Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help reduce traffic on this very busy page by only raising matters on it that affect the project as a whole. For matters affecting an existing task force, please use that task force's talk page instead.

Skip to Table of Contents • List and scope of Task Forces • Add new section
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
New! Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes
Archives:
Full list
Shortcut:
WT:MILHIST


Contents

[edit] The oldest MILHIST FA

Would it be possible to generate a list of the ten (or so) oldest MILHIST articles? I think it would be interesting for the project to see which of the articles in its care have held the FA star for the longest amount of time. — an unlogged in TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

[edit] New task forces/groupings

Going through the articles which do not have task forces I've noticed that we have to leave Ireland, some countries in East/Central Europe (like Slovakia) and Afghanistan without regional tags because we do not have task forces for them. Might I suggest, at least, consideration of a Central Asian task force which might cover the five former Soviet Central Asian states and Afghanistan? Meanwhile, what would people think of a Central European task force to fill in the gaps that are not covered? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In principle, it's a good idea. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I reckon they are good ideas. Though would they be able to muster enough participants? Kyriakos (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
SMS has just raised the idea of a Pakistan one on my talk page. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: on the basis that 'India' covers the whole subcontinent, so far, without a Pakistan task force, I've been putting Pakistani articles into the India TF - though I was aware of this issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Whereas I've been putting them into South Asia ... --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The Pakistani articles should be under Pakistan and no other country. The South Asia is correct term of the this region and not India or Indian subcontinent. Misaq Rabab (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if there's popular support for all these first I guess we're probably looking for minimum support from, say, two coordinators and, at least, eight members - all of whom would be expected to sign up - to make it worth the effort. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How are we defining "Central Europe" here? I'm assuming we'd use the standard definition, which would include Germany and Poland (and, using our typical "states and peoples" definition of scope, containing everything covered by those two task forces right off the bat); is this the intent here, or are people interpreting the term more narrowly? Kirill (prof) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a number of issues arising here. I've mentioned a related one below. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the central Asian and the Central Europe TFs, what time period would they have? Kyriakos (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate support or oppose with very brief comments if appropriate beneath each of the following:

Central Asian military history task force

  • Support - Buckshot06 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC). Deserves some separate coverage of Central Asia independent from Russia, and would be a good idea to have one that included Afghanistan, so all those article don't just end up in the US taskforce.

Central European military history task force

  • support or oppose

Comment: only certain gaps here are Slovakia, so far, so we need to be careful on defining in and out of scope. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I like the idea but I just want to know what countries would be involved and what years would this span. Would countires like Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic be part of it. Kyriakos (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment A TF for "Rest of Europe" might be good (ie countries not covered specifically by other TFs). The name would need some thought though. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I might suggest a general European task force, which would include all these articles for countries that don't have their own specific task force, such as Eastern Europe, etc. It would also have articles for places that do have their own specific task force, such as France, Germany, etc. It would certainly have enough members, and would be very large. It could also help standardize these articles. If nobody else likes this idea, I would support the "rest of Europe" idea. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani military history task force

  • Support --SMS Talk 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC) There are about 546 articles currently related to Military of Pakistan, and I think a task force deserves for it to be here.
  • Support - Misaq Rabab (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Support - Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC). This task force is badly needed to document the Pakistani military heritage. Military-related articles for before the partition can come up under South Asian or the Indian-subcontinental task forces, however, for after the partition a Pakistan military history task force is required.
  • Support --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Sohailstyle (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A Pakistan TF would presumably have a scope date from partition. The Indian TF wouldn't, because it currently covers (a) all of the historic Indian sub-continent and (b) from partition, the Republic of India. This could lead to situations where, for example, regiments originally raised in what is now Pakistan but was then the Raj would be in the scope of the Indian TF but successor regiments raised after partition would be in the Pakistan TF. I can see plenty of potential here for squabbles. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought the answer to this one wasn't too hard. Both task force tags, and an understanding that the Indian TF generally covered the to-48 period, and the Pakistani, the post-48.(Not that that usually matters much; in terms of this one, regimental history, people seem to be pretty gentlemenly about it.) By the way, does anyone have any idea where/why regiments.org went? It leaves a massive hole. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think any formation that was raised before 1947 and is currently part of Military of Pakistan can be covered by the Pakistan TF. I don't think that will be conflicting or controversial. Secondly even I am curious about regiments.org, I wanted to extract a lot of info from there. --SMS Talk 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Providing it's clear in the scope how it ought to be handled, I don't see a problem either. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. this does look promising but a lot of support has come from brand-new members. Perhaps we could revisit it again in a month or so after they've had an opportunity to get their feet under the table and contribute to some Pakistan-related articles? The issue here, as I see it, is whether the proposed task force will have sufficient critical mass to sustain itself and not just peter out after creation. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although there has been a bit of a boom in activity from Pakistani articles at GAC and FAC recently. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War Films Task Force

The April 2008 issue of the newsletter states that the MILHIST project scope has been expanded to include war songs, but no task force exists to adopt these articles. Is there any support for expanding the war films task force to encompass all media? - Canglesea (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an idea that's been mentioned before; but, since the current task force is actually a joint one with the films project, re-scoping it would be more trouble than it's worth, I think. We can always create other task forces if there are significant communities of editors for those topics. Kirill (prof) 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could change films to just be "Wars in popular culture" or something like that? We'd need a better name, just came up with that off the top of my head, but that could include films, books, songs, etc. Borg Sphere (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos: "the best military history website"

Forgive me if this has been mentioned here before, but I've recently come across this marvellous testimonial to the hard work of everyone here. Simon Fowler's 2007 Guide to Military History on the Internet (UK:Pen & Sword, ISBN 9781844156061) rates Wikipedia as "the best general resource" for military research (p. 7). Of the military pages, he says: "The results are largely accurate and generally free of bias" (he also suggests people join the wikiproject). When rating WP as the No. 1 military site (p. 201) he says "Wikipedia is often criticised for its inaccuracy and bias, but in my experience the military history articles are spot on." You've all "worked together to produce something of greater value than any one individual could by themselves" (p. 201). So well done! Gwinva (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Free delivery for today only :)
Free delivery for today only :)
A toast!
A toast!
  • This calls for a drink! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Or several drinks, at that! Congratulations to everyone who's been a part of making this happen, in whatever way! :-) Kirill (prof) 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • (Someone might want to mention this to the Signpost, incidentally.) Kirill (prof) 00:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Congratulations to all those editors who have made this project what it is now and for what it continues to be. I've dropped a note at the signpost by the way. Woody (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • We should also add this to our project history. I think its notbale enough for inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Done. Kirill (prof) 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • So pleased I could make your day!  :) Since it appears it will be recorded for posterity, I now offer you the full quotes, below! (I wonder if anyone has joined the project, based on this recommendation?) Gwinva (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
            • With the effort we all put into getting the articles just right, for our personal satisfaction and that of fellow contributors, it's sometimes easy to forget that there's a world outside WP that just wants to read and use that accurate, well-presented information - this brings it back home in the best possible way. Cheers all, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Nice to know that we are regarded as an accurate source of information. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
On general resources:
“ To my mind, the best is Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopaedia compiled by its users. Anybody can add or amend almost all of the entries, which may seem a little odd, but the results are largely accurate and generally free of bias. If you spot anything that is wrong you can always change it. Most of the main topics in British military history are covered, and many of the more obscure ones as well. Take the entry for HMS Victory, for example: there is a history of Nelson's flagship, the admirals who have hoisted their flag on her, the dimensions of the ship, photographs and links to related entries, from shipworm to Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent, as well as a number of external websites. At the top of the entry you can read (and contribute) to the discussion on what needs to be changed or improved in the entry. If you want to write or review entries seriously, then it is worth joining the rather grandly named British Military History Taskforce [link] There are several other online encyclopaedias, but in general the entries are rather short and often not very satisfactory. They include [encarta] and [britannica]. „

—Simon Fowler, A Guide to Military History on the Internet (UK:Pen & Sword, ISBN 9781844156061), p. 7
In his "Top ten military sites":
“ "Top ten military sites": a selection of websites, which, in my opinion, every student of military history should bookmark. To merit inclusion they had to display scholarship and be genuinely useful to researchers... 1. Wikipedia: The internet has produced a large number of sites where scholars and enthusiasts from around the world work together to produce something of greater value than any one individual could by themselves. The best examples of this collaboration are wikis [...] which are websites that allow visitors to add, edit and change content. The most important of these is Wikipedia, which has some 1.7m entries in English (and hundreds of thousands of more in other languages as well). Wikipedia is often criticised for its inaccuracy and bias, but in my experience the military history articles are spot on. And in case you spot a mistake, you can always make a correction. „

—Simon Fowler, A Guide to Military History on the Internet (UK:Pen & Sword, ISBN 9781844156061), p. 201
This information could probably be referenced in the Wikipedia article itself. Actually, it might even qualify the project for its own article in wikipedia, which would almost certainly be a first. The project has more than earned the respect of everyone, included those of us who are probably vainly trying to copy its successes. Congratulations all around! John Carter (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Or in Reliability of Wikipedia? Gwinva (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I hear often enough complains how bad wikipedia is and think even our project needs some big leaps forward. Let's don't be overenthusiastic. Just think about Che Guevara, one of our top 10 articles and still start class because of citations. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. But "best" doesn't mean that we're perfect; just that everyone else is worse. ;-) Kirill (prof) 16:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't want to be the first to pour cold water on the celebrations, but considering the range of articles not covered by the project, and the daily encounter with not only badly written, but misinformed and unreferenced articles I would say that Mr.Fowler either doesn't use Wikipedia much, used a very narrow range of articles, a small sample of articles, or just has much lower standards for quality then my own. I would be grateful if someone other then myself wrote Objective (military)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The author surely got nerves, calling Encarta and Britannica as "short and often not very satisfactory" OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radical restructuring of Category:World War II

Discussion on how to restructure Category:World War II has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Category restructuring. All project members are invited to help discuss how to restructure this category. Thanks. Woody (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of "Military personnel by nation" subcategories

Currently, the subcategories of Category:Military personnel by nation are in the format of "nationality military personnel." This schema implies that all members of the military personnel are of that country's nationality - but this may not be the case. I believe that it would be better to rename all of these subcategories as "Military personnel of nation." The current sub-categories would be better categorized as "Military personnel by nationality," which is not the purpose of the categorization. I wanted to discuss this here first before bringing it to Cfd. --Scott Alter 19:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I found that this has been discussed previously (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 29#Military people categorization), and they came to the same conclusion that I had - to use "Military personnel of Foo". This discussion also included changing "people" to "personnel", which resulted in this Cfd. However, it does not seem as though they ever pursued this further to change the subcategories of Category:Military personnel by nation. --Scott Alter 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion would be go ahead and take it to CfD, seems a perfectly reasonable course of action after the decision on the root category. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In my categorisation concept military personnel is not entirely adequate if one reads how people write the articles. Firstly they are part of military organisations, so that is the parent category. The I did this:
  • Military organisations in World War II
Individuals in military service during World War II
Individual senior ranking officers of World War II (General, Flag, or Air Officers rank)
Individual officers of World War II (Field or Senior Officers )
Individual junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)
Individual non-commissioned officers of World War II
Individual enlisted personnel of World War II
Individual volunteers during World War II (non-ranking civilians)
Individual resistance personnel of World War II
Individual civilians in military organisations during World War II (administrative, research, policy, etc.)
Notable animals in military organisations of World War II (mascots, companions, pets, etc.)
If left as Military personnel of Foo, what happens is that the category is used for all sorts of articles that really talk about units, and sometimes fail to state who the person was.
When applying to the individual nationalities, just add the nation into the sub-category, e.g. ::Individual Italian junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)
Individual USN junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)
Individual Free French junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

be happy to hear constructive comments--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Its all good and well to call Mrg troll and vandal, but what is the real issue? Are people upset because they were not consulted (ego), or are people upset because I was unable to find suitable categories for articles and decided to do something about it?
No one took any notice of the issues of categorisation for months. I started the discussion last year and it went nowhere. How long does it exactly take to brainstorm into some action? The truth is that no one has taken the whole, or in this case, part project approach, and said, fine, how do we do this. Somewhere in the project there needs to be an article on Leadership. People seem to get very little done by consensus, and in this case the evidence of previous efforts based on consensus have borne poor "fruit". The categories are a mess. The fail to abide by the Wikipedia categorisation guidelines and project's own guidelines. They are highly ambiguous. Expansion operations and planning of the Axis Powers is an excellent example. This has now been placed in the main category World War II. Why?! The article is a List of Axis and Japanese operations! It is unreferenced and lacking any other content then the links to articles. Was it a major part of the Second World War? Its nature is only military, so it is unrelated to either the social, political, diplomatic or economic scope or impact of the Second World War, so why is it in the root World War II category?! Why is it even in existence? There is already a List of World War II military operations and the inclusion of "planned" invasions is pure original research without any references. With all the special task forces being created, what we need FIRST is an article quality control/proofing so what is there being presented to the reader is not offered half-baked from someone's sandbox. You will note that each one of the categories I created uses definitions from existing Wikipedia articles to help the author define where the article fits, and maybe even think about the contents of the article being submitted for reader perusal. Ok, I did not ask for consensus. Does any category I created not satisfy all Wikipedia criteria? In any case, I would urge people to wait until Woody places the master table I sent him in public domain before reverting what I had started.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Memorial Day, an article within our scope, is presently linked to from the page. Please keep an eye out on the page lest our vandals get creative with the words and images on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't they just semiprotect frontpage content. This really consumes time without real necessity. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have done that, but I lack the needed tools to protect an article. Sorry, just doing the best I can :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection which is only for the TFA but can be used for other pages linked on the mainpage. Woody (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Franklin Tilley

I have a featured article candidate review open for Benjamin Franklin Tilley, a US Navy rear admiral and military Governor of American Samoa. I know this is linked to off the Review page already, but I wanted to prod a bit. If anyone has any time or interest, I would really appreciate any comments (positive or negative) towards the FAC. Negative comments will help me to improve this article further. JRP (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Cold War now open

The peer review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR on Structural history of the Roman military

Structural history of the Roman military is up for review here.--Serviam (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weapon and vehicle Marks in dab pages

I started three dab pages to help readers who only know the "mark" number of the item they are looking for: Mark XIV, Mark XV and Mark XVIII. I feel I don't have the depth of knowledge to continue the effort. I am imagining a series of dab pages that cover all possible marks. Care to incorporate this stab at organization into your project? Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't have the knowledge to help much, but I will say that's a remarkably good idea :-)--Serviam (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There will be a certain amount of tussling involved. The Mark I through Mark VII dab pages already exist except that the Mark II page has a radio telescope sitting on it. We'll have to bump it! The Mark VIII and Mark IX pages are about tank models... easy enough to fold into the overall concept. Mark X is a singer songwriter. :/ Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The WP:WikiProject Disambiguation is also now involved in this effort. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Verdeja now open

The peer review for Verdeja is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planned but Failed Airborne Operations

During my time here at wiki writing Operation Varsity, 13th Airborne Division and 17th Airborne Division, I've come across several airborne operations which were planned during World War II but which were never executed for various reasons. All three articles make mention of them, but the most notable are Operation Eclipse, a planned airborne assault on Berlin itself, and Operation Arena, a plan to replicate Wingate's Chindit operations in Burma by creating an airborne created 'stronghold' from which an assault on Berlin could be springboarded. There are other minor operations as well, such as Operation Choker II and Operation Effective. I have the sources to back up all the operations and could even get some primary documentation. Such an article could also encompass other time periods, if there were airborne operations in, say, Vietnam or other conflicts which were planned but were called off for whatever reason.

So, would it be possible for me to create such an article, and if so, what would be the best possible title for such an article? Skinny87 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit: That should be 'Cancelled' rather than 'Failed'. Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
One initial thought Skinny is to add the material in question to First Allied Airborne Army if you can't figure out a good title. Another thought would be to create individual operation articles, as we've already got Category: Canceled military operations. Have you had a chance to chat to any of your lecturers about the structuring for World War II? Buckshot06(prof) 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that might be for the best, expanding First Allied Airborne Army to have all of its operations, including the cancelled ones. I doubt there's enough material to create individual articles. Skinny87 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Buckshot's comment, subject to the 'operations' passing the usual notability criteria, however. The planned but never executed Operation Kingfisher (which was to use the 1st Parachute Battalion (Australia) to rescue POWs in Borneo in 1945) would also make a good article, especially as several books have been written about it. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reguested articles list

For those not aware of it, there is a list of requested articles outside of the task forces in the Project.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to the UK MOD website

The MOD website is being revamped any old links may not work to solve the problem add a 2 to the www i.e http://www2.army.mod.uk Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". I will cross post this to the British Military history taskforce. Thanks for the heads up. Woody (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST and WP:VG collaboration

After a lengthy discussion between the coordinators we have decided to partner with Wikiproject Video Games for 30 days to share review assests. Effective June 1st, all peer reviews from the Video Games Wikiproject will be crossposted here for MILHIST editors to provide constructive feedback, while MILHIST peer reviews will be cross posted to WP:VG for constructive feedback. The trial will run through June 30 and is open to all members. At the end of June we will revisit the program and assess its results, and if consensus from both project's members is in favor of maintaining the program we will take steps to make this a perment feature. All editers wishing to take part in the program are encuraged to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice to inform the Video Game project of open MILHIST peer reviews. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uriel Sebree

I've just finished Uriel Sebree, Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet from 1909-1910. Before I submit it for peer review and work out the textual kinks, I wanted to ask if someone from this project can take a look at it and make sure that my terminology and such are accurate. I'm not an expert at this period (or any period) so having someone with more experience than I take a look at this might be a good idea. I have plenty of contemporary sources, but it doesn't hurt to check. Thanks very much for any assistance you can provide. JRP (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick read through it and everything appears to be in good order. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation of page names

The unresolved topic discussed at great length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title, and to a lesser degree at talk:rear admiral, is taking on a new life at talk:General Officer#Requested move. -- Pdfpdf (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-WWI US fleets and squadrons

Can anyone point me at a good reference for this period? I'm trying to work out whether William T. Swinburne was the first Commander-in-Chief of the combined Pacific Fleet or the second. I have some conflicting data about Read Admiral Caspar F. Goodrich and Rear Admiral William H. Brownson commanding it before Swinburne, but it depends on the date when the fleets were formally consolidated. Confusingly, they could have been in command of the Asiatic or Philippines Squadrons or they could have been tagged for the post and then given other assignments Is there a reference someplace with dates and lists of the C-in-Cs of the various fleets and squadrons as they connected and then disconnected between 1906 and 1910? Really, I'm just trying to make the Swinburne succession box correct, but it would be helpful to know. JRP (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Uriel Sebree now open

The peer review for Uriel Sebree is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Verdeja now open

The A-Class review for Verdeja is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New General Bios

Usually I do not work outside of ACW articles, but I have created biographies of a few current Generals I'm familiar with, Guy Sands-Pingot, Joseph Taluto, David Morris (American General), Herbert Altshuler, and Donald B. Smith. If anyone can help find some wikilinks for them (or would like to help expand and reference), I'd appreciate any assistance as I've only found a few articles to link to them thus far. MrPrada (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

We have a tricky decision we're trying to consider at Talk:List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957#Request for comment; simply put, should Soviet 'home guard' divisions of World War II be described as People's Militia or Narodnoe Opolcheniye, depending on how one interprets WP:UE. Further opinions would be welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Lince (tank) now open

The peer review for Lince (tank) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tanthalas39's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, Tanthalas39, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Tanthalas39's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Kirill (prof) 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attention

Aircraft carrier has been identified as a GA-class article in need of major improvements during a recent GA sweep. Anyone interested in help the article stay at GA class can check out the list of needed improvements at the bottom of the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinions for WWII section

Howdy.

I'm hoping to get some third opinions at the World War II talk page about potentially replacing the last section of the article. Any comments and opinions are welcome. Oberiko (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac Brock under FA review

Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] New York Trip - Photos

Greetings all! I will be going on a trip to New York in early September, and will be taking my trusty digital camera with me. I'll have a few hours to spare each day to wander around, and was wondering if there were any specific photos that MILHIST wanted from the city itself? I'm not sure if there's anything military-related i the city, but if anyone can think of anything they want, then let me know. I guess a list of requests would be best, and when I go on holiday I'll snap as many as I can and then upload them. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How about some of the NY ARNG armories? The one in the area north of Union Square looked pretty impressive, but I didn't have my camera handy. A good top-line photo for the New York National Guard article, possibly. Buckshot06(prof) 12:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If you get a chance, a picture or two of the Intrepid mesuem would nice. Intrepid is currently absent from here berth in NY, so it will be a unique chance to get a photograph or two of a muem ship without the ship :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partner peer review for Blade Runner (video game) now open

The peer review for Blade Runner (video game), an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac Brock

Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 19:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of battles and wars.

In the articles List of conflicts in Asia and List of battles 2001-current do not include all battles or wars. Can someone help expande these.--EZ1234 (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His Majesty's Stationary Office

For the past few years I've come across publications by the HMSO that were published during World War II - things like 'The Tiger Kils' and 'By Air To Battle', and I want to eventually collect all that were published. However, I'm having a devil of a time finding any kind of list of what was published by HMSO. I don't suppose anyone can help me? Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slight concern, would welcome a second opinion

I mainly edit on Falklands War topics and I noticed this comment[1] on the talk page of an editor I've been collaborating with. The comment "I believe I have done much to rectify their image as 'poor fighters'", caused me some concern, as it indicated a desire for a POV editing campaign, so I had a look at what this editor has been up to. Some of his contributions seems to reverse the emphasis of the article[2] and his English could do with some help. I don't know enough about the subject matter so I can't comment but at least one of the sources he'd removed (which someone else had commented on its reliability) contradicts his edit. Also he seems to dismiss official histories as biased and diminishing the contributions of the Italians[3]. He also seems in the habit of adding extraneous external links to articles that aren't referred to in the text[4]. My impresion is of an editor who may simply be misguided but genuinely thinks he's making an improvement. My concern is that his campaign is damaging the quality of the articles he's editing. I would welcome some comment as to whether my concerns are justified. Justin talk 09:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts that the editors contributions were valuable. The problem is, that reverting his edits will likely lead to a clash because people who want to set the record straight are highly possessive. Sorry, but I have doubts that this will result in anything but a clash. You can possibly recruit some other members who are familiar with the topic and make reasonable edits to try and explain the errors to him, but I have doubts that this will lead to any results. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head there, that was precisely my concern. Justin talk 11:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
user:Nick Dowling has also been interacting with this new wikipedian on North African Campaign issues. You may wish to examine the line he's taken when talking to him. Just my 2 cents. Buckshot06(prof) 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that their edits to the Seige of Tobruk article are OK (what they've added actually brings the article more into line with serious Australian histories, which acknowledge that the 9th Division had some bad days and that the Italian units involved in the seige performed fairly well - albeit only in static roles) but the addition of German and Italian propaganda from WW2 to other articles and the very odd assertion that this is a better source than the Australian and NZ official histories is totally unacceptable and rather worrisome. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys, thanks for the input, perhaps a few quiet reverts when he's got bored might be the solution? Justin talk 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I came across this user in a merger debate/content dispute a couple of months ago involving and Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade. He was heavily criticised by one or two editors for adding material not supported by his sources. I checked out some of his additions against the sources myself and thought that broadly they were reasonably accurate summaries given that English is not his first language and that some were spot on. e also went to great lengths (including adding supporting text from sources in footnotes) to make his material accurate. (See talk pages for the detail.) My take, for what it's worth, is he is a tenacious and hardworking editor, who acts in good faith, but sometimes has difficulty with English nuance (both understanding and expressing). --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C class rating

In case anybody didn't kinow, there's a proposal and a vote to introduce a C class rating above start class and below B class here. If this gets accepted, it will be a huge task to reassess all the B class articles that should be in this class. Maybe some sort of drive should be organised with prizes for the people who do the most? I'm assuming articles like this will be the ones that are downgraded.--Serviam (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. There have also been a few discussions about this on the Coordinators talk page.If this proposal passes it won't automatically impact on us as individual projects don't have to use C class if they don't want to. Personally, I'd rather that we not use it as it seems to do the same job as Start class is currently doing and the reassessments would be a waste of time now and in the future. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Battle of Lissa (1811) now open

The peer review for Battle of Lissa (1811) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminating "American" from American Revolutionary War

The is an ongoing debate at Talk:American Revolutionary War concerning proposals to eliminate the term "American" when referring to those folks like George Washington fighting the British. Since this is the most common term used in all Wikipedia articles on the Revolution, the elimination of this term would have repercussions that extend beyond the single article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Force Research Unit

Grateful for some eyes on the article at Force Research Unit, it seems all pretty speculative and OR to me, as well as quite a lot of knitting together bits and peices about who may or may not have been involved. I've also asked WP:BLP to review from the biographical perspective.

Cheers

ALR (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history articles flagged for cleanup

Hello,

currently, almost 12.000 military history articles (or 17%) are flagged for cleanup of some sort. Are you interested which articles are affected? I offer to generate lists of these articles; see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. These lists can either be generated for the project as a whole (which would be rather lengthy in this case), or for individual task forces.

If you're interested, please sign up at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind offer. We can identify them through our category system and, as you say, lists would be rather lengthy though this may prove useful after current initiatives are completed. Thanks again for thinking for us, --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Lince (tank) now open

The A-Class review for Lince (tank) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Roman-Persian Wars now open

The A-Class review for Roman-Persian Wars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment statistics comparison

In case anyone is curious, I've put together a comparison of different projects' assessment statistics that gives a possibly interesting indication of where we stand relative to other WikiProjects. Kirill (prof) 17:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. I've been comparing the updates of the Maritime warfare task force and WP:SHIPS for quite some time now via a page in my userspace. -MBK004 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topical consensus / discussion template?

Over at WWII, we tend to go over the same debates pretty often, usually due to new-comers who have not (quite understandably) gone through our fairly massive archives; I imagine that this is an issue which affects other topics as well. I don't really have a problem with re-opening these discussions, but doing so usually means dredging up all the supporting material and often refuting the same arguments. I think it would be quite useful for when this issue comes up, we could just quickly just give them the link to the consensus and discussions.

As a rough guide, I'm thinking something that would look like the following:

Topic Consensus (date) Discussion(s)
Infobox combatants Keep as "Allies" and "Axis" (some date) discussion link(s)

The date would show when consensus was established and itself also be a link to a concise page detailing the reasons for (and against) the current consensus; the discussion link(s) would lead to various discussions already had on the topic.

The advantages I see of this are as follows:

  • Reduce against-consensus changes: Quite often a new user (to the article) will change what's been established and agreed on to something else, usually due to simply being unaware that an agreement on the matter was reached. If consensus boxes exist, more diligent editors might check first to see if they are going against the grain.
  • Reduce repetitive discussion: Instead of redoing the same arguments over again and again, this would reduce it to raising the topic again primarily due to new arguments/evidence/sources, or if the consensus was established a considerable time ago.

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, I certainly know articles like The Holocaust could do with them. Full Support! Skinny87 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We do have {{FAQ}} which is very useful for talkpages. See Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63) for it in action. I think this is what you are looking for. Create a subpage and then add the questions and links onto it. Then add the {{FAQ}} onto the talkpage and huzzah! Woody (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that actually worked. I got the idea to add FAQ to the battleship pages after seeing its implementation on the abortion talk page. To me, it seemed to solve a lot of problems, so I adopted it for use with Iowa's. So far, both the ship article version and the class page version seem to be solving the problems we used to without the great wall of china length accompaning discussions. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about the FAQ. I'll give that a shot and see if it works. Oberiko (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Operation Varsity now open

The A-Class review for Operation Varsity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)