:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Nvm, I see what you mean. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, this has become slightly more confusing than I expected. I just went to do the conversions on the 88 mm and found that in the first instance I had made a link to 88 mm gun, which is what the article is talking about. Not only that but I notice that the 88 mm gun article is not converted to 3.5 in. Is there a need to convert at all. After looking through various pages I see that the conversions are inconsistent from one article to another. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's best to look at featured articles, as opposed to random articles that are of arbitrary quality. For example, see Leopard 2E, Panzer I, Verdeja, et cetera. JonCatalán(Talk) 05:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Strangely enough those seem pretty arbitrary as well. I notice that all three use horsepower (kW) but shouldn't that be the other way around to be consistent with the rest of the articles which use metric first. Also the spelling should probably be millimetre as they are all European vehicles. Leopard 2E; the first sentence with a mm measurement is "The tank is armed with Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/55 tank-gun, and is capable of adopting a 140 mm gun.", with no conversions. The only mm conversions (in fact the only other use of mm in the article) is in the boxes and is converted in the second. Panzer I, tends to use "-millimeter" throughout, though sometimes without a conversion, but there are a few places where "## millimeter" is used and I noticed "...45 mm gun...". Verdeja, uses both millimeter and millimetre through the article, even in the opening section. Conversions don't seem to be used very often. Of course, I'm looking at how the articles are now and not as how they were at the time they reached FA status when they may have been different. I think what makes this even more confusing is that you have the article at 88 mm gun (and others like it) but you don't have 88 millimeter gun, 88 millimetre gun or 3.5 in gun (would that be required?) as redirects.
JonCatalán, thanks for all your help and assistance with this. I'm not deliberately trying to be annoying but at the same time I know that I am. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Per MoS, the spelling doesn't have to be British just because they are European vehicles (in the case of Spain, why should we use British spelling anyways? I'm from Spain, and I use American spelling (although, I have also lived in the United States)); the only thing, in regards to spelling, that the MoS requires is that the spelling be consistent. Some of those articles had some edits which took out the conversion templates, and they should probably be looked over by myself to make sure they comply (some of them do not use the conversion templates and instead use manual conversions, done by me; this was before I knew how to work the conversion templates). For Verdeja, the problem is that a copyeditor began to use British spelling and so I decided to change to British spelling since I didn't know how to work the conversion templates for it to use American spelling, so it's inconsistent. Anything in those articles which isn't correctly converted is not complying with MoS. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
About the horsepower; those are in metric horsepower. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To use only US spelling it's |sp=us. However, metre isn't UK spelling. As far as I can tell meter is only used in the US, while the rest of the world uses the metre spelling. That's referenced in Metre and also the impression I get from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Which system to use (the fourth entry) which says "American English uses -er endings for metric units (liter, kilometer); all other varieties of English, including Canadian, use -re (litre, kilometre)." and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)#Different spellings – different meanings (seventh line) "metre – meter: in most countries other than the US, metre is the metric unit of length, and meter is a measuring device."
When I was thinking of horsepower I was meaning in terms of it not being an SI measurment. However, while I don't think it's mentioned in the MOS, I think that measument given in the source used should be given first and the conversions second. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Who spells meter metre and whatever is besides the point. The point is that MoS only requires spelling to be consistent. I spell in American spelling, and therefore my articles will consistently have American spelling throughout. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Armed Forces" is an Elvis Costello album

Here's one of the things that can happen when people don't respect Wikipedia:Manual of Style: They link to Armed Forces with a capital "F" instead of armed forces, and when you click on that link, it's the article about the Elvis Costello album of that title. Once you're at that page, click on "what links here" and look at all the articles on military subjects! How many of them intended to link to the Elvis Costello album, and how many were just disregarding of WP:MOS, thereby causing a problem? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be a good case for a proper title disambiguation, to be honest - move to Armed Forces (album) and redirect to armed forces, then correct the relevant inbound links. Relying on capitalisation for disambiguation between two articles is quite flaky, and can cause various unexpected problems... like this one. Shimgray | talk | 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There's also Armed Forces (sports society), so it's probably time for a disambiguation page at Armed forces (disambiguation). Sorting all this out now... Shimgray | talk | 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
...right, I think that's all fixed now. One thing I spotted a lot of - the number of links that are something like "In the Italian armed forces...", all of which should presumably be something like "In the Italian Armed Forces..." - the whole phrase needs linked. But that's a separate problem. Shimgray | talk | 20:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada

I came across this and have tided it up a bit. However it still needs a lot of work. There are no references for most of the material and there are several things that I tagged as needing clarification. For the most part when I tagged for clarification I also left an explanation of the problem. That was a lot of material added in a short piece of time and made me concerned about it being a copyvio. However, our small local library has nothing at all dealing with the material so I can't check it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Pakistan Army

Just added this to rationalise the parent article a bit, but could use expert attention, as I'm not an expert on the insides of the Pakistani Army. Any and all assistance appreciated. Buckshot06(prof) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Core Contest

Hi,

This is Bill Wedemeyer, a biochemistry professor at Michigan State University. I apologize that this message is not directly related to military history, but please bear with me for a moment. I've come to ask for your help, especially the help of my fellow professors.

I recently became aware of The Core Contest, which was run last year for a few weeks (Nov 25 – Dec 9). Briefly, it was an article improvement drive focusing on basic articles that belong in the "core" of an encyclopedia, with awards of $100 promised for the five most improved articles. Some of the articles, such as World War II, belong to this WikiProject.

My impressions are that (1) the contest was remarkably successful in improving articles and (2) many younger students threw themslves into it, body and soul, partly for the fun of it but also in the hopes of winning the prizes. Unfortunately, circumstances seem to have conspired to prevent those prizes from being awarded.

I'd like to amend this and reward the prizes, as they were promised. I'm willing to sponsor the awards myself, but I hope you agree that it'd be more fun and more wiki-spirited if we all joined in. I'm especially interested in recruiting professors, who I think will want to be kindly to poor but hardworking students, especially in this season of many holidays. We probably all remember what it was like to be a poor student.

I've contacted Prof. Martin Walker (one of the judges of the contest) about the matter, and he's very supportive. Please contact me by e-mail if you're interested in donating to the cause. We would plan on announcing the winners in two weeks, on November 25th, the anniversary of the contest.

Thank you, Proteins (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting a contest of sorts myself, whereas the contestants would have to pitch in to join (just to say a price, and not necessarily what it would actually "cost" - $5 per contestant). Payments would be done to a new bank account (just for the contest) through paypal. So, to address your concern; why not get a paypal going, and people can pitch in whatever they'd like to see if we can get enough to give out the prizes which were never awarded? JonCatalán(Talk) 22:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm game, but I'm unclear on what you're suggesting. Should I start a new PayPal account under the name, say, "English Wikipedia Core Contest" and add money to it? How would others add money to it? As you see, I'm relatively inexperienced with PayPal. Thanks for your help, Proteins (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't necessarily need to make a new account; I suggested it because it seems more "trustworthy" (it makes it seem as the money is easier to handle, since it's not mixed with your own money), even though you could theoretically do as you please with it in any account. So, basically you'd go to your bank and start a new account (I think credit unions let you start accounts without depositing money), and then go to pay pal's website and start an account with them. What paypal does is act as direct checking (if I remember correctly); money deposited in paypal will go to your bank account electronically (I think how the person donating gives the money is irrelevant; if it's through credit card pay pal will act as a loaner and will hold the person who put the money down accountable). I'd wait and see if there are people who are willing to donate, first. I can donate, but not that much; how many $100 prizes were to be given out? JonCatalán(Talk) 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jon! The contest promised five $100 awards, so $500 is needed. Prof. Tsirelson, a mathematics professor from Tel Aviv University, has already volunteered to help sponsor the awards, and if I understand correctly, you're willing to help, too? I would be honored for your help, whatever the amount. Perhaps quixotically, I've decided to charge in and right a wrong, but I would appreciate any assistance. Proteins (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a very good idea to improve the core articles. We toyed with the idea ourselves, but it's hard to direct this agglomeration of volunteers to a specific task. At the moment it's you and some friends, but the contest is likely to grow. Thus you need more people you to check the results and to trust with money. This leads us to the next step, organization. I suggest to set up a foundation with the task of awarding improvements of core articles of wikipedia that won in a contest where the judges were recognized academics. I think, the wikimedia foundation will be willing to help you with setting up this group. Such an official group of recognizeable people also helps to build up trust, a key issue if people are to donate money and have their articles checked. It would help a great deal if we could cover the subjects of the articles with academics who have some knowledge on the topics, but that would mean a rather large organization and while I support this, I'm not sure we are able to reach that goal. If we can help you in any way, just call. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. I seem to remember that the Core Contest wasn't universally well-received at the bounty board and perhaps upgrading it significantly would assuage the critics. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
While distributing money as a form of recognition is useful, it should be supplemented by other symbols of recognition like documents recording the achievement or even shiny cups(we set up awards within this project and many userpages show that people seek for this recognition, for example barnstars). Especially documents recording the achievement are relatively cheap to distribute worldwide and could thus serve as a means to provide recognition on a broader basis than just for the top articles. Naturally, this needs money and manpower. While recruiting entrusted volunteers who sent out the documents shouldn't be too difficult(our project could contribute several). A homepage where the purpose and the workings are explained would be needed plus the infrastructure for collecting money worldwide. I would also suggest to record the achievements and awards on this said page in order to become transparent(Glasnost) and to give people a place where they can point to in order to verify their works. I don't think it aims too high if I say that these are often the first academic works some people publish and why shouldn't you mention something you are proud of in your curriculum vitae. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're echoing my thoughts! I'm willing to set up such a system, having brooded along the same lines for some time. I agree that we could do much more to foster students at Wikipedia, not only by providing some official recognition for their contributions and vetting their articles, but also by mentoring them in their career paths. Some mentoring could take place within WikiProjects, where personal friendships and trust develop between students and professors, and where the all-too-common barrier of awe is broken down (thank goodness) by working together on articles. For future contests, the WikiProjects might be able to help as well by pre-vetting the articles to be reviewed by the academics. Academics are eternally pressed for time, but they're generally willing to help out students, especially those in their own field.

However, I didn't want to mention all that earlier because (1) it's a long story, and (2) I didn't want to discourage people from helping out with this contest by suggesting that I might bite their ear again in the future. ;) Anyway, thanks for your excellent ideas and I hope to hear from you all again, whether about this or about the Core Contest, Proteins (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Siege of Boston now open

The peer review for Siege of Boston is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 00:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_82&oldid=1232550629"