Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The July newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Boot Monument • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Lockheed YF-22 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Military logistics • Brighton hotel bombing • Military dictatorship Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • John S. McCain Sr. • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Giado concentration camp • The Motherland Calls • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Malin massacre • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Ehengbuda • Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza • Amazon-class frigate (1795) • Operation Matterhorn logistics • Advanced Tactical Fighter • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Udagbedo • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Marie-Jeanne Lamartinière Good article reassessments Franklin's lost expedition • Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Joe Rice • Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,704) • only work on referencing and citation (43,174) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,871) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,726) • work on structure (31,819) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,170) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,806) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (125) • project tags fixed (4) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (1) • task forces added (279) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Military history WikiProject Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy Core work areas Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives Special projects Majestic Titan talk Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1443 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 32 Featured pictures 534 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 685 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,420 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships edit · changes Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012. This project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: David Stahel (18 July 2018). "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Retrieved 1 April 2019. Noam Cohen (September 8, 2021). "One Woman's Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia". Wired (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. Shortcut WT:MILHIST

The peer review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

The peer review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

The peer review for Thomas the Slav is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

The A-Class review for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk)

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

I currently have email contact with former astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper and may be able to ask her specific questions to expand her article, and bring it up to B Class. Any suggestions? Gamweb (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask her what were the specific high points of the two space missions - right now we've only got the tool bag - and we can cover those from open sources - massive amounts around. Also details of the first part of her Navy career and duties now. IMHO, also comments if WP:V-able on the future place of humans in space. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask what some good published sources about her are (eg, if she collects newspaper clippings about herself, which ones are particularly accurate and useful as sources). Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, thank you. I am going to copy this to her Talk page. (Please add additional comments there) Gamweb (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for help from members of this project with respect to an AFD that's been proposed on the Thirty Years War Battle of Jüterbog. Searching for this battle in Google Books of course brings up tons of references to a battle that took place near Jüterbog during the Napoleonic Wars, but also brings up vague references to the Thirty Years War battle. Both seem to also be called the "Battle of Dennewitz". I'm not an expert on military history but I'd hate to see an article on a battle deleted simply because the sources were confusing. Can anyone help at the AFD discussion or add sources to the article to settle the notability question, either way? Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back with a couple of references to the 1644 battle on the AFD page. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a dab hat, which should clear most of the confusion. The 1644 battle doesn't seem to have a lot of coverage though. See pointer for merger discussion further below. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jüterbog and similar [perma]stubs

Since there's no shortage of active editors in this project, perhaps someone can take a look at the merger discussion on Talk:Thirty Years' War. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the air offensives by RAF Coastal Command over the Bay of Biscay in 1942-44 could do with an article. However, I believe individual operations were too short and did not last long enough to warrant individual articles. The sources and content or also limited so I don't think it would justify that. So I propose to write one article inclusive of all operations. I think a name such as: Air offensives over the Bay of Biscay, RAF Coastal Command anti-submarine operations over the Bay of Biscay or just Bay of Biscay air offensive. Something like that. Suggestions welcome. Dapi89 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expand upon RAF Coastal Command during World War II#Versus the U-Boats, 1942—1943 first and then spin off as necessary? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with expand, & with the idea. I'd say Bay of Biscay air offensive. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have any real preference for a title, but be sure to reference Chris Goss's Bloody Biscay. It covers the air battles over the bay in some detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the idea of a comprehensive Biscay air offensive article; I would have said the individual operations could each have an article (we do that for land operations covering smaller forces over lesser time periods, after all) but an article covering the whole Biscay campaign (ops, forces, tactics, technological changes, politics, personalities etc) would be a welcome addition. Good thinking! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Expanding CC in WWII is on the agenda, Goss' books noted, and the article will follow. Dapi89 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to modify WP:MILMOS#SOURCES with the addition of:

When structuring the article, and including or omitting content, editors should rely on the outline presentation of material available in the highest quality scholarly sources.

I propose this as:

1. Many articles engage in synthesis by collation, providing reliable sources for individual sections, but unreliably generating higher order topic headlines and orders of presentation, amounting to original research.
2. As an encyclopaedia we ought to structure our articles based on the highest quality reliable sources, rather than editorial inspiration. (Many editors have naturally internalised this structuring through reading, but some people need the reminder).
3. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES is the well-spring for Reliable Sources in all history projects. Additions to policy ought to be made here, as, quite frankly, MILHIST is the leading historical project at the moment. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The substance of the addition looks reasonable, but "outline presentation of material" seems a bit convoluted; perhaps we could simply say something like "...should follow the presentation of the highest-quality scholarly sources."? (I'm almost tempted to use "...follow the narrative presented by..." here, but that may be confusing in cases where the article is not organized along narrative lines.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to get better language up there to represent the sentiment. I'm worried that without the double repetition of article structure == hqrs structure will result in editors fudging. But I'm very happy to get better language for the proposal. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me would be "what does it mean?". Scholarly books on history tend to follow whatever editorial scheme seems appropriate to the author, usually attempting to differentiate between their work and that which has gone before. To a degree therefore, to work from more than one such source will require synthesis. I suspect the suggestion comes from the more technical end of the MILHIST spectrum, where standard presentations of, say, ship or aircraft data are commonplace. If this is so, then an appropriate qualification should be made in the statement. If it is meant generally, I think it would require more thought as to how to determine the "outline presentation" to be followed, when there are different schemes in equally reliable works. Monstrelet (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm from the social history side of things. I was inspired because of Eastern and Central European history articles which are all over the place. While some level of synthesis is required comparing different magisterial histories, a number of articles regularly come forwards in other history project's areas that start with a tabula rasa and structure according to an editor's fancies. Given that MILMOS#SOURCES is the standard used by the WP:History project in general, this is the place to fix it. I think that reasonable comparison and editorial synthesis will be required in forming outlines; but, this proposal will help prevent the "deep google books" and "assembly of quotes" style article. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I suspect that the Eastern European article question runs deeper and there are a number of questions we would still need to address (such as the perennial question of whether an English language encyclopaedia should be derived from English speaking scholarship). I am in two minds on "google scholarship", because I have accessed sources this way myself and I'd rather have something with some sources than none. However, I do agree I find the lack of discernment in the choice of sources and the use of poor sources simply because they are online an issue. This is partly a reflection of the "popular" nature of Google as an encyclopaedia - not everyone who edits has the understanding of the sources and source use to begin with. How we tackle this meaningfully in a style guide I'm not sure. For assessment purposes, for B and above, I think it is part of the criteria. So, apologies for a lengthy post, but yes, I think we need something there but we may need to think more widely about we educate editors for the future Monstrelet (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time this has been proposed, so I naturally expect wide ranging debate and help in developing and amending the proposal; then a reproposal with a !vote or new discussion if the previous discussion was complex. (I've copied this process over from core policy change processes used at WP:V). Fifelfoo (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of articles with the kind of problems you want to avoid with those rules? I also find your wording rather opaque, so some examples would help. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds, to be honest. On the one hand, following well established narrative models in an article would seem like a good thing. On the other hand, the presentation of the highest level scholarship in many fields isn't necessarily always very, um, "user-friendly", and said structures might not make for easy reading for a non-specialist reader. I'd agree with Tijfo098 that a specific example or two of articles that might be affected if this policy was adopted, might aid the debate. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of Katyn massacre at this diff for the sections "5 Revelations 6 In art and literature 7 Recent developments 8 Memorials 9 Original documents" which are out of narrative order and in some cases not relevant to the main topic. (Katyn massacre is currently undergoing a WP:FAR and is rapidly improving, but that diff was from less than 6 weeks ago). Other examples which spring to mind are the perennially troubled Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes. I've especially seen this occur in relation to Bulgarian medieval history. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Hungarian Revolution of 1956 grossly overweights the armed bands and grossly underweights the workers councils by following a montage of sources rather than the scholarly hqrs (as can be seen in the references which are reliant on the arguably primary UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957), sourcebooks, and declarations like Bibo's). British Empire excludes critical magisterial hqrs in favour of a hagiography, an issue brought up at WP:FAR but resisted by editors who favoured a national hagiography. In contrast Byzantine Empire or Economy of England in the Middle Ages follow HQRS structuring (and you can see this too, in the references). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the spirit of your idea, Fifelfoo. I see many articles where the author tried to be clever in the organization and section headers... and while there is artistic merit in being interesting, it's not especially encyclopedic. But that said, there are often problems with the way that sources do thier own organization, as well as the fact that sometimes, there simply isn't one that covers all or even most of the aspects that an article would need to be comprehensive. Balancing SYNTH and comprehensive coverage is something that would probably be better served on a case-by-case basis, because adding a requirement for this to the MILMOS would create hurdles for articles that are perfectly fine now... unless we could word it cleverly enough to allow for flexibility. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can word it as a positive expectation to avoid stuffing up perfectly good articles that currently exist. I suspect that the positive expectation needs to be balanced against the need to push back against inappropriate SYNTH articles. I don't know how to further develop the text; but, I am inclined to implement this shortly as a BOLD action, trying to incorporate the material above. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like pushing in the direction of HQRS, because more and more of our A-class articles are heading to FAC, which requires HQRS. I don't think it's a black-white thing; some high-quality sources do a good job of organizing the material and making it accessible, and we should attempt when possible to follow their lead. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all aware of the poorly organised HQRS; such as the sociological study trying to do history which has an explicit "Methods and Experimental Design" section. Or, for example, Jane fundamentally understands the structural issues for the general topic but published in 1986; but, Greg has a specialist interest in a minor feature and devotes his monograph to that, but doesn't get the higher order structure at all and published in 2005. (Don't mind me, I'm moaning because a whole monograph in a series claimed to be devoted to class consciousness and ended up being a psychological assessment of causes of status awareness; funding was loose in 1970s Britain obviously.) Strong intention and expectation to structure out of the most structurally apt HQRS appears to be the way to go? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm rather dubious about this, frankly. We are writing articles in an encyclopedia, but "the highest quality scholarly sources" are typically books or scholarly articles. For a straight biography the two forms may not differ much, but for example in an article on a battle that uses books on a war, a general, or a period in the history of a national army, the particular "outline presentation of material" (if we can agree what that means) may be substantially different, purely because the forms or overall subjects are different. In addition it is very often appropriate for us to set out basic and background information that a specialist academic source just assumes knowledge of. I see what Fiflefoo is worried about, but I think relying on WP:UNDUE may be best. In my own field, two very high-quality sources on the same subject may follow totally different "outlines" and explore totally different aspects, even if this is not indicated in their titles. What do you do then? Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Napoleon I is up for renaming
• Category:Horatio Nelson is up for renaming

65.93.12.8 (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, Nelson discussion, Napoleon discussion. Woody (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone outside SHIPS know what this means? "USS Chesapeake was a nominally rated 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy." Is everyone on board with WP:Checklist#clarity? - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from SHIPS, but I read Aubrey–Maturin. It reads poorly. "USS Chesapeake was a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy, nominally rated as a 38 gun ship." Frigates are necessarily 3 masted in this era, but it helps to say it. Ship rating needs to be linked, probably to Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy#The_number_of_guns_and_the_rate this; it is a technical term and no other term is really suitable, it is a leading item for a age of sail ship. Rating is important enough to be in the lede sentence though. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a medievalist and I do pretty much understand it. Fifelfoos restructuring of the sentence is clearer though. My only query is about rating, which is often a number (1st - 6th, I think)but is used in frigates (IIRC) on the basis of nominal number of guns (i.e. Chesapeake didn't necessarily carry 38 guns) to distinguish between the various sizes of a similar class of vessels. Monstrelet (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a bare minimum, "rated" should be linked. I have no idea what the difference would be between a "nominal" rating and some other (unidentified) rating type; is the word even necessary (in the lead)? The ship's carrying capacity is sufficiently explained in the body of the article. Magic♪piano 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it, too, but it would help for non-specialist users to link the ship class and the "rated" term. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I'm going to try "assigned a rating", and I'll link it. This is for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Chesapeake (1799)/archive1 btw. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The A-Class review for Colin Hannah is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get uniform treatment of military bios? I've seen pages started with final rank & with no rank. (I default to no rank, since they weren't born with it.) I'm raising the issue here, also, but suggest it be discussed here, because this would appear to be the "lead project". (Also, I don't anticipate adding anythng further. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about using the rank of the individual in the lead? Personally, I prefer to word it as "John Doe was a rank in the service..." rather than "Rank John Doe was a...". You are entirely correct, even our greatest military minds were not born with thier rank, despite the western habit of adding rank and title to every name (especially retired generals). Sure, it's respectful to note that, but I think it can be done in a more NPOV way, which would be to use it when describing his or her notability (not to mention that some people's notability doesn't have anything to do with the rank or service; politicians love to do this).

We could probably suggest this in the MOS, but I'm cynical enough to thing that getting consensus for a guideline, and standardizing it across the thousands of military bios is going to be possible. I like consistancy, though. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am. I'd go farther & remove mention of rank in the lead, saying only "officer" in the top line. Mention of "final rank was foo" might deserve mention, but I lean toward leaving that for the "career" section.

Is an MOS guideline impossible? Maybe. I just favor consistency, too. In this circumstance, I'm looking more to adopting the existing standard for non-military bio. Unlikely? Again, maybe... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC) (OK, I can't ignore a comment. :p )[reply]

Hi

I have just found an editor changing Western Bug and Southern Bug -> Bug River

They are creating a load of redirs and other problems. I am not sure how many are on MilHist articles but I saw quite a few that probably are...

User history - [1] - I have asked them to stop but it may need some fixing :¬( Chaosdruid (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them need to be reverted. "Bug river" is a disambiguation page. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has now tried to sort out the mess they created by nominating the Western Bug for a page move to Bug River, as well as nominating the Bug river db page for deletion. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor marked as a "minor edit" a complete change in the meaning of Bug River, removing the disambiguation. This seems highly disingenuous. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the USAF unit articles were created with the old 2d and 3d abbreviations. I know that a lot of service personnel did their service and are used to this. However, the USAF has been using the standard 2nd and 3rd abbreviations (ie. http://www.jber.af.mil/units/3rdwing/index.asp) for some time, and switching over patches and emblems where possible. I think that WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and for consistency I would like to use the 2nd and 3rd abbreviations. Not to mention that titles like [3d Wing] sound like a video game when read by an international audience on Wikipedia. Ng.j (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search shows that the 2nd and 3rd abbreviations are the most common. All of the USAF press releases I have seen use this standard, as do established military sites like Janes and Globalsecurity. Ng.j (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the three documents which are generally referenced for Air Force Numbered Units:

• Air Force Combat Units World War II
• World War II Combat Squadrons
• USAF Combat Wings

• AFHRA Document download indes This is also a useful page

None of these documents use the "rd" or "nd" reference. 2d and 3d numbered units are referenced as such. Those is the official unit designation and should be kept as such. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current units have no suffix after the numerical designator. The USAF has removed ALL suffixes as the Canadian Forces do. If you want to change them, then remove them all for all units. Either way, the "nd" and "rd" are incorrect. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AFHRA Wings Groups and Centers Page

All of the above sources are historical, and do not necessarily apply to currently operational units. The Air Force Historical Research Agency is a good source for history, but I prefer to use current sources, like news articles, releases from the USAF, and websites like Global Security. Ng.j (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a few years ago someone told me to move them to "nd" and "rd" because we aren't the United States Air Force. I would support moving them there but it would require administrator help as a lot of these pages will have something preventing the average user from doing it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last link I provided to the AFHRA Wings Groups and Centers Page show the official names of the current active and reserve units. The above listed pdf's are the historical references. Unofficial websites should not be used for determining official Air Force Unit designations. Also, for historical units, the appropriate historical name should be used as referenced in the official document. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 6 months ago, I researched the issue by following external links from our articles to pages maintained by members of the units; without exception, the members used "2nd", "3rd", etc. Also, US style guides support "2nd", "3rd", etc., except for occasional "legalese". - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I am all for moving these pages, which probably number into at least a thousand. It will take a long time though to do it, but after next Thursday I can do it if no one has any major objection to it. I would need an administrator to follow me though to help move the pages that are essentially unmovable to the average user so that is the only complication that I can forsee at the moment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, we would have to put a policy in place to explain to people when they attempt to mass-revert me why I did what I did. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unclear if these pages are to be renamed, as the official references use the "d" suffix for 2d and 3d, or just the number without the suffix for all numbered units. If we are going to do a mass renaming, then let's delete the suffix entirely as the current references have them so the units are designated correctly. If we want to use the incorrect "nd" or "rd" suffixes, a #redirect can suffice Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just USAF pages. I see this sometimes on other American military units... In particular, the USMC isn't very good at being consistant. Official letterheads tend to use the 2d and 3d, but websites mix and mash with 2nd and 3rd, as well as spelling them out as words. News releases and other stuff meant to be publicly available tend to use the longer abbreviations, but internal messages tend to use the shorter ones. Civillian media coverage almost never uses the shorter abbreviations, probably because it doesn't make sense to them (honestly, it doesn't make sense to me either). We ought to be consistent with the style guide and other articles and not use the shorthand. For the people who insist on keeping it as "2d and 3d", we can just invite them here until there is consensus... consensus doesn't always have to be written in policy to be enforced, as I learned the hard way the other day. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the other services, as I served 24 years in the Air Force. Never wrote anything that went into the civil world so I can't comment on that. We always used the "d" in correspondence. At Shaw we used the 363d and at Spangdahlem it was the 52d, was at Korat when the 3d TFS was formed. And it was always used when writing numerics. The official documentation from the Air Force uses "d', and lastly, before all the changes that began to be made a few weeks ago, the "d" abbreviation was used here on Wikipedia. If this is an encyclopedia, we should strive for correctness and accuracy and maintain the standards, not go off on our own for no other reason due to a policy that doesn't apply as it creates designations that never existed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to every one, I'm having a discussion here [2], the editor is refusing to find consensus even if military ranks fell on WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFLISTS I've tried to find a minimal consensus but he is avoiding to do the same, playing with rules, and making disruptive NON-sense editing making edit wars. I think that removing British Army ranks like the other ones on their respective page, even in presence of NFC for educational purpose is a non collaborative manner and dangerous to Wikipedia. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples: than and now; than and now; than and now; than and now; than and now. --Nicola Romani (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note: the user doing this rampant edit spree is User:Δ formerly known as User:Betacommand to which Community-imposed restrictions apply he is currently violating. noclador (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not violating any restrictions. Enforcing non-free content policy WP:NFCC is not optional. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the rationale for doing this before making these changes. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple WP:NFLISTS and WP:OVERUSE ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i don't se OVERUSE. --Nicola Romani (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there isn't any WP:OVERUSE. --Theirrulez (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERUSE is just an essay so that doesn't really apply. As I understand the fair use rules though it would seem that using these images in the current manner is acceptable. --Kumioko (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good essay explaining our policy, everything in it just goes into detail on our existing policy. WP:NFCC is the policy, and WP:NFC helps explain it some. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetuta iuvant: Can you see OVERUSE here? than and now; than and now; than and now. NO! this were disruptive non consensual and non-motivated editing. --Nicola Romani (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:OVERUSE#Q:_How_can_one_image_be_excessive_fair_use.3F_That.27s_impossible.21 ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example you did is not pertinent in this case! After your disruptive edits, an e.g. like this image, as well may other ones, are now completely orphans, even if on their respective file page is respected the WP:FURG! You are misleading the policy playing with rules. Use is permitted and they fell on WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS, and you are clearly violating. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERUSE is only a essay, and in any case, it does not prohibit the fair use of military insignia as you seem to think Δ. It says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".

Pictures of Military insignia do not serve a decorative purpose. They very clearly add value to the related articles that cannot be achieved through text alone. Including them in these articles is not a violation of WP:NFCC. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it is. Just because we can include non-free content, even to complete a set of related items, doesn't mean we should. Wikipedia is not a catalog, and it's wholly unnecessary to have every element of a set of like elements to adequately convey encyclopedic meaning. Is a "List of Thingamajigs" useful for identifying Thingamajigs if not every Thingamajig has an image on it? No, but that's not Wikipedia is for. If you want a guide to military ranks around the world, start one at Wikia. This is Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a guide or catalog. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Snowolfd4, they fell under WP:NFCC#8, and WP:FURG were fully respected, if you think this is "a catalogue" you are wrong because: as stated on WP:NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" and military ranks of a country (even a comparisons chart among other countries) fell exactly in this case, and sorry an encyclopedia purpose is to explain exactly the matter of the subject, using your opinion I can also arguing that each image for every article about a Nation is not a catalogue or a (touristic) guide!!! Then I'm also strongly complaining about Δ's disruptive, non-consensuals edits and massive reverts of about a dozen of wiki users. --Nicola Romani (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your stance with regards to such image use on rank articles would permit the use of as many images as anyone would want, within the bounds of fair use law. That would be nice, but unfortunately we have a mission of being a free license resource, and every use of a non-free image takes away from that mission. As such, there has to be a very strong reason for including it. Being a guide to military ranks isn't a sufficient reason, not by a long shot. If you think this is wrong, please feel free to raise the issue at WT:NFC. In the meantime, continuing to refer to Δ as disruptive is out of line. As Beetstra said, his edits are not disruptive and are inline with policy and guideline. You're certainly welcome to raise issue of the removals, but as WP:NFCC notes, those seeking to include non-free content have to prove it's needed. It's not incumbent on Δ to prove it's not needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A very similar issue came up a while back on Canadian Forces Land Force Command about non-free rank images. Take a look into it. You either need to see if you can get a freely licensed version, or use just a few samples to make your point. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image of ranks insignia on ranks insignia pages fell under WP:NFCC#8, WP:FURG is fully respected, and WP:NFLISTS#6 permit rank insignia image used in articles wich describes ranks! Please remember WP:POINT. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody conducting image removals from articles containing mass overuse of non-free images is making any sort of WP:POINT violation. The accusations about disruption towards anybody that does this work needs to stop. As to WP:NFCC #10c requirements; a rationale for a given use must exist, but the mere presence of a rationale doesn't make the use acceptable under 10c. A valid rationale must be provided. Sampling the rationales for the images that were on Military ranks and insignia of the Sri Lanka Army we find cut/paste rationales all saying "The image shows the insignia of Brigadier General in the Sri Lanka Army". That is not a valid rationale. Why must it be shown? This is a crucial point that is very often overlooked. Must it be shown in order to be a complete visual listing of all the rank insignia? If so, it falls afoul of WP:NOT policy in a number of ways. Do you really need File:SL-Army-OR4 Corporal.PNG AND File:SL-Army-OR5n6 Sergeant.PNG? Can't you simply use the former and indicate that the sergeant has an additional chevron? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not a guide. It is entirely inappropriate and wholly unnecessary to display every single rank (even if the rank images are free!) for every military service in the world, just as it is entirely inappropriate for en.Wikipedia to contain dictionary definitions for every word in the English language. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I really need to expand on the point very much for you guys to know that I disagree; but this situation is especially so. It's rather pointless to try to list ranks without being able to illustrate what the insignia look like. I don't think a sampling of a few really illustrates the spectrum, either.

But, I think there may be a compromise, though I need an expert in derivative works licensing to be sure. I think we can avoid the NFCC entirely if we can redraw the images, and teh artist releases into PD. I'm not sure if the representation of the rank insignia would be protected regardless of how it is represented or not, but I don't think so in this case (kind of like coats of arms, seals, and stuff like that). I'm sure the guys in the graphics lab would be happy to redraw from scratch and release. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree whit Bahamut0013. It is not a problem making a couple of chevrons and crowns and relese.

@Hammersoft: an encyclopedia can be also a guide and expecially this encyclopedia can be detailed (but I hope I don't need to be specific on this point...). --F l a n k e r (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Flanker hit the point. And anyways I don't need a military insigna article without any insigna image. Theirrulez (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point isn't that we should be listing ranks. That isn't our purpose. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Redrawing the images doesn't help. If the new images are essentially the originals, it would be a derivative work. If they're not the originals, then they're not the rank insignia. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just your point of view and IMHO seems too weak. Having rank articles matches our purpose: guides don't illustrate ranks. But let's stick to the topic: If they're not the originals, then they're not the rank insignia. what does it mean? A redrawing can perfectly illustrate original insignia. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sick to death of the rampant accusations of WP:POINT violations in this thread. For chrissake, providing a link to our POLICY...(Get it? POLICY)...that we are not a guide is not ()#!@*$()!$@#& disruptive or a WP:POINT violation. Either cease and desist with the rampant accusations or file a report at WP:AN/I. As to the redrawings, if you draw a rank insignia that is identical to the copyrighted original, it doesn't transfer rights to you. It's effectively a copy of the original. Copying it doesn't grant original copyrights to you. If you create a close copy, it's a derivative work, and still not free of copyright. If you create a version that is original enough to not be encumbered with rights of the original, then it is different enough to not be the actual rank insignia that is under copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations of POINT are uncalled for. I don't think thos emaking them understand the meaning of the guideline. While I agree an article on ranks and rank insignia isn't much use without the isnignia, the use of them doesn't comply with the NFCC or with NFC. It's probnably within the bounds of fair use by law, but Wikipedia's policy is much stricter.

A workaround by redrawing the images could work. How complicated that would be in terms of copyright law depends whether the insignia are copyright or just the images of them, but I would think that redrawing them with slight differences should be acceptable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been lurking on this conversation for some time, and I'm only stepping out now to suggest that everybody step away for the weekend and relax a little bit. The world will not cease to turn if these images are not there, and it will not explode if they are. To answer Baha's question about derivitives: Yes, this is allowable. IF the argument is strictly FAIR-USE, then that will circumvent the problem. It was done on the masonic square and compass (see: File:Square compasses.svg) and as an original work was uploaded that it could be used on a userbox. However, if the argument is whether or not the images should be there at all, then this entire fair-use argument is spurious and should be dismissed as the red herring it would then be. Either way, people need to calm down and work the problem, rather than worry about being right or wrong. SeanNovack (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into the history of the particular images in question, but creating derivative works only lets you create free works if they are derived from some free or public domain work. In the case of the Square and Compasses, the symbols are PD-old having been around in some similar form since at least ~1900 (see the original source of the png from which the svg was derived). If the insignia are copyrighted then any derivative work will still be subject to the copyright protection of the original and recreating won't help. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*chuckle* Yep, I know. The keey phrase there is "If the insignia are copyrighted...", which I don't believe they are. Perhaps everyone should endeavor to discover this over the weekend and then come back at the problem fresh on Monday? Not trying to stir the pot, just trying to take down the heat. SeanNovack (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of us seem to know for sure, I've asked for expert advice at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Rank image copyright question. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which infobox {{operational plan}} or {{infobox military conflict}} should be used? I think some clarification in needed since editors disagree.—Chris!_c/t 02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one since it wasn't all that long of a process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! When it becomes stable, I'd like to see it at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll shortly be expanding the HMS Sainfoin (F183) article as part of the Empire C series of ships. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if someone with access to Ships of the Royal Navy would provide inline refs for the info currently in the article, which will make expansion easier for me. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FACs on the "urgent" list can be closed at any time. RAF Northolt needs an image review and maybe spotchecks for close paraphrasing. In Sack of Amorium and Charles Holden, the essential reviews have been done, but the nominators are struggling a bit with questions they've been asked, if anyone wants to have a look.

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN#Leroy A. Mendonca. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

The featured article candidacy for The Red Badge of Courage is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The A-Class review for Thomas the Slav is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already commented either way at Talk:Corvette on a proposal to turn Corvette into a redirect to Chevrolet Corvette, or you have commented and you were not aware that the discussion drags on and on, then you may wish to do so. Shem (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for SMS Zrínyi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lockheed D-21/M-21; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a spur of the moment, I just started Military history of Buddhist Americans this evening. I'd also previously started Military history of Sikh Americans and Military history of Jewish Americans (which got a DYK). I belatedly realised this might be an interesting WP:DYK topic, so now I have 5 days to get this up to snuff. If anyone else finds this topic interesting, I'd appreciate any help in adding content and refs, formatting, and uploading pics (since there are several available from USmil free sources). I'm still trying to track down online if there's any mention of who was the first American Buddhist soldier, as we have such names for the first Jewish and Sikh servicemembers. Thanks for any help, and I'll look to apply for DYK early next week if all goes well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst writing what is now "Background of the Spanish Civil War", I realised I wasn't sure whether "background of" or "background to" is more appropriate. I notice both Background to the Vietnam War and Background of the Winter War exist; the latter, "of", is used more widely. Is there a community-wide consistency thing on this? Since the "to the" article I've listed appear to be the only (main?) one, is it worth moving it/them? (Input to background of the Spanish Civil War is of course appreciated.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It feels to me like there ought to be a subtle semantic difference here, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is! In terms of what else we have, there's only one "to", as you note - Background to the Vietnam War - and six "of"s - Background of Tunisian history, Background of the 2008 South Ossetia war, Background of the Greek War of Independence, Background of the Spanish Civil War, Background of the Winter War, and Background of the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states. However, there's also four "events leading to" - Events leading to the Falklands War, Events leading to the First Anglo-Sikh War, Events leading to the Sino-Indian War, and Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor - and two "events preceding" - Events preceding World War II in Asia and Events preceding World War II in Europe. Finally, we have origins - Origins of the American Civil War, Origins of the Cold War, Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute, Origins of the Six-Day War, Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war, & Origins of the War of 1812.

A bit of a mixed bag, really... Shimgray | talk | 00:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion over on the strategy talk page seems to have gone a bit quiet, so I thought I'd post here in order that it can be carried on here or reignited over there.

Anyway, I'm proposing a slight change to the wording of step 6 in the instructions for ACRs and internal PRs and the addition of a link to some sort of beginners' guide to reviewing, of which a first draft is at User:HJ/Fool's guide. Input welcome. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If anyone has Access to academic journals (JSTOR, etc.) and is a kind soul willing to be pestered for articles, I will worship you as the demigod that you are... I plan to work on Civil War articles slowly, perhaps one at a time... I know we have WP:RX, but thought a person from this WP might be less bothered by my requests... Tks... • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MHL#JSTOR might offer you some more help though I did just have to hide half of the names there as inactive. Woody (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Drop me an email and I'll see what I can turn up. Shimgray | talk | 10:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on helmet cameras contains no content on their military use. I would expand it myself, but I don't have time IRL right now, and I wouldn't know where to start. Perhaps it could be added to your project's tasks. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ref link Helmet mounted display if this is associated. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find if it's been discussed before, but the current categorization of earlier-period fortifications in the Byzantine/Ottoman/Arab world seems in a slight bit of disarray. Is there a guideline somewhere about how we'd like to use the various terms? For example, Category:Castles in Italy is not a subcategory of Category:Forts in Italy, but at the same time, several of these structures are in Category:Byzantine forts. The Ottoman equivalent is at Category:Ottoman fortifications, and the Mamluk is at Category:Mameluk castles. I'd lean towards some sort of more generic categorization, since it's often fairly unclear how to distinguish a "castle" from other kinds of "fortifications" or "forts" or "fortified towns" in these periods, in contrast to Western Europe, where "castle" seems to be a more specific and well-defined term. But if there's already any sort of existing guideline, that's fine too. --Delirium (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]