Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 121

Military history of the United Kingdom
I removed a comment on Military history of the United Kingdom about During its history, British forces or forces with a British mandate have invaded, had some control over or fought conflicts in 171 of the world's 193 countries that are currently UN member states, or nine out of ten of all countries. as really a bit of tabloid type trivia and doesnt all relate Britain after 1707 and most of the countries probably didnt exist. User:Whizz40 has a different view that it is a fact well researched by a historian and is relevant and interesting to readers of an encyclopaedia, particularly those who may be new to the subject of British military history. Would be interested in another view on the subject, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds impressive. If it is properly sourced then there is no reason not to keep it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I confess some reluctance, but this is sign of a trend to include every trivial fact anybody can find out on anything. (I begin to think we need Trivia about Foo pages.) Impressive & interesting it is, but possibly misleading (suggesting war with modern countries when there wasn't any), & ultimately trivial. Leave it out.  TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura  05:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider evidence of aggression to be trivial, particularly given recent events. Perhaps add something about why it matters - as a comparison with other states like say Iran or Syria?Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I recall the newspaper coverage of this piece of trivia (released I believe to promote a book). Further examination IIRC shows that these interventions are not all aggressive acts. The claim is fairly broad brush and tells us very little in its simple form other than Britain has been involved in a lot of military activity around the globe over the years .  So some contextualisation is required if it is to play a part in an encyclopaedia rather than a journalistic piece. Monstrelet (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am new to this but am working on a study of the Peninsular war. I have came across refs to Guides and recently to a ref to the Corp of Guides (The Despatches of Field Marshall the Duke of Wellington vol 5 p.571 letter to Charles Stuart (Por ambassador) 13th March 1810). Looking in Wikipedia I find the Corps of Guides only referenced to India and Canada after 1840. They seem to have been used in the Peninsular war as topographical scouts probably due to lack of good maps at that period and possibly as interpreters. Seems to be a group missing from Wikipedia. Ketlux (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit war on Michael Wittmann page
Hi, I don't know if this is the correct place to bring this up, but here it goes. Would someone be able to take a look at the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Wittmann&action=history

User HMMTB keeps inserting the term "tankie" into the article to replace the word "tanker". The user claims that this is the correct British/CW definition for tank crewmen. I am all for British English in articles that refer to British and CW forces as this one does, but I have to say this term sounds dubious. I do not believe I have ever seen this term used in any book I have read on British/CW armoured forces, and at any rate "tanker" seems to be the universal term for tank crewmen. I don't wish to be the one who break the 3 revert rule and this user is not putting anything in their edit logs, so I ask for a third party to take a look. Regards. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not just say "crew" or "crewmen"? Seems like a much more neutral position. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Tankies" is slang - correct, but not really encyclopedic. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither word is ideal - tankie is slang for a member of the British Royal Tank Regiment not all British armoured crewmen. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'd suggest just using crewmen or crew. Avoids the entire issue. Intothatdarkness 19:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since someone new has taken up the editwar, I agree that this is the best option. I will make the change now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say, "tanker" and "tankie" both sound weird and/or a little silly to me. Entirely endorse the "crew" suggestion above. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As an ex tank crewman I would find the term "tankie" insulting because it refers only to the RTR - not to those of use who were with the cavalry. We tended to cock a snook at vulgar comments like that.  In all seriousness though: "tanker" is US slang whilst "tankie" is UK slang for the RTR.  Tank crew or tank crewmen is much more universal and acceptable. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Contributions sought for the August edition of the Bugle
Ian and I are in the process of pulling together the August edition of the project's newsletter, The Bugle, and would like to invite editors to contribute reviews, op-eds, or anything else which takes your fancy. Contributions should be posted via WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom. Please contact Ian or I if you have any questions or suggestions. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

UK current brigade/regiment categories
Category:Current Brigades of the British Army is being discussed at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_12. Category:Current infantry regiments of the British Army might also be merged. DexDor (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible COI
Not having waded into the COI waters before, I'd like to get some advice from the MilHist community before engaging on this one. We've got an editor who's going through a number of articles and adding cites based on his own works (both books and articles). They're definitely primary sources (based on his own experiences), and each includes a link to his own web page. I had pinged him on his talk page a couple of months back regarding this, and from looking at the page he's had issues with this before. Is this considered COI, and if so what are the proper steps for engaging? Thanks for any advice y'all have! Intothatdarkness 13:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny I just read up on this earlier. If you read here Verifiability it clarifies that he can't use self published sources.  If his books and articles are published by a third party though he can use them - AFAIK. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If he's a recognised expert in the field, even WP:SPSes can be used, although still with caution and best if somebody else added them! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * He's not an expert. What's being added is memoir-type stuff, really. It's troubling because there are better secondary sources available for most of what's being added. Appreciate the input! Intothatdarkness 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Which editor are we talking about here? This is clearly against policy/guidelines, and requires admin involvement if previous interventions asking him or her to stop it haven't worked. Please feel free to email me if you'd rather not post this on-Wiki for any reason. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * He's a sporadic editor to Vietnam War articles dealing with the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) and LRRP subjects. Icemanwcs. I haven't directly engaged with him yet, although I have done clean-up work on some of those articles (including at least one instance where he added an incorrect citation based on an article he wrote for Vietnam magazine...the original source didn't cay what he claimed it said). Like I said, I haven't engaged on his talk yet...I wanted to get a better feel for how COI might be applied here. He's been pinged for some editing issues in the past, but no one has mentioned COI yet. Intothatdarkness 15:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Quick update - one of this editor's articles Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam has now been listed for deletion based on copyright concerns. Intothatdarkness 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Unassessed military history articles
Quite a backlog building up at Category:Unassessed military history articles. Now stands at 714 articles and growing but shouldn't be too hard to get under control if everyone does a few. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done a few more but its still at 681. Posting this as a friendly reminder to the rest of the mbrs of the project to chip in. Anotherclown (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the other members are as active with this category as with the other one above, this will take a year or two to clear out. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Saladin
Gday. I have some concerns about these edits:. Mostly its just poor English, but there may be a POV aspect as well. As I do not know anything about the topic though I cannot really tell. Hoping other editors might have a look and deal with it if its req'd. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Those edits look like anti-Kurdish POV-pushing to me; as far as I know, all conventional historiography on this subject states that Saladin was of Kurdish rather than Turkic ancestry. The substantive changes to the meaning of the text without any change to the associated citations is also very suspect, in my opinion, regardless of the accuracy of the factual assertions themselves.
 * My recommendation would be to revert the edits, but that's going to be difficult due to the intervening edits (and partial reverts) since that time; someone will probably need to go through the article by hand and reconcile the various changes. Kirill [talk] 12:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, they seem very odd (including the removal of at least one source etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look lads. Unfortunately it doesn't look like someone with sufficient talents is going to come along soon and unpick this so I just used the sledgehammer and undid the lot. Probably not the best approach but I've left a note explaining myself. Will see what the blow back is. I'm actually not even interested in the topic, just stumbled across it and couldn't leave questionable edits to remain due to the importance of that topic. Happy to be challenged on this and for someone to suggest a better approach though. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's generally a good response to this kind of unhelpful editing. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ship article and the ship class article
INS Vikrant (Vikrant class), an article created today by User:FormerIP, copies a lot of its content exactly from Vikrant-class aircraft carrier, a much older article from 2006. The new article was also posted at In The News here. But I am concerned about the extent of repeated info. What should be done in such a case? Which info should be kept in the article of the ship's class, and which info is better suited in the ship's own article. I am unsure, hence I am posting here. Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, in a nutshell, design should be gone into in more detail in the class article, with construction and service being gone into more detail in the ship article. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The title was also wrong; per WP:NC-SHIP, the disambiguator should be by year of launch, not by ship class or type. I've corrected this.
 * As for the balance between the ship and class article, you might look at SMS Prinzregent Luitpold, which is set to run as the TFA in a few days. Parsecboy (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I have made the changes. :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 07:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Joint Svc Commendation ribbon.jpg


image:Joint Svc Commendation ribbon.jpg has been nominated for deletion. But it is not the same as the stated vector version, image:Joint Service Commendation ribbon.svg. Which version is correct? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The jpg (left, with the red stripe) is the ribbon for the Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM) and is duplicative of File:U.S. Joint Service Achievement Medal ribbon.svg already in use. The svg (right) is the correct ribbon for the JCOM.
 * Per  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the SVG link on the JPEG -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Biography of a dog?
Looking at Category:Military history articles with no associated task force, I notice that half a dozen of the articles are about dogs. I was going to start assigning task forces, but is "Biography" correct? Can a dog have a biography? I note that Biography
 * A biography or simply bio is a detailed description or account of a person's life.

Hamish59 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would believe that certain notable animals can indeed have a "biography" about them. Greyfriars Bobby is one such dog, and I'm sure there are countless more. The Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "biography" uses "someone's life" to qualify its meaning, and animals are "someone", I don't think the term can be strictly limited to humans, as even fiction characters have biographies, despite not being a real "person" or "someone" in real life.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's 60 animal biographies in Category:Recipients of the Dickin Medal alone. NtheP (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The work biography come from the Greek work "bios", "life", I think, and as such I think would be suitable for a dog. I also can't think of what I'd term an equivalent work for canines - at the risk of being flippant, a "dogography"? :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rin Tin Tin was the squadron mascot of the United States 135th Aero Squadron in World War I Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. Hamish59 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. While it is a bit weird to use the word "biography" for a dog, I agree with the others.  But what about Mary of Exeter, she was a bird.  Chrisrus (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It would seem a bit odd, but since "biography" literally is "writing about life"...  TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura  18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At least with a bird, we'd know the article wasn't a shaggy dog story... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with image caption (Burundian Civil War)
Hello,

Can anyone add anything to this (rather anemic) caption - approximate date, who they are etc. would be invaluable! It's an important part of the Burundian Civil War article and features in the infobox.Brigade Piron (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hrm. Other than the gun on the right is a Russian PKM? Not much I'm afraid. Without information from the photographer with things like this, it will be very hard to give the other contexts in my experience. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I actually managed to find a bit more and have updated the description in the file. Apparently they're Tutsi paramilitaries (the brown beret, in fact, being the indicator). Thanks for your help! Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

German MilHist Journal for free
I just discovered that for the month of August, the German publisher Walter de Gruyter made available all e-content from recently acquired publishers Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag and Akademie Verlag for free. All three publishers are within the top German language academic publishers. Out of the programm most interesting for this project is the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift from the German Armed Forces Historical Research Office. You can access them over here (download as PDF file is also possible). As the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift regularly publishes articles in English, not only users who understand German should take a look at this and browse through the available issues. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's excellent - thanks for posting this. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Info: The downloads are not allways available. If you cannot download it, try again later. For everyone who is able to read and understand German and has an interest in German milhist, use the search in the upper right corner to search Wehrmacht or Bundeswehr, there is a number of excellent books dealing with this topic and many of them are marked as Zugang erworben which means they can be downloaded until 31 August. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Convoyweb?
Hi, a quick question for a more experienced editor. I've been writing Convoy QP 11, and I'm wondering if Convoyweb is a good enough source to use for the list of ships in the convoy. I have good sources for everything else, but none of those sources have a full list of ships. Any advice would be appreciated. Howicus (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a reliable source because Arnold Hague is a published author on WW2 British naval topics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Howicus (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Do ship accidents
need to have their own article, as INS Sindhurakshak Explosion and Sinking, which copies information word-to-word from the "2013 explosion" section of INS Sindhurakshak (S63). Does a sinking of a submarine at it berth deserve a separate article. We do have the article ROKS Cheonan sinking, but it was a war-like incident with international ramifications. Just asking for some valuable suggestions. Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 00:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Attempts at redirecting this unattributed fork were reverted by the creator, so it's now at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Information operations and warfare
I have proposed merging both Category:Information operations and Category:Information warfare into a new, combined category, Category:Information operations and warfare. Your participation and input would be welcome. Cgingold (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Afghan National Army content dispute
WP:ANI is effectively a content dispute happening at ANI. User:Fareed30 believes I'm being unnecessarily negative about the ANA, and I believe he's being very loose about sourcing and using U.S.-affiliated unreliable sources (DOD being positive for publicity reasons) which don't match what the academic specialist literature is reporting. Third opinions and edits would be extremely welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon's victory at "the battle of Pass Stub"
In Schloss Rosenegg I cite a source that refers to Napoleon's victory at "the battle of Pass Stub". To what might this refer? (Please feel free to fix the link in the article). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Guadalcanal American Memorial
This page, which is not on the WikiProject Military history list, could use some work. I've done some editing, but I'm afraid I'll over edit.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis
Jefferson Davis is now a Good Article. Omnedon (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Category suggestions?
Howdy MILHIST folks! Anyone with some knowledge of 17th century Spanish naval history want to have a crack at providing a couple of categories for Armada de Barlovento? I'm stumped. Stalwart 111  07:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with some Vietnam War articles
We have a series of articles concerning battles and units in the aftermath of the Battle of Khe Sanh and Operation Delaware which were all authored by User:Icemanwcs from articles he wrote for Vietnam magazine and from his book on the same subject. I've raised questions about copyright issues elsewhere but these articles also need input from outsiders. Right now I have Articles for deletion/Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam because I see no evidence of this as a separate battle, but I'm also looking at Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States) and wondering whether it is appropriate to have an article on a single company over a fairly short timeframe. All this stuff seems to have serious WP:OR issues as well. If I could get some advice here, since I'm not that strong on the period, I would appreciate this. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The separate infantry companies (LRRPs) are tricky because they went through some changes during the war itself (eventually combining under the lineage banner of the 75th Infantry Regiment). Some of the companies changed title two or three times during a handful of years. It might be best to combine them all in a Vietnam War LRRP article of some sort, although I'm sure some will disagree (or even fold them into the 75th, but that raises other issues). I've plugged through a couple of these articles making small changes, but just don't have the time right now to do a major rewrite. Intothatdarkness 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just an aside that similar company-level organization happened in the Korean War, but the coverage was extensive on each, so I made some of them into fairly lengthy articles; see Eighth Army Ranger Company, 1st Ranger Infantry Company, 2nd Ranger Infantry Company, etc. — Ed! (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a fair amount about the Vietnam units, too. Most of them were formed in-country and on an ad hoc sort of basis, so most never had the benefit of pre-deployment training or consistent lineage (until it was imposed with the 75th Infantry Regiment's lineage in about 1969). It wouldn't be hard to do some detailed articles for each LRRP unit...the issue might come when deciding what to call them. Intothatdarkness 20:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone take a look here?
CIA activities in Nigeria looks like it is only a copy of CIA reports from 1961. Should the entire article be rewriten? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge it all into History of Nigeria. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved it for a start to CIA reports regarding Nigeria. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like there are a bunch of articles about CIA activities in various countries. For example, CIA activities in Brazil looks to be solely about the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. 65.64.177.103 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

CIA activities in South Africa is the same as the Nigeria article: only a copy of a Cia report and nothing to do with military history. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

New task force
Hello,

I've just created a new task force on this page, dedicated to Belgian military history. I hope it will be a good addition to the project and would be grateful if anyone who's interested would join. Thanks! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

After a little help
I currently do not have access to my copy of Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction and Google books is of no help. I could have swore that he notes at some point that the Treaty of Versailles limitations on the inter-war German military provided an actual benefit to the German economy. I have not been able to find anything on the net in regards to this, so if anyone has access to Tooze or another source that discusses this information it would be much appreciated. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just checked my copy. On page 2 he states that the Weimar government attempted to develop stronger financial and economic ties with the US and France (and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world) as a means of asserting Germany's power after the size of the military was capped - he notes that West Germany successfully adopted a similar strategy after World War II. The other references to the treaty in the index refer only to its terms. Anyone who's taken Economics 101 will appreciate that diverting resources away from fairly unproductive areas such as the military to more productive sectors will have economic benefits (eg, spending money on tanks is less beneficial than spending it on steamrollers, as the steamrollers can pay for themselves and boost the economy by building roads while the tanks will only ever consume resources). Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When I am back at home I will check out page 2, that might be what I read. Although from what you have just said, perhaps it was not in Tooze's work after all. I wish I had taken better notes to be honest. I saw it and noted it would be an excellent point to raise in a draft I am working on about the treaty.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Voltigeur dab needed
please see Talk:Voltigeur.Skookum1 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The link from the bugle itself takes you to July still. I'd fix it but don't know how. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, and thanks a lot for pointing this out. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons that would benefit from input from Wikipedia editors who work on warship-related articles
Members of this project may wish to comment at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Stunteltje_refusal_to_gain_a_consensus, a discussion which revolves around whether it's useful to include "HMAS" in the category names of Australian warships on Commons. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/08/ Naming categories for individual naval and fishing ships. Bidgee (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Need input re IP edits to Audie Murphy
Need input regarding Army regulations and medals. This is a key issue in the medals awarded Audie Murphy. And it's gone back and forth with edits and reverts during the history of this article. I've seen this both directions all over the internet. I'd like to get it correct, either direction. I reverted an IP edit due to lack of sourcing and how they edited the lead. Their edit summary also mentioned that the Armed Forces History Museum is not an accurate site. My revert could have been partially in error, based on the subsequent edit summary by the same same IP. None of what this IP posts is sourced, which is the problem. But what if the IP is correct in what they post? Can anyone here clarify about Army Regulation 600-8-22,? Is the Armed Forced History Museum not credible? Was Audie Murphy awarded all medals for valor during his service, or was he awarded all but one? — Maile (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The link for a recent copy of AR 600-8-22 is here: AR 600-8-22. A better link to U.S. Army history might be here: U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle Barracks, PA. The Armed Forced History Museum appears to be a commercial enterprise, which might not be all bad, but I would be concerned about the depth of research and sourcing. Hope this helps somewhat. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The confusion might be that the Soldier's Medal was authorized while he was in the service, but it isn't a combat award. It is for valor not involving combat, such as saving lives, but not as a part of your official duties. I might be awarded to a soldier for saving the lives of victims of a car wreck and fire that the soldier encountered while on his way to work in the morning. Something of that nature. Sourcing of edits sometimes remains a problem with IP edits, but then sometimes editors neglect edit summaries in the same manner. Wikipedia...ya gotta love it! Cuprum17 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just reading the PDF on your above link that says that. Perhaps I just need to reword it a little. I had "every U.S. military award for valor available from the U.S. Army during his period of service" Maybe I should say "available for combat service at that time".  Otherwise, we're still going to have those who insist he won every medal, and those who insist on a declarative statement that he did not. — Maile  (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have an equitable solution in the making...perhaps using the appropriate section of AR 600-8-22 applying to the award of the Soldier's Medal as a reference to that kind of a statement would give you a little more traction in any edit to the article. BTW...congratulations on bringing the Audie Murphy to good article status...your first as I understand it. I can see from the articles talk page that it has been a struggle...hang tough! Cuprum17 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an A-class too. That was also my first.  The A-class review was the greatest learning experience I've had with Wikipedia.  Learned so much.  Next step is FAC. And thanks for your advice on this. Re the talk page issues, I can see why many GA, A-class and FA articles fall into decline. If you did a lot of work on an article, you either take the responsibility of constant monitoring, or it deteriorates one edit at a time. — Maile  (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deletion/Merge Discussion
As some of you might know, the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam article was recently nominated for deletion. The consensus seems to have been to merge it with Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States). I had proposed that the Signal Hill information be merged with Operation Delaware, which seems to be a more logical home for it. Company E was actually involved in much more than Signal Hill during its service in Vietnam, and such a merger would skew that article. Placing the information in Operation Delaware would add to that article and makes more contextual sense. I'm bringing this up here as I'm not sure if it's considered "proper" to conduct a merge that is contrary to what was proposed with a deletion close. As an aside, there were only three votes in that discussion. Thanks for any advice. Intothatdarkness 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move: Chelsea Manning → Bradley Manning
Discussion here: Talk:Chelsea_Manning User:Carolmooredc  19:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've seen some of the discussion on the administrator noticeboards about the moving back and forth of that article. I'm going to follow Falstaff's strategy of discretion being better than valour and avoid that discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Frank Worsley needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Frank Worsley; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Torpedo...Los! needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Torpedo...Los!; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/93rd Infantry Brigade New York National Guard
The draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/93rd Infantry Brigade New York National Guard has been submitted by an IP, but lacking a registered account it's hard to communicate with the editor, and by precedent its more likely this editor will get frustrated/bored after a draft of two and wander off, leaving this valid topic un-discussed. If anyone has a moment and interest, it'd be good to get this draft up to par and published, and I've already included some easy/convenient GoogleBooks refs to spruce it up. Thanks for any help, MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia. We are working together towards 5 big goals:
 * Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
 * Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
 * Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
 * Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
 * Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in  Introduce yourself   :-)

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed military history articles
I feel we need to focus on getting the Category:Unassessed military history articles to under 50 articles before it gets out of hand. Does anyone agree? Adamdaley (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, I agree. It started getting out of hand when most of us were focused on the June drive and I haven't really got back to it (and the task force allocations) myself. I'll have a crack at getting a few done this week. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Break from FAC
Just a heads up, guys, that on Sept 1 I'll be starting a long break from reviewing Featured Articles to free up more time and mental space for my copyediting software. I'll continue to participate in A-class reviews. Best of luck, and it's been a pleasure and an honor. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the software! Maybe you want to contact de:Benutzer:Aka for some help. He developed a few programs that search for typos and used them to correct > 300.000 of them. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, I'll do that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Query re U.S. state ribbon order of precedence combined with U.S. Military
Audie Murphy finally got the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor this week, and I included it on Audie Murphy honors and awards in a subsection below all U.S. military and U.S. non-military ribbons, awards, etc. The Institute of Heraldry does not cover precedence for this, so I went by Awards and decorations of the United States military, which is a largely unsourced article. User Audiesdad, who has been the most visible force behind that award happening, and who (IMO) seems to have insider knowledge of the Texas state legislature, has stated to me that the proper place for that award would actually be before the badges section. Can anyone please provide me with sourcing? — Maile (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that placement is a good one. The rules for the placement of state awards are extremely hard to find as are the precedence for them so its going to be tricky finding a reference for the placement. Generally any state awards come after all others including campaign medals and generally are only applicable for wear while a member of that state. They also generally only apply to members of the National guard although it is possible to request an exception from US Army headquarters. Kumioko (talk)
 * I have a vague memory that there used to be a National Guard Regulation that stated all state awards came after the lowest federally-awarded ribbon/award, but I just checked the NG pubs website and can't find any equivalent for the Active Army's AR 600-8-22 which covers awards. Maybe it's a single line in the active duty reg, but you can look for yourself at [www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_22.pdf]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)‎
 * FYI. I happened to have 600-8-22 saved on my computer.  Didn't find anything there.  But I did find: : 670-1.pdf. Chapter 29, "Wear of Decorations, Service Medals, Badges, Unit Awards and Appurtenances", 29-6 "Order of precedence within categories of medals" j. Pg 269: "Personnel will wear such awards in the State order of precedence, after Federal and foreign awards. Soldiers on active Federal Service under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, are authorized to accept but not wear State or Territory awards." That refers to Army National Guard personnel.  But that's as close as it comes to addressing this.  I think this might have been what you are thinking of Sturmvogel66 — Maile  (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's it, all right. Good work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review for Leeds Blitz
G'day all, a peer review for Leeds Blitz has been opened. Any interested editors are invited to participate here: Peer review/Leeds Blitz/archive1. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16
Do we really need articles comparing various objects? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That will depend on whether the comparison is useful. Int his case, that is at least arguable (the article makes a pitch as to why it is). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got that one on my watchlist to remind me why comparison articles can be a bad idea. eg the "Miscellaneous" section (I kid thee not) has the following gem in a large table under "Technical" for the M16.
 * "Trigger pull:
 * pull weight 5.5# – 9.0#,
 * creep .04” -.05”,"      (sourced to http://www.williamstriggers.com/page3.html )
 * Sometimes there is material that is not suitable for this encyclopaedia, and creep is an example of a stat too far. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes there is material that is not suitable for this encyclopaedia, and creep is an example of a stat too far. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes there is material that is not suitable for this encyclopaedia, and creep is an example of a stat too far. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's been discussed several times before, and we kept the article. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Need more sources and editors
The article List of wars involving the United States, is in dire need of sources and editors. As it stand now, it incorrectly lists the opponents of the U.S. during World War I as the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria. As this is a specialized list pertaining only to the U.S., the opponents section should only include those groups/countries that can be sourced. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk: Genocide of indigenous peoples
There is an RfC at Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples about whether that article should employ the narrow legal definition of "indigenous peoples" which applies mostly to "tribal people", or a broader commonsense definition that would include the holocaust as it affected Poles and other people who are indigenous in their European territories.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Treaty of Versailles By Louise Chipley Slavicek
Hi all, after a little help again.

Does anyone have access to this book? I am working on improving the ToV article and note that on page 95 she states "traditionally, the burdensome financial, military, and territorial terms of the Treaty of Versailles have been blamed for the rise of Adolf Hitler and fascism in Germany. A growing number of modern scholars, however, reject the view that...".

I have tried google books, but it will not let me see that page. If anyone could complete her train of thought, it would be much appreciated and go a long way to help completing another section of the work in progress article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can get the next eight pages, if you drop me an email I will send them over to you by reply as a pdf - Dumelow (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, I fired over an email earlier. Whenever you have time, that will be great. Cheers! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis
FYI, the Jefferson Davis article is now up for a peer review; it was promoted to GA recently and I'd like to take it on to FA. Thoughts? Omnedon (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:HMS Fortune (H70)
Just thought people would want to know about this, seeing as the ship involved probably has a low number of watchers. Feel free to comment/tell me I'm doing it wrong. Howicus (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Same organization?
I just came across the articles Union Volunteers and United States Volunteers. Are these talking about the same orgainization? Wild Wolf (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ye gods, that's a rough piece of work! Technically U.S. Volunteers are volunteer units raised by the Federal government in time of war (there were some during the Civil War, but the "Rough Riders" of Spanish-American War fame are a good example). That article seems to lump USVs in with state volunteers who were in effect Federalized during a conflict (there were state regiments in the Spanish-American War, for example). That article appears to confuse the two.Intothatdarkness 21:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus, the articles toss in references to one (or is it two?) civilian organization(s) seeking to recognize veterans.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And don't forget the non-profit thrown in for good measure. There were United States Volunteers regiments in the Civil War.  There were ten regiments of United States Veteran Volunteer Infantry, six regiments and one independent company of United States Volunteer Infantry, and 119 regiments, 22 independent companies, and 10 batteries of United States Colored Troops.  None of these categories were recruited from individual states.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So is this one organization or two? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * USV was a legitimate category of service. The Union Volunteers thing (which is also inserted into the USV article) looks to be some sort of non-profit. Two distinct organizations - one with an actual military basis (USV) and the other some sort of non-profit (Union Volunteers). Intothatdarkness 19:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If these were two separate groups, then the articles should be rewritten. As it stands now, the Union Volunteers looks like a short version of the USV article. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like anyone has changed these articles yet. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles still look the same. 65.64.177.103 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Still the same. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No change yet. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So change them... Intothatdarkness 15:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Light Tank Mk VI
I removed an addition to this article due to the questionable sourcing - a blog commenting on a game and referring to a forum. That said, the content is not impossible so I'd like to ask if anyone can verify it, or correct it, by more conventional and reliable means.

This was the addition, I've removed the ref tags.

"After the evacuation of Dunkirk a handful of vehicles were converted by Alfred Becker to carry a 10.5 cm leFH 16 howitzer an armored superstructure, the self-propelled guns were sent to support the siege of Leningrad where they apparently remained operational until 1942. http://ftr-wot.blogspot.com/2013/04/105cm-sfl-auf-geschutzpanzer-mkvie-new.html "

Thanks GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is some information here http://beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer/uk/mk-VI/spg-mk-vi-1.htm. This might not count as an acceptable source but there are references to German language books which may help. Monstrelet (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also referred to in Chamberlain, Doyle and Jenz's Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, which refers to a "small number" being converted to carry the LeFH16, with a 4 man crew - designation stated is 10.5cm leFH16(Sf) auf Leichte Panzerkampfewagen Mk IV 736(e) - presumably the Mk IV rather than Mk VI is a typo.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page
I have updated Missing topics about Military - Skysmith (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page
I have updated Missing topics about WW2 - Skysmith (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

""
The usage of is up for discussion, see Talk:Boomerang (Australian TV channel) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Still working to get this cleared out. Any help will be appreciated. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Battle of Dogger Bank (1915) here's one.Keith-264 (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it will take a heck of a lot more than a single edit to clear out this category. We should probably have another backlog reduction drive, especially since so many of the original targets were in negative territory (in one case the "progess" was negative 150 percent of goal). 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dogger needs the Citations criterion endorsing.Keith-264 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Slowly working through some of the C articles. Looks like we've got about 1,400 C articles to work through. 65.64.177.48 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm doing pages which lack citations where I've got the sources, while I have a rest from the Somme pages....Keith-264 (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Down to about 1,300 articles starting with C. If only a few people could do just ten articles per day, then we could empty out this category in a hurry. 65.64.177.83 (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Still trying to get through the C articles. One big problem right now is that I can't do this each day. Unfortunately, the category seems to always get larger during the time I'm away. Any and all help to get this category emptied will be greatly appreaciated. I've already come across several "articles" which are actually redirects but have MILHIST templates on their talk pages. 65.64.177.43 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Made it past the 3% mark. Still needing plenty of help with this. If the hundreds of "participants" could do just 20 or 25 articles per week, a significant portion of this category could probably be knocked out in a month or less. Don't need it done each and every day (although it would be very helpful) but any help would be appreciated. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was only asking, you're awfully rude 64.Keith-264 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Badgering isn't likely to attract any help, 64. I've done a number of these over the last months, as I'm sure others have also. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing in on 4% completion towards goal. About 1,200 C articles left. Still need help with this. 65.64.177.51 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Past the 4.5% mark. Probably less than 1,000 C articles left. This really would be easier if I could get any kind of help with this. 65.64.177.102 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost to 5%. Still need lots of help. At this rate, it will take me about ten years to get through all these articles. 65.64.177.100 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To the person who edited under the 65.64.177.100 IP: you need to take care when doing your assessments. You have assessed several articles (mainly ship ones from what I can see) as B-class when they are clearly not. I have fixed several of these eg, this and this but there are others. I notice the same issue looking at the contributions on your 65.64.177.102 IP, and I'm hoping your other IPs aren't the same.  You really should register so you can check your past edits more easily.  Zawed (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost down to 16,000 articles. Still needing plenty of help. Seriously. 65.64.177.83 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Past the 6% mark and less than 16,000 articles to go. The category is always growing inbetween times that I edit. It is not that difficult to add a checklist to the MILHIST template. If you are not completely sure about assessing an article, then you can ask for help at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. This will go much faster if more than one person works on this. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As Zawed pointed out above, please be more careful in your assessments. Articles with numerous cn tags and a refimprove banner at the top (such as this one) in no way meet B1. You are creating more work for the rest of us by incorrectly assessing articles. Parsecboy (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Made it past the 7% mark. There are probably less than 800 C articles left to go through. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Being new to this project, I'm wondering what criteria places articles on this Category. The first one I clicked on Chicago Military Academy is appropriately rated as a Start class. IMO it is a long way from even C class, much less B class.  Perhaps someone can shed some light on whether or not this B-class assessment push is just to review and assess as is, or is it to take each individual article and personally improve them up to B-class.  I notice the Category itself says "Articles are automatically added to this category based on the parameters in the project banner template." Does that mean a bot added these articles to the Category?  If this is just about assessing articles, then perhaps the sheer number could be reduced by a bot reassessing what is in the Category. — Maile  (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The actual assessment of the article doesn't affect this category, if it's Stub, Start, or C. What does is if the B-class Checklist is filled out; if B1 through B5 all have 'y' or 'no' specified, then the article won't be in this category. If however only some of them do, then the article gets listed in this category as needing further assessment. (I'm not sure what happens if the checklist is omitted altogether, I should admit.) - The Bushranger One ping only 12:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is no checklist in the banner but is classed above Stub in the class= field, it still gets placed in Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. So, most of the articles in that category have been assessed as Start class, but don't have the checklist filled out. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Past 7.6% complete. Only about 600 to 700 C articles left. This really would go so much faster if more than one person helped with this. At the rate I'm going, it will probably take at least three years for me to do this category alone. Considering that articles are continually being added to this category, it will most likely take far longer. This is not a difficult job. Seriously. Just try it. Remember, if you have any doubts about your assessment, just ask for help at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. They will help. 65.64.177.53 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the continual desperate pleas for help. This isn't a timebomb. Fireworks don't go off if you get the number of articles down to zero. It's a labor of love. You either like what you're doing, or you don't. If you like it, then do it right. And if you don't like it, then stop. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been desperately pleading for help because I can't get any help with this. At most, someone might do a few articles now and again, but no sustained effort. Mostly I have been the one to clear out this category. When I come back from being away for a couple days, the category has started going up again. It would really, really, really help if more than one person did this. 65.64.177.53 (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I have just got the category down to 15,690 articles. I probably won't have a chance to work on the category for a few days. Most likely, the category will go up over the next few days, not down. 65.64.177.42 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You can get "any help with this". So what? That doesn't really answer the questions about why you're so stressed about it, and why you are nagging others. I do tasks similar to what you're doing at other projects, but I don't complain, and a couple years passed before anyone noticed. I am sure everyone here is grateful for your efforts, but good will is hampered by your nagging. Do the work you like, and do it well. There's no reason to need or expect help nor thanks. If you get either, it's a bonus. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Boneyard. Some of us are busy creating content, reviewing or doing gnoming in other areas. Just crack on and sooner or later we'll have another sustained drive aimed at reducing it further. In the meantime, your efforts are appreciated, but please stop bugging everyone about it. There are no deadlines for this type of thing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing in on 9% complete. And I'm not looking for good will or thanks, just help. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * After getting back into the swing of wiki here after my hiatus I have reviewed many of your B-Class assessments and feel you need to slow down and take the time to complete the checklists appropriately. I also find this constant plea for help unwarranted and detrimental. In my time here I have completed quite a few assessments; well more than you. This isn't a race, nobody is twisting your arm to complete a backlog. We are all volunteers who contribute in our own ways. Consistency in assessing, while staying true to the B-Class guidelines is key. This ad hoc approach makes the grading scale pointless overall.Molestash (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * After quite an extensive reassessment of the articles 64.6.124.31 has competed I believe the user went through and blindly copy, pasted B-Class checklists to add a B rating to all articles in the backlog for the sake of a number. I believe this is almost and issue of WP:COMPETENCE with the editor unable to grasp the harm of their edits. Out of a sample of 29 ship articles all were assessed the same with articles with like the USS Tide (SP-953), USS Thornton (DD-270), and USS Swordfish (SSN-579) receiving equal assessing and varying in quality and problems clearly and extensively. Only 1 was a true B-Class Article creating a 3% success rate. With this I believe no progress has been made and 64.6.124.31 needs to be coached or temporarily blocked to prevent further disruption. --Molestash (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...oy, vey. I concur on that. (See also ANI on the matter). - The Bushranger One ping only 16:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What was (will be) done? I gather that what 64.6.124.31 was doing was just visiting pages and adding  (thereby completing the B Class checklist by making the articles all B Class.  Has the amount of damage been assessed and are there plans to clean up the residue?--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As of yesterday, it seems to be still happening, and no consensus has happened at ANI. Activity on this went into a lull after Aug 23, and picked up again on Aug 27. However, is it just me, or does it seem like this IP is making an amazing number of these edits in rapid fire? The history says it takes one minute per article. That seems like a lot of edits without a bot, when you take into consideration pulling up an article, inserting, and doing the save.   — Maile  (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked at this IP's edit history and he is doing an assessment a minute in some cases. I am of the opinion that someone is going to have to eventually go back through his edit list and re-check each article that he assessed or the assessment process doesn't mean a damned thing. To give each article a fair B-class assessment takes me at least 15 minutes because I like to check the accuracy of the references if I can. This is another good reason that all editors should be registered...it only means more work for someone else to clean up this dude's mess...only my opinion, of course.Cuprum17 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This IP's edits to WP MH B-class assessments on the talk pages date back to November 2010. If I am reading User Contributions @ Toolserver correctly, this IP has made 1800 edits to talk pages since 2010. Maybe not all of them were related to assessments, but it still seems like the number involved in doing a rollback  could require a bot. — Maile  (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Maile66 is correct. Some edits were reversion of vandalism of articles, reassessing articles as stubs, redirecting the talk page to the appropriate article (when the "article" the talk page is associated with is actually a redirect), etc. Mass rollback of every edit would require someone to go back and redo these edits.


 * In the remainder of the cases, reverting these edits would remove the checklists, which would add these articles back into the category. The whole idea behind the category, I assume, is so that people can add a checklist to the talk pages. Adding talk pages which need a checklist would not resolve this problem.


 * Each article is linked to at least one task force of this project, many times more than one task force. If the assessments are truly in error, then the members of the concerned task forces can make the necessary adjustments. There would be no need to revert the assessments as done. 65.64.177.50 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Progress
Just to track our progress:

Discussion to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the WikiProject United States template
Greetings, there is a discussion regarding removal of the logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories from Template:WikiProject United States. Most of the categories (over 220 Wikipedia wide) were deleted in February 2013 because they were empty. These categories were previously populated by a bot that hasn't run since 2011 and the categories aren't used. Removal of this uneeded/unused logic will greatly reduce the size and complexity of the WikiProject United States template. Any comments or questions are encouraged here. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lest there is any confusion for people who don't speak the same language, the words "logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories" refer to the feature that was supposed to allow this WikiProject's template to "inherit" class and importance ratings from other WikiProjects. Kumioko says that there are no longer any bots performing the function that formerly copied those ratings. --Orlady (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Code of the United States Fighting Force
This article reproduces the entire code; a few months ago someone suggested moving the code to Wikisource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Should this be moved to Wikisource? 65.64.177.50 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cognitive traps for intelligence analysis
This article has been tag for over a year as being "written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject". Has it been changed enough for the removal of this tag? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not likely. That tags means the article should go through some major rewriting.  But there's been little or no rewriting there since it was tagged in March 2012. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Most all the articles listed in the template at the bottom of the page - Template:Intelligence_cycle_management - suffer from the same flaws. But is "Cognitive traps for intelligence analysis" really an encyclopaedic topic? Would an AfD be too much of a sledgehammer? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea, I'm not sure if these type details really belong on Wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you could PROD it and see what happens. AfD is always there too. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Several international military organization templates are up for deletion
See Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_30 where these are mass-nominated -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Diagram needed
I've been working on the article on the JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Shinano and an editor has requested that I add a diagram showing where the four torpedoes that sank her struck. I have minimal graphic skills and drawing such is beyond my skills. If anyone would be interested in working on this or knows anyone who might be able help, please email me via my user page and I'll send you the scanned diagram that's still under copyright for you to use as a source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Medal farms
Just removed big block of medal images (duplicated) from Nick Houghton, I know these had become fairly common on American biogs but they are starting to creep into others, didnt we discuss that these were a bit over the top and not needed? MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case, they seem to be particularly unnecessary as there is a photo in the infobox of him with the real things across his chest. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * G'day, I don't think it necessary either. Additionally, as a few of the ribbons don't seem to have references, I'd question whether or not it consistutes original research. I'm currently working on Gordon Bennett (general), which has the same issue. I've proposed to remove the ribbons on that article's talk page due to lack of referencing and inconsistencies, and am hoping for some consensus to develop. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment my change has been reverted and the medal ribbon fest has been restored with comment by User:Nford24 that Talk:Nick Parker as a precedent, although that has zero discussion on the matter. Not that familiar with the project guidelines but can I propose that these medal tables are not required as most of the medals are just not notable enough to mention, the normal undecorated list of referenced notable awards has done us OK I cant see a need for this ugly ribbon blocks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any guidelines or consensus on how to implement these. I remember there was a sudden spurt of them being included on articles a couple of years ago. I really don't like the look of them and they are rarely sourced and very hard to source. I much prefer the table form as in Slim. Monty's shows what is wrong with this though as it is just cherry-picking awards to show and it is uncited. Take a look at this actual picture to see what his medal entitlement actually was. Woody (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Concensus has been reached for military bio's on this very wikiproject - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 111. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 10:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus evolves and changes. I also think it's hard to isolate what the consensus was in that discussion. A medal farm that isn't backed by photographic evidence is OR or Synth. If you have a picture then either use it, or create a illustration of it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (I'm confused by your statements. I'll follow them up with you on your talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC))


 * (EC) Thanks for that link, I thought there must have been one at some point. That's not to say that we can't have another discussion to see whether consensus has evolved. I've just had a glance at that RFC and can't actually see what it comes up with as an agreement. What was the result? As ever, agree to disagree seems to be the agreement. Woody (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been MANY discussions on this topic, in many places, at many times. See my comments below. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Consensus changes. Personally, I think they are unnecessary and padding. Most of the ribbons are for non-notable service and awards. Who cares if someone has the "Battle of Long Gong"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Who cares if someone has the "Battle of Long Gong"? - Answer: Someone who has seen the ribbon, and wonders what it means - particularly if an ancestor or relation has one. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather saddened that, yet again, a rear-guard action is being mounted. I've been watching this topic closely for over 6 years, and the simple facts of the matter are that there is a body of editors who don't like ribbons and don't think they are useful, and there is a body of editors who think that one of the jobs of an encyclopaedia is to inform the reader, and that the only way to do this is to display the ribbons and explain what they are. (You get no prizes for guessing which "body" I align with.) What really saddens me is that the rear-guard action almost invariably presents an endless series of opinions (rarely reasoned arguments) which almost invariably fall into the category: WP:I just don't like it. (Although, of course, they would NEVER admit that.) I don't present myself as un-biased on this matter, but I must admit I find it irritating when those who just don't like it abandon discussion and debate and insist on their divine rights. Although he disagrees with me on this topic, the most sensible discussion I've had (on this topic), both in private and in public, is with User:Ian Rose. He actually bothers to argue from a basis of facts, using logic (not opinion or emotion.) Before we progress much further, I think it would be productive to conscript Ian into the discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pot, this is kettle, over... Your "I just don't like it" could be equally rendered as "I just like it". YingYang, blah blah blah. "I am not unbiased" means "I am biased". Just as you find it irritating, so do I. It doesn't sadden me, I just think it is unnecessary and largely irrelevant puffery. What encyclopaedia, in your experience (other than this one), includes a huge gaudy depiction of ribbons, some of which mean little more than someone was in their armed forces and did more than the most basic period of service, or got their orienteering badge or whatever? Please. You yourself have entered this debate as naked as a newborn child in terms of reasoned arguments. What "facts" are you arguing from? I also respect Ian's opinion, but that does not absolve you from bringing a cogent, reasoned argument for inclusion of these fruit salad collections. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh good stuff! So well-balanced. So unbiased. So well argued and so well reasoned. Etc. - NOT!!
 * I was trying to be polite, even handed, declaring my biases and interests, trying to point out it's not black and white.
 * I'm so glad you joined in with the same spirit. (Yes, that is a sarcastic comment.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be useful for everyone if you had a good hard look at your own words. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * a) I doubt it. b) I don't understand your comment or your intent. c) It's bedtime here. Goodnight. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * a)of course you do, that is the point b) that's called wilful blindness and c) it certainly is. Goodnight to you, sir. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's all keep playing nice...! I hope Pdf isn't being too kind to me in his statement above; he's certainly been my most generous "enemy" as far as this subject goes... ;-) At the outset, let me say that I think he and other proponents for ribbon displays have always argued from sincere motives, as have those who oppose such displays. Now, to reiterate a few things, in the words of Rafer Janders in The Wild Geese, "I'm going to give it to you emotionally at first, and then rationally if I have to..."
 * One reason I don't think we should display ribbons is that they simply seem out of place in encyclopedic articles. In the past, without wishing to offend anyone, I've suggested that such imagery would look more at home in a children's book, and I'm afraid that's still how it strikes me at an emotional, or at least part-rational/part-aesthetic, level. I say that as the son of a bloke who had eight bits of salad on his chest as testament to the fact that he put his arse on the line in ways I've fortunately never had to do. One of those, the Air Force Cross, marked him out from his fellows. The remainder were for being in a particular place at a particular time -- often a dangerous place, to be sure, but no different to thousands of other blokes. That's why the AFC is worth mentioning, as we'd mention and link it in any awardee's WP bio, rather than the others. Note that in informing you all of his decoration, I found it quite enough to link its name -- if you want to see the ribbon, and indeed the medal itself, all you have to do is follow the link... ;-)
 * Now for the more obviously rational arguments... I fully accept what Pdf says about people being interested in a ribbon as a pointer to what it meant or how it might have been earned. My argument against displaying the ribbons in WP biographies of individual service people is that people can find out what ribbons mean by reading an article on a country's honours and awards, a central repository. They don't need to see the ribbons in a particular person's bio for a general appreciation of certain medals. Related to this, I've also heard the argument that displaying every ribbon, even for campaign and service medals, in an individual's bio helps explains more of the person's history. To me, this argument from an informational perspective might hold water in a Stub or Start-Class article, but as soon as you get to B-Class and beyond, I'd expect the detail in the article to touch on the campaigns and battles in which the subject participated, rendering a list of the campaign and service medals (with or without ribbon images) redundant. In any case, as I and many of those who argue against these display have said before, the awarding of campaign and service medals is not at all notable in WP terms, and wouldn't rate a mention in Who's Who, national dictionaries of biography, military encyclopedias or even in many dedicated biographies. That should tell us something about whether they belong in a WP article, which is supposed to summarise mainstream scholarship.
 * So, a way forward? The last RFC certainly produced no consensus that I could see for the inclusion of medal farms in articles. Obviously I don't think they belong and would prefer we could agree a guideline that said so. There should be no argument about disallowing material based on assumptions, or an editor's interpretation of a grainy photograph, but what about those cases where there are reliable sources, e.g. in a person's file, for each and every medal? I stick to my contention that campaign and service medals are not notable enough in WP terms, and add no information to a well-researched article. I'd prefer we could all agree that and all articles went by the same rules. If the consensus really is that there's no right or wrong answer about displaying campaign/service medals, I'd at least like to see the final decision left up to the main editors of an article. That would keep our American brethren happy I think, since they tend to display ribbons for all badges and medals more in their bios than Commonwealth ones, and it would eliminate drive-by medal farm additions, whether cited or uncited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favor of medal farms for the reasons Ian articulated, but there are also some other concerns. Campaign and service medals/ribbons are hazy at best, as are awards given to units and not individuals. There's also the question of historical context. Within the U.S. military ribbons have grown exponentially since World War I, and at the same time there have been accusations (well-founded in some cases) of lowered award standards for some of the medals (the Bronze Star in particular has been a source of squabbles). This progression makes more recent bios "look" more significant (since the medal farm will be larger) than an older one. Intothatdarkness 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been argued about repeatedly. There are reasons for and against the ribbons but frankly I'm tired of arguing about it. I think there can still be some compromise to display them discretely or professionally while still making them available on the article. However, it seems obvious to me that those who are opposed to them are going to continue to reargue it until they get their way and are allowed to remove them. It doesn't seem to matter that this has been discussed to death multiple times in the past nor that it has always come back to keep them. Its going to continue to be resubmitted until that one, and they can be stripped from the articles. So at this point my thought is go ahead and remove them, do a bot, rip them all from the articles so we can stop arguing about it. It doesn't matter that ribbons are an important part of ones military service history, it doesn't matter that in some cases this is the only place where they are displayed in the correct order, it doesn't matter that countless hours have been spent adding them and getting them cleaned up. Lets just get rid of it, then we can remove all the infoboxes, portals, external links and all the other stuff we fight about. Then we can delete the articles themselves because there won't be anythign left except one line saying this guy or gal did something some time ago and Wikipedia doesn't care enough about it to display it without fighting about it every couple months. Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel the need to play the martyr card but I think you'll find that a number of people who argue against the inclusion of these medal displays have spent "countless hours" in the library or on the net researching and writing serious articles on military personnel, and believe that their credibility as encyclopedic works is compromised by the presence of such ribbon farms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)






 * The reason it keeps getting raised is it is still an issue that needs to be discussed, consensus and ideas change all the time, I raised it this time as when you come across article with displays like the above, two sets of medal ribbons which dont mean anything to readers and the inclusion of medals that are frankly not notable in these bios. All the arguments why it looks a mess and doesnt add to the article have been dealt with by Ian Rose, frankly it looks amateur and not encyclopedia, some of the decorations at the bottom of the list are so common that they would never feature in an article without images and I suspect any article that climbs up the quality ladder. Should we add ribbons for everybody with a GSM no so we have no reason to even mention them in the article. Also note the article that the above came from had a good image of the subject Nick Houghton and clearly shows his medals. Although I support no ribbons at all, that said perhaps a compromise is possible but as minimum we need to get rid of the campaign, jubilee and general service type medals and the as worn flag fests. In the "example" only three are really worthy of note the GCB/CBE and Legion of Merit. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes your right, they do change, but its neither appropriate nor professional to continuously resubmit it every few months until they get their way. I grant you it happens all the time here but one Support vote after having 5 or 6 opposes concurrently shouldn't be enough to rip them all out. With that said, I do agree that having the display as you posted above is a bit much. IMO, either showing them in order in a table or showing the ribbon display with a table below it showing the order are fine individually, but not both as is above. One example is Smedley Butler (which is an A-Class article or Kenneth Walker (which is an FA) another example of a possible professional way to display them is Ross A. McGinnis. I am also ok (although its not my preferance) to have them in a collapsable table at the bottom of the article (Sorry I can't find an example immediately). That way if someone wants to see them they are there but otherwise those that don't like them can simply ignore them. Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a middle ground here? For example, include only the Category:Courage awards in the medal farms?-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if we display them we need to display them all. There are multiple options to doing this though as I mentioned above. Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to support a limit on what's displayed as proposed by Jim above. Intothatdarkness 16:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My issue as a somewhat naive reader is that most of them don't mean anything. It's already something of an issue for the passing reader to know what the names mean, but the ribbons are obscure to anyone outside the field: of the various American bar ribbons I recognize maybe four. It would seem to me to make more sense to list the ribbons by name and to divide them between valor and service awards for clarity. I recognize that the fruit salad is more or less readable by those familiar with it, but it doesn't do much for anyone else. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * User:KumiokoCleanStart, I believe Thomas Blamey (FA class) shows a collapsable table. I can't speak for the American editors who add all of the badges/flag etc. on a bio but this is a basic look of an Australian article's H&A section. This is from David Hurley the current Chief of the Australian Defence Force. As you can see (below), not too many Australian honours but several foreign ones. The award of the 'Federation Star' (on an un-notable award for 15 years service) on a long service medal is actually quite an event.

Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that in Hurley's case, we'd only care about the AO, DSC and the foreign awards. The rest are campaign or service medals, dime a dozen. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the awards that distinguish him can be listed and linked in the infobox (without the need for ribbons, big or small, just as there is no need either for images of flags of allegiance or ranks that are spelt out and linked) -- the rest don't need to be there at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I'm not that familiar with the British (or other coutries) rules for the wear of awards. If it is something that is worn on their uniform and could be seen in pictures of them, then its probably worthwhile to display. If its something that they just give out as a commemorative medal and not worn on the Uniform, then it doesn't need to be displayed. I have spoken to a lot of people where I work that are not familiar with the wear and criteria for medals and ribbons and I can tell you that a lot of people have told me that they were glad that their Wikipedia entry said what it was because they didn't know. Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's complicated. For those countries that use all three types, they are arranged as follows: orders, decorations, then medals. Orders are organised first by level and then by seniority of the order (so the highest level award comes first; where the individual has awards at the same level in different orders then the oldest order comes first). Decorations and medals tend to be subdivided into categories (bravery, distinguished service, long service and then commemorative) arranged by date or receipt. Foreign awards come after all domestic awards, usually arranged by date of receipt. Naturally there are lots of exceptions to this, for example the British (and some Commonwealth) systems is complicated by having the highest level military and civilian bravery awards before the highest ranked award of the most senior order.
 * For what it's worth I think the medal farms look tacky; biographical articles should be based on the notability of the individuals in their own right, not on how many shinies they're allowed to wear. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. So, if it is more complicated to determine then it seems to me that only showing a few, will simply cause people to add the rest in. So we are back to 2 options, take them out or leave them in. We already have enough trouble on articles where sources differ or don't show all the ribbons and people add them in, knowing they have it, but with no source. I see this as being the same thing. We are going to be making a lot of work for ourselves if we only display certain ones and not others. As I mentined before, I think there is some wiggle room for comprimise and I a m totally fine with allowing the editor of the article some latitude how they are displayed when they are developing the article, but I do think they need to be there some where in some form. Again though I do agree we don't need to show the display and again in a table. Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as an all-or-nothing matter. I see no reason why we couldn't just list the notable ones in the infobox and have a section (or even a table) listing all the gongs (as long as they are sourced) in order of wearing. The main difference I see between editors here is not between listing all their awards (or none of them), but whether there is a need for the colourful ribbon farm to pictorially represent them all when any reader can click on the link to look at the article on each specific gong. To me it's just unnecessary fluff (and unencyclopaedic). Again, I've never seen a hardcopy encyclopaedia that did it. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. I appreciate others have a different view. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

See also...WP:MILICONS — Ed! (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Which doesnt really help other than say we dont have a consensus, but I am sure with a bit of work we can work out a compromise, I think it is down to two issues:


 * listing and depiction of non-notable awards (really anything that doesnt have a category) which in my opinion should not be allowed with or without images, that should not be to difficult to agree as it should be the status quo viz notability.
 * notable awards - really down to image or not, I dont like images but perhaps we could agree to restricting them to notable awards if required (that is not mandatory), and then only in medal tables and not as worn presentation (which if you remove the non-notable stuff will not work. In most cases the table would not be used, it doesnt fit well if you are showing citations and background info on each award, so the number of medal tables (and images) would in most cases be limited. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I don't think the infobox should be the only place where they are listed as suggested above because the infobox should just be a summary. So, although we could but some of the key awards in there, that's not the place to list them all anyway.
 * Second, by not listing all there awards in the article we are not giving a full and accurate account of the individuals service. Especially if military service is what that person is notable for.
 * Third, not everything needs to have a category. Just because it doesn't have a category doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article. We usually list kids and spouses in well known articles if we know them but we don't have categories for Biographies with spouses or children.
 * Lastly, this discussion illustrates to me the the difference between academics that know history and study military history and those that ave served in the military and lived its history. One side views the ribbons as childish while the other see's them as an important part of military culture and life. You call a campaign medal non notable and I can tell you that the campaign was just as non trivial as the award they received. But anyway, this is just another in a long line of examples of things where Wikipedia is changing not for the better and in the long term it will only serve to limit our usefulness and our readership. Which frankly is inevitable anyway at this point. Kumioko (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Firstly - I dont see any mention of restricting honours and awards to the infobox it is usual in nearly all mil biogs to have a honours/honors and awards section.
 * Secondly - Sorry dont understand this some awards are given for being in the right place at the right time and given away in large numbers, having for example a 1939–45 Star is not notable and I cant see any reason to mention it, same goes for things like the jubilee/coronation medals given to loads of people with no notability to a career. You mention a "full and accurate account of the individuals service" this should not include trivia and guff and some of the medals come under trivia.
 * Thirdly - the category idea was just to find out which honors and awards are notable not sure what kids and spouses has to do with medal categories, do we really have Category:Son of somebody with a big gong.
 * Lastly I have no idea what you are on about in the your last section, I think you are saying you should mention everything including trivia and such like so that historians and academics will remember them, it is not the place of wikipedia to mention every bit of trivia, do we need to mention everybody who fought in the second world war had a 1939-45 star, but that doesnt make the second world war trivia.

It is a bit sad that I read the replies and views above and tried to come to a compromise between the views expressed, but it doesnt appear people are willing to move any ground. MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No what I am saying is that Campaign medals and several of the other medals aren't trivia as indicated above. Here in the US we don't wear commemorative medals on our uniforms so for the US Bios probably don't need to mention those. I'm not sure about other countries so we might need to approach them differently. I think there is still room to compromise I just don't think showing the top three ribbons is the right way to go. Then we'll be fighting about that, what is notable or non notable. Its all subjective. But as I said in the beginning of this thread I'm tired of fighting about it every few months so at this point I don't really care if someone runs a bot and removed them all since we are going to keep having these discussions every few months until that happens anyway. That way someone can say the last 10 times we said keep don't count and consensus has changed. Which it really hasn't, we just got tired of talking about it. Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside for my education, as a non-american I assumed that all these medals are worn when some are clearly campaign type awards most of these dont appear to be particularly notable, are you actually saying they are not worn by the individual? MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All of these ribbons would be worn yes. There are a couple exceptions on his badges though. Someone with a Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) would probably wear that instead of the EIB and someone with Military Free Fall Jumpmaster Badge would probably wear that instead of the Master Parachutist Badge. Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is probably where we have an issue with terminolgy most of those are just non-notable campaign medals and the like, not an expert on US medals but most except a few at the top could be culled from that article in my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So, in summary we should not use images of medal ribbons except users may use them for notable awards when in a table format. So not cumpulsory to use them but if you do then only for notable medals (that is those included in Category:Courage awards), perhaps we should amend MILICON and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not really what I got out of that discussion but as I said above, its going to continue to be submitted until enough people vote or not vote to remove the ribbon bars from the articles that there's no point continuing to argue about it. With that said, this whole debate falls squarely into the area of something that WikiProject's do not have the authority to do anyway. Just like the desire of some project to not allow Infoboxes or WikiProject's who won't allow another project to articles with that projects tag. This will just be another one of those occasions where a couple of active users in 1 WikiProject set guidelines that all the others are supposed to follow. Discussions and decisions like this are among the reasons I am losing faith in the success of Wikipedia. Kumioko (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to butt in here, but this matter is clearly within the jurisdiction of WikiProject: Orders, Decorations, and Medals too. I have no feelings on the matter whatsoever, but any outcome to this issue must consider debate from both this and the other project before a decision is arrived at. WP:MILHIST seems to have a bit of a reputation (I hope undeserved) for taking decisions among itself for matters which also fall into other project's jurisdictions without considering their thoughts or points of view.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest changing "jurisdiction" for "area of interest" - wikiprojects may have (editors with) expertise and experience but they have no other claim to preference over articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Guidon of the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars.jpg
There's a request for assistance in fixing the licensing and things for this file by its uploader on my talk page. If anyone can see anything that would need to be fixed up, that'd be appreciated. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I uploaded the file and copied the licencing from File:Image of QAMR Guidon.png which has been there since 2007 without interference.  That gave me the confidence that the licencing was correct.  A bot seems to have found fault with it.  I've made a couple of what I see as sensible modifications such as the inclusion of a Crown Copyright tag.  SonofSetanta (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

GAR
NATO, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 RAN International Fleet Review - Photo requests
The Royal Australian Navy is hosting an International Fleet Review at the start of October in Sydney Harbour. It's running from 3 to 11 October, and I'm taking most of that off work to get photographs of the ships attending. I'll be aiming to get general shots of all attending warships and tall ships, but if anyone needs a particular image (for example, from a particular view, or a closeup of a particular feature), let me know and I'll see what I can do for you.

I've put a list of attending ships up at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships. List any photo requests you have under the particular ship's section, along with any details I may need to get the shot you want. -- saberwyn 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Update Infobox recommendation in MOS?
WP:INFOBOXUSE - ''The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.''

I would like to propose that we consider changing this recommendation, since for many taskforces, such as Maritime Warfare, its extremely unusual to not have an infobox. Can we perhaps do a survey and/or a table of A/FA articles w/infoboxes by taskforce? I appreciate your comments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk (talk • contribs)
 * My reading of the Arbcom case is that it's not going to help us find answers, but they're almost finished, and I'd prefer to wait for their decision before making any changes to our guidelines. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I shudder at the moment with mild pain whenever infoboxes and the mandation (or banning) of them are mentioned.... I'd second Dank that this doesn't seem an ideal moment to be reviewing our guidelines, and we'd be better off waiting a few more weeks. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Waiting is probably a good idea - I wasn't aware of the controversy until now. Kirk (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I third that motion. Better to focus on content for now, and worry about infoboxes when the dust has settled. bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My read of that Arbcom case is that nothing at all is likely to change - but even if we weren't waiting, WT:MILHIST isn't where changes to WP:INFOBOXUSE would be proposed! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Our B-class crierion B5 requires that an article contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. Thus, military articles are required to have an appropriate infobox. That having been said, there are some articles for which it is hard to find an appropriate one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, the key word in that criteria is "appropriate": if an infobox is not appropriate for an article, the article does not need one to meet B5. Diagrams (another item listed) are also inappropriate for many articles, so are not included in many B- or higher-class articles. -- saberwyn 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7, the key word in B5 is "or". An infobox or an image or diagrams. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I suppose the issue is whether an article can get by without any supporting materials. I've got one: Russian Alsos. I cannot find any decent pictures or an appropriate infobox. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost every article I write is a milbio or a milunit so the infobox is a no-brainer, as it should be for battles, ships, aircraft, vehicles... However I respect the primary editors' wishes re. other articles when an infobox may not offer so obvious a benefit. In the case Hawkeye mentions, if you can't produce decent supporting materials despite your best efforts, at least you tried... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Complete structure of the US military
I found this open link to the Rallypoint structure chart of the ENTIRE US Military! down to company level, with all ships, all air squadrons, all National Guard units, etc. etc. etc. the only units missing (as far as I can tell) are the tier-1 Special Forces and the units of the Defence Intelligence Agency: https://www.rallypoint.com/universe As RallyPoint is a kind of linkedin for the active US military personnel I would assume it is up-to-date and reliable. Any suggestions how we can use this? noclador (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick check of a couple of Air Combat Command wings indicates it is not complete. Tactical units appear to be complete as do maintenance units, but support units assigned to Mission Support Groups (typically a Civil Engineer Squadron, a Communications Squadron, a Contracting Squadron, a Force Support Squadron, and a Security Forces Squadron) were not listed on the ones I checked.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, European Command and Africa Command appear to be missing their component commands, and even under the Navy I could not access COMUSNAVEUR. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For some of my old units, companies are missing and locations are wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oh, I did not expect that! I thought it would be a good source for us to check up on the US military structure. noclador (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Need sources for Challenger 1 reliability and QRIH in GW1
I'm adding a section at Queen's Royal Irish Hussars about their involvement in GW1. Where I'm running into trouble is being too dependent upon Hugh McManners' "Gulf War One" but it is the only source I can find which speaks in depth about the unreliability of Challenger 1 prior to the war. I don't want to find the section tagged "needs more sources". Also, getting sources on the Irish Hussars in this war is like finding hen's teeth. Can anybody point me to a couple of nice sources for both subjects? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From memory, the Osprey book Challenger Main Battle Tank 1982–97 has some useful material on problems with the tank (I read it last year and, if I remember correctly, the author argues that the tank was inferior to the other western designs of this period). It also covers the operational service of the tank during the Gulf War. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick and thanks for the link. I got a good crawl over this tank when it was in the design stages and I know what the developmental problems were.  It was basically an upgraded Chieftain though so it can't be seen as a "bad" marque.  My colleagues who did crew it (I didn't, having left by that time) don't have any unkind things to say about it.  The major issue appears to have been the RR CV1200 which I find odd but prior to GW1 all the tanks which weren't going were stripped of everything and left as shells in the hangars - on blocks!  Never saw that in my time on Chieftain. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I need some help/advice with the article on the limitanei
It has a lot about farmer-soldier-colonists, and a lot of speculation about their role, without adequate sources, and which contradicts the sources I'm using so far. I think I need to emphasize that there are disagreements, for example, on whether they date to Diocletian or only to Constantine I, and that there are changes, for example Justinian cancelling their pay. I don't see any suggestions on how to (re)structure this kind of article, either. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a mess, isn't it? Here are some suggestions. In the lead section, I'd reposition the last two paras into the text - this section should be a summary, not a first stab at trying out a controversy.  I'd start the whole history section with an overview of the restructuring of the Roman army (whether by Diocletian or Constantine) to place them in their historical context.  Then talk about their role and the various theories.  This could include strengths and weaknesses.You have in there, uncited, Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire theories, which could be dusted down and cited.  Then on to equipment. Finally, the end both in the West and the East (modern excavations on Hadrian's Wall could be referenced for the Western part and, perhaps, possible survivals in Frankish gaul).  Overall, the article has an Eastern Empire slant which might be addressed with a wider range of sources.  I'd be happy to do the structural shake up but don't have the resources to hand to really get into the detail.Monstrelet (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy of Luttwak to sort through his claims. I inherited those, unreferenced, from earlier editors. I am focusing on the east because Treadgold is an important source, the Eastern Notitia is more intelligible, and the later history is a bit... less unclear. How about history, organization [with status], roles [with the farmer-soldier controversy], and then equipment? Ananiujitha (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would do it. On history, I do think you need the context of the Field and Border army split.  Ideally, some examples of limitanei functioning as soldiers would be good.  I'll see if I can hunt out Luttwak and put a reference in.Monstrelet (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put Luttwak in and done a few more bits, including the reference to Azar Gat's book into a citation. When I have time I'd like to re-edit the farmer-soldier section, to make a more coherent discussion of the theory.  I'd like to ask fellow members to help, if they can, by checking the Gat cite to see how much of the paragraph preceeding it can be attributed - it was unclear in the original edit and I don't have access to the book.  One big area that may need tackling is the referencing system, which would benefit from a change to a list of reference titles and then refering to them by an author/date/page system - is there a bot for that? Monstrelet (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The farmer-soldier section contains quite a lot of redundant text. I will try to remove it and I will also help in improving the reference system.--Dipa1965 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help add Signpost boxes at the top of this page?
The Signpost interviewed this WikiProject on at least three different occasions: in 2009, 2010 and 2012. There is a box at the top of this page that links to the 2012 interview, but there is no link to the two other interviews. I wonder if anyone here can add those links. Thanks in advance. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey
Take a look at this. The creator of the article needs t expand greatly on it. B-Machine (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed formatting images in infoboxes
I've noticed over the past couple of days that on some articles, images won't format. They'll go in ok on their original size which is much too big, but the moment I apply formatting the image disappears. I've currently been unable to correct this problem at Prince of Wales's Leinster Regiment, Royal Irish Regiment (1684–1922) and Northern Ireland Security Guard Service‎. If someone could take a look for me and see what the issue is I'd be very grateful. Don't just fix it please, let me know HOW you fixed it so I can see where I'm going wrong as I'm using the same syntax I've always used and never had a problem before. Thanks in advance. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've sussed it. As strange as it may appear the answer appears to be to leave three spaces after the word "image" in the infobox. The apply the syntax. Anybody else come across this? Thanks to Hamish 59 for doing the Leinster Regiment. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Prince article only has 1 space before the image link and the image shows fine (??). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot take any credit for that, SonofSetanta. I was only trying to play around with it.  Hamish59 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be a common rationale for inserting images. I've come across at least three ways to do it in the past - this is a new one.  Hamish I note how you did it and I tried that way too but it didn't work for me.  I'm wondering, as I have been all along, is it something to do with my own PC? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I made a mistaken change, then reverted myself back to the original - which now renders correctly, whereas before it did not. If it is something to do with your PC, then mine has the same problem!  Hamish59 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's bizarre, that's what it is. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination announcements
Hi all! No GA nomination created after some point on 1 September will show up automatically at WP:GAN page. According to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations a bot performing that process was shut down and each new nomination need be posted at the GAN page manually using syntax (x being the number of the GA review of the article). I see five such MILHIST-associated nominations are already missing from the GAN page right now. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Greek naval and land tactics in the 5th century BC
The "Comparing Land and Sea" section needs some copyediting to remove the second person. Also, this article has been listed as an orphan since December 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to merge Palatini (Roman military), Comitatenses, and possibly Pseudocomitatenses into Palatini and Comitatenses
All three articles are stubs. They deal with higher and lower-status units within the late Roman field armies. There don't seem to be many distinctions beyond status and beyond some unit titles [there are auxilia palatina in the palatini, but no auxilia in the comitatenses, but that's about it]. There are a lot of controversies over the reorganization of the late Roman army, whether Diocletian or Constantine I was responsible, how large it was, etc. that are easier to address in a shared article than three separate ones. Ananiujitha (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Only Pseudocomitatenses looks like a stub, the other two do not, though "Comitatenses" is missing sourcing. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been working on Palatini. And if we exclude the list [which is incomplete and potentially misleading], Comitatenses is still a stub. Ananiujitha (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I put the merger proposal at Talk:ComitatensesAnaniujitha (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone recognize this MG?
? Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A St. Étienne Mle 1907, perhaps? Kirill [talk] 00:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you're right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt in my mind. Good pick up, Kirill. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Another WWI French machine gun so bad they passed it to their allies.Monstrelet (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FAR notification
I have nominated Sylvanus Morley for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have left a message on the review page. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation template
Does anyone know if we have a cite template for The Edinburgh Gazette there is one as I suspect you all know for The London Gazette {London Gazette|accessdate=8 September 2013|date=3 May 1898|issue=26963|startpage=2747|url=http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26963/pages/2747} but I tried a word change Edinburgh for London and nothing happened, other than the red no article link. Its for an award of a DSO which I found announced in the Edinburgh but not the London Gazette. I wonder if anyone has come across this before and can help. Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Jim. I believe adding the city=e with the London Gazette template should work. See Template:London Gazette.Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Queen's Guard and tourists
There is a request on the Queen's Guard talk page requesting an addition to the article outlining how guards are required to behave towards tourists. Besides lots of YouTube videos of guardsmen yelling or even shoving the most obnoxious ones, I'm blessed if I can find a reference that would support an entry. Can anybody help? Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the official protocol. http://changing-guard.com/changing-guard-buckingham-palace.html SonofSetanta (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And another - http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/how-to-be-a-queens-guard-4916 SonofSetanta (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The section Queen's Guard does seem to have been copied and pasted (with some very minor changes) from http://changing-guard.com/changing-guard-buckingham-palace.html . The site does display a copyright tag, is this whole section a copyvio? Benea (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Easy to fix if it is. Just do a rewrite.  SonofSetanta (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There you go - did it for you and reffed it out to http://changing-guard.com/changing-guard-buckingham-palace.html. Let me know if that's ok.  SonofSetanta (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Prompt and efficient - thank you one and all. Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

War of Jenkins' Ear
Any chance we could get some second/third/fourth opinions on the outcome in the infobox on this article? There is a persistent IP with an army of socks trying to change the result to a Spanish victory, despite a number of sources indicating English language sources do not treat it as such. Normally I'd just revert and treat as TE, but this time the IP is trying to discuss its proposed changes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Third opinion provided.  Cdtew  (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion needs input
Please consider commenting at stalled merge of Sikorski's death controversy and 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash at Talk:1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! 50th anniversary drive now in WP:TFAR mode
The WP:TFAR nomination for Whaam! is now open at Today's_featured_article/requests to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. I presume that after nearly 700KB of discussions some people may be interested in this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Expert opinion needed re- mortar or rocket fire
Can anyone help with the discussion about a picture of Jerusalem. Are we right to dismiss the artillary option? Would mortars leave such clear evidence of their flight path? Is flares the correct answer? Padres Hana (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the drop off in the parabola is too sharp for them to be mortars or artillery. Flares do seem to be a more practical answer.  You can see the parabola reaches its apex then the objects go straight down.  That's the type of behaviour I would expect from something which reached terminal velocity at the apex of the parabola and then fell straight to ground, something like flares, not parachute flares though - I think there would be more of a lateral signature with those.  Wait for other opinions though. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Progress with Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Just to track our progress. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

UK MoD photos again
I see there's already been comment on User:Fæ's uploads of photos from the British MoD. It's worth pointing out that Commons:Category:Images from MoD uploaded by Fæ unhelpfully lists them by name, it's easier to go to the source at http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/ (OGL pics are in the "Downloadable Images" section), identify a photo there and then stick its name (eg 45155235.jpg) into the search box at Commons (which will take you to File:RAF Tornado GR4 MOD 45155235.jpg). In particular, someone at the RAF has obviously been going through some old photos recently and releasing them under the OGL, which means at long last there's a bunch of nice photos (currently on p2 of the above site) of planes carrying things like Brimstone, Paveway, Storm Shadow and Litening, which we're a bit short of at the moment. Ideally it could do with someone cropping out the individual weapons. Plus Commons:Category:Images uploaded by Fæ has lots of images (including the US DoD/NOAA) that need categorising.... 86.31.194.232 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominations now open for coordinator election!
Hello everyone! I'm pleased to announce that the 2013 project coordinator election process has now begun. We will be electing a new tranche of coordinators for the coming year; if you're interested in running, please submit a nomination statement by 23:59 UTC on September 14. Kirill [talk] 11:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that we are about 48 hours away from the end of the nomination period; if anyone is still considering whether to run, you'll need to decide in the next two days. Kirill [talk] 04:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking for contributions for the September edition of The Bugle
Hi everyone, this is the regular reminder that Ian and I would appreciate any and all input into the next edition of the project's newsletter The Bugle over the next few days. Op-eds and reviews of any length would be very welcome, and new ideas for article types are encouraged. All contributions should be posted at WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom, and please contact Ian or I if you have any questions. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope of Aircraft carrier article
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Aircraft carrier about what the scope of the Aircraft carrier article should be, especeally as to whether or not amphibious assault ships that operate STOVL aircraft should be included. Any help in reaching a clear consensus about this issue would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Military award categories up for deletion
FYI, several awards categories have been nominated for deletion, see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11 -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 10 and Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 8 -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 12 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 13 -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Splitting "X and WMD" articles
Many "X and WMD" articles (eg United States and weapons of mass destruction) have subarticles for biological weapons. A couple have subarticles for chemical and nuclear weapons. For some reasons developing this model along the logical path seems controversial. I don't understand why, or what to do about it. A separate article is generally easy to do - the "WMD" concept is pretty artificial and there's often very little overlap in the history or references of C/N/B weapons. I'm sure the WMD articles need to remain, but really they should focus on the overall military strategy of C/N/B, particularly where there are explicit links between them. So... now what? NB the proximate cause is that I wanted to create Syria chemical weapons program in order to have more room to properly describe and develop that. But the issue seems much more general. Podiaebba (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested input for Special Mission Unit discussion
There is a discussion at Talk:Special_Mission_Unit regarding the future of the Special Mission Unit article in regards to possible deletion/expansion or maintaining the status quo. I would welcome any participation in the discussion regardless of inclination. Thanks, — -dain  omite   22:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Progress with Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Just to track our progress. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A-class articles
This wikiproject has the most complete system for evaluating A-class articles. I would like to make a suggestion:

I think that it is important that Wikipedia develop an system independent of the featured article system for judging quality on the basis of expert analysis. To that end, I've started an A-class quality evaluation program at WP:PHYSICS. I would like there to be more acknowledgment of expert review for Wikipedia articles. This was inspired in part by some rather negative experiences I had at WP:FA, but I think the best thing now is to move on and develop a parallel system that will identify excellent and high-quality articles independent of the featured system.

To start, I'm beginning to rate certain articles in physics that I think could exist in serious and professional reference works on the subject. Hopefully, other physics experts will join me in this process.

I just wanted to let you know about my hope for this endeavor and also to query whether this project was aware that FA was considered "better" than A-class in some quarters. To me, this seems inappropriate. An article rated "A-class" can and should remain that designation regardless of whether it is featured. FA should be independent and indeed, I think, it is important that WikiProjects are not superseded by the FA-process. Thoughts on this matter are greatly encouraged.

jps (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, we seem to be running into each other a lot these days... ;-) Anyway, I said recently on WT:FA that I was always up for a good faith discussion on ways to improve article quality, and I meant it, so some thoughts from one with feet solidly placed in both the FAC and the MilHist A-Class Review camps... First off, I don't know that too many people at MilHist are concerned about FA being regarded as a higher level of article assessment than A-Class. However, we do see our A-Class process as pretty rigorous, and therefore very close to FA in terms of overall quality (I've gone into the relationships of WP's various assessment levels in an 2012 editorial for our monthly newsletter, The Bugle). I agree completely that A-Class is the ideal place for expert review, as I said in a recent comment at WT:FA. I've always seen it this way, and believe this is natural for a project-based review system given that commentators have similar broad interests and are therefore more likely to be able to comment of the content of an article, as opposed to its stylistic elements. I think A-Class Review (and/or Peer Review if no A-Class process exists for an article's subject) is also a logical place for commentary by outside experts who may not be familiar with WP style conventions but can offer great value re. the information in an article. Let it not be said that I therefore regard FA as being purely about ensuring suitable prose and style. Rather, I think that the content of an article should ideally be worked out and solidly in place before it gets to FAC, at which point its polish in terms of prose, style and accessibility can be evaluated by editors of more general experience and expertise. So the bottom line, for  me, is that while I don't see A-Class as superior to FA, I believe it's a highly valuable review and assessment process that should be encouraged in any project with the community to support it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently, the belief of other editors is that FA supersedes A-level. I'm rather taken aback by the resistence. *Sigh*. It seems that a member of WP:ROADS wants to keep the hierarchy at Template talk:Grading scheme which is rather insulting to A-level articles. Meanwhile, at WT:PHYSICS, a physics editor claims A-level reviews are a PITA. Great. Isn't this place wonderful? jps (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Um...the project is well aware that FA > A. That's...kinda the way it's always been. (Note for instance the scoring at WP:MILCON, A-class to FA-class is a +5.) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should it be that way? jps (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because FA is the "capstone" for an article's progression. There's no reason why it shouldn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would that it were. FA is an act of consensus and does not require expert review. For that reason alone, the FA-process accommodates the existence of 1) excellent, high-quality articles that do not become featured, and 2) featured articles that are terrible and do not represent a high-quality writing on a subject. jps (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then that calls for reforming FA, not for making an end-run around it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if I were in charge.... but I'm not. GA started as an end-run around when someone was fed up for different reasons. jps (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In practice, a road FAC where the article has not passed a road ACR generally results in an automatic fail at FAC: Featured article candidates/A82 road/archive1. The only ones like that where the article has passed are ones where the nominator has been through several road ACRs and FACs and knows what to expect, but even then it makes for some very unhappy road reviewers who now have to do their ACR review at FAC. --Rschen7754 05:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also no shortage of military history articles which crashed and burned at FAC when an editor nominated them for this status shortly after the article passed an A-class review. This project's A-class criteria were deliberately designed to be watered down FA criteria, and the difference in quality between A-class and FA standard articles is significant. As such, it's generally necessary to expand and revise articles between a successful ACR and a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame that so many people consider the rating system to be so hierarchical considering that there is no requirement for a featured article to be carefully reviewed by an expert and that people who have issues (like myself) with the featured article system have no recourse. It seems to me that such a review would be useful for a lot of content. jps (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know anyone interested in military history who wants something different than what the current review processes offer? - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The hierarchical structure has been a pretty consistent view of the ratings across WP for about as long as we've had a stable article-rating system; I can't ever remember it being otherwise. The only part that hasn't really settled is the GA to A transition, with the result that the two still coexist and an article can be A+GA or simply A. This anomaly is probably just because we have so few A-class articles, and they're so concentrated, that there hasn't been much pressure to develop a WP-wide interpretation of it. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominations for the coordinator election close in 24 hours
As a reminder, nominations for this project's coordinator election close in 24 hours (at 23:59 (UTC) on 14 September). Editors who are interested in volunteering for this role are encouraged to post their nomination at WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2013. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As a final reminder, there's one hour to go! Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer review for New Guinea Volunteer Rifles
Gday. For anyone interested I have requested a peer review for New Guinea Volunteer Rifles fol a recent rewrite. Hoping for some assistance / suggestions from anyone knowledgeable on the New Guinea campaign or just able to look over it for prose / MOS issues. The peer review can be found here Peer review/New Guinea Volunteer Rifles/archive1. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator election begins!
The election to select the project coordinators for the next twelve months has now begun. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories for US Air Service World War I units
A number of US squadrons are directly placed in. While looking for an appropriate narrower category, I saw that is a direct subcategory of this Category, while  is a subcategory of  and there is also a subcategory of   called   US Aero Squadrons seem to be randomly assigned to these categories.
 * It seems to me that should be moved to become a subcategory of  and all squadrons directly categorized under  should be moved to  (I assume that a bot can do this).  Knowledgeable editors can then determine which should be moved to the combat category.
 * should not be a subcategory of . It is both a broader and a narrower category.  Using the common understanding of "Air Service" to include the Air Service of the AEF, I believe the WW I categories should be included as subcategories of this category instead. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is SCaMeR?
What's our actual article for the Strategic Choices and Management Review? I've looked around, but couldn't find it. Hcobb (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission
Care to inspect this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And this one? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured List formatting correction needed
List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories has the References section duplicated, the second one appearing below the Navboxes. The second one should not be there, but I don't see anything in the Edit window that tells me why it's there. This article became a FL in 2009, and the duplication was not there when it gained FL status. Can someone please go in and correct whatever makes the References duplicate that way. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The references, bibliography and bottom of the page templates are transcluded using Template:List of World War I flying aces/Page bottom. I have fixed the duplication by removing the extra references section that was added at some point in the last couple of years, and adding hidden comment explaining the issue, as it appears to be a point of confusion. I don't know why the initial author of the list chose to use transclusion (it's a rather unusual style)... Dana boomer (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this so quickly and explaining what you did. — Maile (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

MilBio AfC
See WT:CANADA where a milbio AfC has come up for discussion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, look at my previous post (about 4 before this one). There's another one below, but related to an RAF base. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the duplication, I didn't see that one. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

HMS Grasshopper (and Locust-class gunboat) related sources
Hi all, does anyone have any sources that could be used for the description section on HMS Grasshopper (1938)? I own the original book on Judy, the ship's mascot, published in 1973 and so I have a source for the wartime operations. But it doesn't go into the general characteristics (which had been already filled out in the infobox, although it turned out the builder was originally incorrect). Miyagawa (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the infobox based on Lenton. The armament that you gave differs significantly from Lenton. He gives 2 x 4-inch guns, 8 x .303 AA MGs and a 3.7-inch howitzer. Does your source say anything about changes to the armament while in China or in Singapore?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox was mostly filled out before my amedments - I pretty much only expanded the prose. As the shipbuilder was previously incorrectly listed I would imagine that it may be that the infobox information was actually for a similar gunboat (possibly the same class). So I expect that Lenton was correct - certainly the Judy book makes no mention at all of any changes to armament or refitting, although it did mention refits to the Gnat (so I figure they would have made mention of it). Miyagawa (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, so I'll change the infobox to reflect Lenton completely and start the description section. Another issue is when she made it to China. Lenton says that she wasn't even completed until 1 June, but the Times article says that she was transferred in April-May. Does the Judy book give a precise date when she arrived and received the crew from Gnat?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Skimming the article, these might not actually disagree; "completed" might mean "received full armament, last fittings, etc". Is it possible that she would have been sent out while not officially completed, expecting to finish fitting out with weapons etc in Singapore or Hong Kong - unlike a heavy warship, you wouldn't need a fully-equipped construction yard to do this in, and it might also have made her more seaworthy for the voyage. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a possibility. I don't have access to the Times, but I wonder if there are any more articles that mention Grasshopper around June that might clarify things?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's just the four articles in the Times archive that I can find on this Grasshopper (there seems to be plenty of hits on one of the older ones. On January 7 1939, she got a brief mention to say that she was to be launched on January 19. On the 19th she says that "The Grasshopper is one of four gunboats which are building to replace vessels well over 20 years old on the Chinese rivers. She will be of 585 tons, armed with 4in. guns, and will have a complement of 74 officers and men." - the article then goes onto the Kelvin and the Kipling which were launched on the same day from a different builders yard. On April 14, it says that she has left to travel to China whilst being manned by the contractors and is expected to arrive on May 24. Then the last mention is on 25 February 1970 in an article about Judy. I'll go find where I've put the Judy book as for some reason I only seem to have a cookbook about Pastry and three books about Pinner here for some reason right now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just checked the Judy book and it doesn't make any reference to Grasshopper's armament. I checked both the chapters with between the switch (which only gives the date as June of that year) and the sinking, and also the appendices at the back. It did remind me that I must include the story of three of the crew who didn't trek across Sumatra, but instead decided that they sailed to India using a map torn from a Dutch schoolchild's atlas becoming the only members of the crew who weren't captured by the Japanese. Miyagawa (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've dug out the old NMM ship-history files (linked from somewhere either here or WP:SHIPS, I forget where I got them) and the very brief entry for Grasshopper gives a clue - "June 1939 commissioned at Hong Kong". No sources cited, sadly, beyond the NHM files! Andrew Gray (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's still helpful and confirms the account in the Times while not contradicting Lenton.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part of the warship histories?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone check the Gnat armament? I'm wondering if the contractors sailed the Grasshopper without her guns and then removed the guns from the Gnat and installed them on her. That would leave the Gnat a little bit more seaworthy for its redeployment to the Med, and they could refit her en route and re-arm her on arrival. All completly hypothetical mind you. Miyagawa (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator
There is no talk page concerning the subject so if this isn't the place please redirect. I made a spelling correction at (WP:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator) and ran into the following sentence:
 * "If you are unsure which of the task forces are considered to be low traffic task forces then ask, our returning coordinators will be happy to tell which task forces are considered low traffic and, which ones you can sign up for and not have to worry too much about your absence of knowledge on the are covered by the task force.". I couldn't make sense of the following, your absence of knowledge on the are covered by the task force, so could someone correct this, or me if I am having a "brain dead" day? Is the word "are" suppose to be "area"? Otr500 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's supposed to be "area". Having said that, the process of having coordinators assigned to individual task forces was discontinued last year, so the entire blurb should probably be removed.  I expect that we'll go through the page in detail and update it as needed once the current election concludes. Kirill [talk] 16:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will just leave it then. Otr500 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles
G'day all (esp User:Kirill Lokshin), I have no idea what is wrong with the banners on the two articles currently listed under this cat. I have changed them to list=no (as they are GA and were apparently rejected at FLC), but to no effect. Can anyone spot the obvious mistake? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the banners, per se; what the category is doing is flagging articles with titles of the form "List of X" which are not marked/assessed as lists. If the two articles in the category aren't, in fact, lists, then they should probably be moved to more article-like titles. Kirill [talk] 11:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * okey, makes sense. Have suggested a move for both. Thanks for the advice. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 19
This link points at a proposal to delete some named ODM recipient categories. However, the reasons quoted are much wider and could affect all recipient categories. Please consider and add to the consensus.

The categories under consideration may be valid candidates for deletion if they are merely campaign medals, however one of the proposer's arguments is that list articles are more appropriate than recipient categories (an over-categorisation argument from a guideline is used). A counter to this is that list articles require more effort to maintain and use and are less flexible than categories. Another argument concerns whether the ODM is a "defining characteristic" of the person; I argue that this varies from person to person and could be subjective: we accept that Victoria Cross recipients are notable if only for that award, but that award may not be what "defines" that person. Dwight D Eisonhower was a Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour (a notable award) - this is not a "defining characteristic" for him but it still needs to be categorised for completeness.

Please add your views. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI on the TFD for Template:WikiProject United States
Just a general FYI but the arguments being used to delete Template:WikiProject United States here also apply to the template of this project. You might want to take a look at the justification being used since it seems that template for this project could be next. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

After confirmation
Hi all,

I am working on updating the Treaty of Versailles article and I have reached the following paragraph. Considering the numerous errors and unsourced comments in the article, I am after a little confirmation on the below to ensure it is accurate. If anyone has access to "In Hitler's Shadow", could they confirm that Evans does in fact make the below arguments? I have checked google books and only have access to snippet view, which is not very helpful considering the lack of quotes in this particular argument.

"The British historian of modern Germany, Richard J. Evans, wrote that the German right was committed to an annexationist program of Germany annexing most of Europe and Africa during the war and in some cases before 1914 would have found any peace treaty that did not leave Germany as the conqueror unacceptable to them (Evans, p. 107). Short of allowing Germany to keep all the conquests of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Evans argued that there was nothing that could have been done to persuade the German right to accept Versailles (Ibid). Evans further noted that parties of the 'Weimar coalition', namely the SPD, the DDP and the Catholic Center were all equally opposed to Versailles, and it is false to claim as some historians have that opposition to Versailles also equalled opposition to the Weimar republic (Ibid)." -Evans, Richard In Hitler's Shadow, New York: Panatheon 1989 page 107

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Antitank rocket launchers currently in use by Russian forces
See List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces -- rocket and missile lists. Anybody have an idea of what might actually be current in terms of the RPG-series weapons ? It seems quite a long list of items to fulfill a single operational role at the current time. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the older systems are probably accessible, stored in state warehouses. This would be the impression given by Suvorov, Inside the Soviet Army, and I have reason to believe that the situation had not fundamentally changed in c.2005. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission
I'd appreciate it if you could advise what the notability criteria is for RAF bases. See this example. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, any former military base will be notable because it was a military base - see for instance Category:Closed facilities of the United States Air Force. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the MilHist notability guide doesn't go into bases, but I tend to agree with Bushranger. I think any permanent base (that is, could be disused now but was more than just say a temporary airfield) would probably justify an article. Even temporary bases might be notable if sufficient literature exists concerning them, or if they evolved into civil facilities. In Australia, for instance, several wartime military airfields became permanent civil airports, e.g. Gove, so their military history is rolled into the modern airport's article.
 * There are several series of books which provide in-depth coverage to all RAF airfields, so I'd say that they're notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was used for active flying over a period of time, I'd lay money that at least someone wrote a book on it. A small history by local authors might not add up to much significant coverage but there will be coverage in other books, as the general subject is popular so I'd say you could start an article with the expectation that the sources are there, and that there will be incoming links from other articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer review for Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty needs attention
A few editors are needed to complete the peer review for Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested Australian and New Zealand articles
Gday. I've just gone through and updated the list here: Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history. So if anyone from that part of the world is looking for some work to do this might be a place to start. Of course if you can think of any others please add them. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's MoH
Chamberlain's MoH has been found. I'm not sure how to best incorporate that into his article.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  00:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's on my personal to-do list, but then again, a complete overhaul of General Chamberlain's entire article is on my personal to-do list; it's a bit sparse on the non-pop culture parts of his life. I was thinking a rework of the MoH section to explain the 1904 pattern reissue and the reappearance of the original 1890's one, but if someone else gets to it before I do, I'll hardly object. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles related to the Sino-Indian border dispute
Hello all, this was something I came across and thought would be relevant to you. There has been much sparring and discussion between two editors about several articles related to disputed places between India and China. It began with a CfD nomination regarding Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War. The conclusion was that the category was well-defined and should be retained but could be renamed to a better title. Since then there have been many attempts by one of the editors to remove text and references from the articles and to remove the articles from the category, while the other prefers to retain them. Some of the articles of places that are involved are Lanak Pass, Spanggur Gap, Spanggur Tso, Khurnak Fort, Sirijap, Dehra Compass, Kongka Pass, Galwan River, Chip Chap River, Depsang plains, Demchok and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture. Other related articles that have not been edited as much are Events leading to the Sino-Indian War, Sino-Indian War, Aksai Chin, Line of Actual Control, China-India relations and Sino-Indian border dispute. I am not sure, but it appears that the pro-China editor gradually makes articles pro-China over time, while it appears that the other editor has an uncompromising and almost stubborn attitude. Discussion has also been done at Administrators noticeboard, User talk:Jreferee and on all the related talk pages. Perhaps you should keep an eye on these pages. 117.195.122.22 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP 117.195.122.22 is suspected of being a sock puppet of an involved user. You're welcome to comment on the investigation page. -Zanhe (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer review of Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz
I have listed the article for peer review here Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz. Please hlep me improve the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

CfD discussion: Unmanned aerial vehicles of China
Please see this CfD discussion.Comments welcome. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of Meritorious Service medals
Category:Recipients of Meritorious Service medals, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Here is the proposal:
 * Propose deleting recipients of the meritorious service medal (united states)


 * Propose deleting recipients of the defense meritorious service medal

Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Claim of POV at 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)
RoslynSKP has raised concerns that there is a POV issue here 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), an article rewritten by AustralianRupert in 2011. I personally disagree (fairly strongly I admit), although as the GA reviewer perhaps I have lost my perspective here. Would be interested in other editors having a look and providing their opinion. If I'm wrong so be it - more than happy for the scrutiny. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also be happy for the scrutiny. Also interested in views regarding the structure of the article. See Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) for discussion. --Rskp (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of the loop
I've been out of the loop while I finish my dissertation, but this is almost done (Yay! throws confetti). Full drafted handed in last week, and so far, minor changes. Will this be finally accepted? Looking forward to getting it done, and getting back to my favorite wikiprojects. In the meantime, I do keep an eye on you guys, and the project looks great! auntieruth (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats and hope to see your contributions soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruth, that's great news. Good luck with finalising it and hopefully we will see you around some more sooner rather than later. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion: definition of Aircraft carrier
There is an ongoing discussion concerning the scope of the article on Aircraft carriers. We've arranged a temporary ceasefire between the two opposing parties and could do with some fresh third opinions. I will try to summarise neutrally: One party holds that the article should focus on aircraft carriers that (primarily) operate fixed-wing aircraft; the other party holds that the article should include all flat-top aircraft-carrying warships regardless of how those aircraft are employed.

It may seem like a trivial difference, but it does significantly alter the scope. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should come down to the primary mission of the ship. Including ships that just happen to operate aircraft for some reason broadens the scope beyond the actual contextual use of the term. But I realize that's likely far too easy. Not trying to sound flip, but it really seems like many disputes here exist simply for the sake of the dispute. Intothatdarkness 22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's the thing, if the dictionary definition of the primary role of the ship class is simply to operate aircraft it doesn't help us to narrow down what should, and should not be in the article. I agree that we do have some silly disputes on WP, but in this case where do we draw the line for a (high level) article? We'd welcome comments on the talk page. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Limefrost Spiral and reversions
I have been trading reverts with User:Limefrost Spiral who has been adding text to various articles, text I judged to be of lesser quality or totally unreferenced. It would be great to see some other editors weigh in at the following articles:
 * Second London Naval Treaty
 * Main battle tank
 * Hans Langsdorff‎
 * Battlecruiser

Let me know if I'm off base here. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about any of the others, but the revert on Battlecruiser was clearly appropriate. He was trying to add unreferenced material that was too detail for that type of article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I saw the material was unreferenced, but it didn't look controversial or wrong. The line between too much detail and too little is subjective and since the edits are an attempt to be constructive it might be worth discussing (assuming the editor is open to that...). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought some of the edit to Second London naval Treaty material was bordering on puffery, inaccurate and being uncited open to removal. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at these articles. Wiki-Ed, I think I have pissed off the editor so much with my reverts that discussing the matter will not be productive at present. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Treaty page had some detail worth keeping, if it could be cited, but IMO MBT was making a mess for nothing, cites or no (& I rv'd on that basis). The detail on Battlecruiser IMO should be incorporated into the pages of the ships in question, & cites requested, if anybody objects to a bare add. Langsdorff, I'd leave it & ask for a cite; it's perhaps trivial, but not uninteresting. I wouldn't argue hard for it, tho.  TREK philer  <font face="cursive" color="#008000">any time you're ready, Uhura  19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Today's featured article/requests/pending
For those of you who didn't spot my note at WT:FAC, and who don't have WP:TFAR watchlisted, the "/pending" page for potential TFA requests can now be used for dates within a year of the first open slot. Given the number of war anniversaries that are coming up, it might be useful if editors with unused FAs noted possible dates there. Using /pending doesn't guarantee that the article will be picked for that date, but it might stop me using something that you'd prefer to be held back for a better occasion. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 12:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission
Would you be so kind so as to review this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but this AfC hasn't been submitted for review yet. Where would we provide comment? Obviously, this article is in serious need of work.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route
Category:Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. I tried to post this on the Talk Page of the U.S. Revolutionary War Task Force but got redirected here. I hope those who are interested with see this notice and weigh in. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Last day to vote in coordinator election
This is just a reminder that voting in the coordinator election will close on 28 September (tomorrow) at 23:59 UTC. If you haven't voted yet and would like to participate, please visit the election page to cast your votes! Kirill [talk] 20:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

2nd Canadian Infantry Division vs. 2nd Canadian Division
I've started a discussion here and would be interested in any knowledgeable opinions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The person who merged these two articles also merged: 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and 3rd Canadian Division ; 1st Canadian Infantry Division and 1st Canadian Division -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Medals dispute at (broken record, I know) Audie Murphy talk page
Anyone really knowledgeable about U.S. Army medals is invited to offer an informed opinion at: Medals dispute. If you have anything of value to add fine. If you don't fine. But the invitation is here for those who might want to add something of value. Quite frankly, this is the same editor who continually messes up the article after it's cleaned up. And those edits were so rapid-fire frequent back in Feb-March, that not all of it got corrected until the A-class review. This person does a great deal of damage in a short span of time. For the record, "Hall of Valor" referred to is published by Gannett Government Media Corporation. You know...Gannett...that huge media conglomerate that owns newspapers and television stations. I'm rather tired of this myself. It's just beginning to sound like a lot of bitching and moaning and "notice me", from my perspective. Get everything in shape, and along comes this again. It's been happening since 2011, same person, same article.— Maile (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I recall. Perhaps try getting some admin attention again. If he isn't getting the message after the last session, perhaps an admin will take some deterrent action this time? Happy to support any action you may take, as I find this type of thing pretty irritating too, and I did have a good look at it the last time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still a newbie, but wouldn't a topic ban do the trick?-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  01:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you're new, Jim in Georgia, this editor has shared his presence on numerous articles concerning Medal of Honor recipients, and baseball articles. He's a legend. The two ANIs that have been brought against him met with no success. Something along the lines of Randy in Boise. The first one was for socking, and the second was for a topic ban. This editor ignores ANIs, and it's successful.  Admins makes excuses, and nothing gets done. I have everything documented back to the beginning in 2011. It's a matter of taking what is relevant and condensing it down to what will work on an ANI.  That in itself is a sizeable job. However, as I have noted higher up on that same talk page, I see signs that this might be one sock of a larger group. Or it might also be a shared account.  Proving that is another issue.  The style goes from hardly being able to put a clear thought across and not being able to source, to laying down some rather lucid text.  Like it's being written by different people. And if anyone wanted to waste their time looking at that account's contributions elsewhere, there have been times of knowing exactly how to add sourcing to an article. But the short of it is, to get this stopped and not spinning my wheels with Randy in Boise. — Maile  (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eesh! Sometimes I think "completed" articles should be fully protected permanently. The chances of anything new being published about Murphy are near zero. I'm sure that's been argued elsewhere. I'll add Murphy to my watch list and try to help. Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  01:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting this on your watch list. You probably won't find any disagreement here on the well-developed articles that should be protected permanently. For all we know, this particular editor could be a young child professing to be an expert on military medals. Admins are human beings and prone to whatever that entails, which makes resolving some things a roll of the dice for the ones who bring up the issue. A very similar non-military history situation has involved a really prolific copyvio editor (both articles and images) who for years ignored all attempts at getting him to adhere to Wikipedia policy on sourcing and copyvio. When they finally blocked him, the list of socks, copyvio articles and copyvio images was jaw-dropping. He got around the block by continuing to do it from IPs all over the United States.  After almost two years, and totally without being requested to do so, an admin lifted his block with the explanation "not effective".  You just never know. I am of the opinion that all editors should be registered accounts.— Maile  (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we need to start focusing more on the article than the editor here, or nothing will ever get done. I requested that he present his disputes in point form, so that we may address his concerns, and he has done that. I'm hesitant to call bad faith, given that I requested that the editor stop changing the article and discuss his concerns so that they can be addressed objectively. Clearly there are no experts on U.S. awards willing to assist in the matter, despite a large number of far less notable officers having their articles plastered with ribbons to psychedelic effect, Murphy's article is not drawing attention from much-needed experts. Be that at is may, the editor who has posed problems in the past may have legitimate concerns, and just because none of us know much about U.S. medals doesn't make him wrong. It seems that he has two main disputes, one being a simple case of wording, he wants "Bronze Star" to read "Bronze Star Medal" - if this is a matter of shortened-phrasing rather an inaccurate term, it's easily resolved. His second dispute appears to be over sources, and he has detailed why the site Hall of Valor is incorrect and offered alternatives. I don't see why this isn't a simple manner of someone making a list of the medal Murphy received, and how/when he received them, going to a library and cross-referencing the sources with more reliable printed material. There are a shitload of websites online regarding officers and their awards, and I personally don't care if they are published by the U.S. army or some famed media group, there could be discrepancies due to the apparent complexity of the way the U.S. issues awards, revises awards, back-dates awards, and so forth. It is in the interests of the article, if it is to get to FAC standards, that the article be accurate. I think bouncing back and forth between web sources is proving ineffective in this case, for reasons stated, and that, in this case, printed sources may by more reliable. I think a lot of the best articles on Wikipedia, especially MilHist FAs, have a tendency to cite more texts and respected historians than websites, no matter how reliable the publisher, because they're often far-better researched and filtered through editors who check for accuracy before publication. Many a website on Murphy holds to the "most decorated soldier of WWII" claim, whereas modern texts are less biased and don't make unfounded claims, else they don't sell. In order to bring this article to standards, the natural bias which we all have when we "favour" a topic in order to develop it must be more restrained, harbouring less pro-Murphy sources and seeking broader texts that explain the details of medals he and many other soldiers received, impartially. I think it's a two-tier issue the first being the medals and how and why they were issued, the second being when and why Murphy received them and in what format i.e. standard medal, "V" device, etc. In that way you attribute what he was issued only in relation to what you understand as being the only way he could have been issued them. That way one source backs another. The current method, "these three websites say he got X, Y and Z medals" leans more towards WP:SYNTH and is less productive, despite being the easiest way of sourcing, in my opinion. If you want an immediate example, when I'm researching battle record articles for Napoleon/Wellington, first I find a timeline of the general, and extract any battles fought. Then I use different sources to confirm the specifics of each battle, some primary, some secondary. Then, with enough backing, I attribute the battle to the general as "fact". In the same manner, you need to get a list of Murphy's known medals as your template, confirm the existence and specifics of each medal individually, and then attribute them to Murphy using sources than detail the awarding – in this case those will be primary: citations, Presidential presentations, supported with secondary sources such as biogs. that might provide more history from the military action surrounding each award. Combined, those should make a stronger case than, X-website says he got ABC medals but B is wrong, Y-website says he got B another way. If you need to cite several websites to cover all his medals, despite some of those detailing them all, then you know something's wrong, and it comes across as dubious sourcing if each site has some details inaccurate and needing to be sourced elsewhere. I feel this will be less likely from a reliable concentration of well-researched texts. That way FAC will be attained and it won't just keep fussy editors at bay, but make the harder work much more worthwhile!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 18:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't believe in breaking it into paragraphs? Don't let any of us stop you from doing all that hard work.  And, please, don't let any of us stop you on your own trip to the library to find the one book that gives the definitive, indisputable answer to this, the one thing that makes that editor suddenly see a ray of sunshine and be glad you found the real answer even if it isn't the one he wanted. This editor's second ever edit in 2011 was about the same thing he's complaining about now.  And inbetween, he's kept inserting this and been reverted time and time again. That's doesn't make all those other people wrong, either.


 * But he has two years of history on this medal alone, inserting, getting reverting, reverting the reverts with this ("oh...forgot to sign in...") sockery. None of this makes him correct either. Quite frankly, I've put more work into this than anyone else, and I'm damned tired of the shit that editor keeps throwing up on the page.  You have contributed a lot of valuable help, MarcusBritish.  Perhaps you have a lot of books on your own. Yeah, let's have somebody source this and make it definite.  But, also, there's a long history with this editor that once one thing gets out of the way, he comes back with something else. It's disruptive editing because he also does not have the definitive source.  And his method is gaming the system.


 * And one more thing. Don't get me wrong, Marcus. Your edits over at Audie Murphy have been invaluable to raising the quality of that article, as has your advice along the way about improving things. The article wouldn't be as good as it is now without your help.  But I would also like to remind us that this same editor jumped in and made a whole lot of edits rewriting Murphy's military service, particularly in Italy and France. Here and there, some editors tried to correct on that.  But  not a lot.  And when we did the A-class review, we had to clean out, research, and rewrite what that editor did - because they were WRONG.  And that editor was just scamming the whole system, prosing along as a self-appointed expert, and turning out to be an imposter in knowing the subject matter.  THAT, on that issue, he was wrong. It was a long climb correcting the harm he did to that article. That review speaks for itself. And from where I sit, he's just looking for attention and will do what he thinks to get that. — Maile  (talk)


 * And - DING! - we're off. He's exhausted himself on the talk page now and is beginning to rewrite the article because he likes his wording better.  DING DONG DING. He's doing it again.  19:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no books on this topic myself and I very much doubt a UK library will stock a fraction as many books as a U.S. library, if any.. it's definitely one for a U.S. editor to tackle. As for the editor, all I can say is sometimes you have to push a button to get a little green man, otherwise you're never going to cross the road. He has the right use the talk page, so long as it doesn't disrupt the article per se. It's up to you whether you want to discuss his concerns with him or not, but no one except an ANI/Arbcom topic ban can stop him editing it indef. I don't want to accuse you of "ownership" issues, because anyone trying to work an article to FA outside of a sandbox has to put up with edits and deal with disruptions to his attempts to improve the article, but the fact of the matter is that if he has legit. concerns it is in your interests to at least look at them. By ignoring them you leave him no choice but to edit the article. Ask someone "is this seat taken?" and they don't reply, what do you do.. sit down or walk away? Well aware of the long-term issues, but I'm just as aware that those matters have been raised with ANI twice? thrice? and was not dealt with. So far as Wiki works, for better or for worse, that "no outcome" is your answer and there's no benefit to worrying about it, a dog with fleas still does its thing. I'm trying to focus on the needs of the article, not allowing myself to feel distracted by one editor. I'm even working to get that editor to focus his attention on discussing his concerns instead of tackling them himself, which may improve his behaviour - it'd be more helpful if you worked with me on achieving that, instead of gripes about his editing which no one to date has done anything about even when aware of it. Gaming the system can work to your advantage also, if you use good faith to promote good faith, that is.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Inbetween the analogy to the little green man and the dog with fleas, and a few other side trips, I believe you and I have the same goal in mind, just different in other aspects. And I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to accuse me of "ownership" issues when you dropped that word into this thread.  But in case anyone new is reading this, I need to drop a few links into this to shed light on all those besides me who have been involved. And then you can say what you like about this, but I don't want ownership. Fact of the matter is, those articles don't walk themselves up to FAC.
 * Dec 2012 ANI - before I was ever associated with the article
 * March 2013 ANI - opened by another editor in response to
 * March 19 2013 Military History talk page. I started the thread, and editors there recounted their experiences with this editor before I was ever a part of that article.
 * However, it was the March 2013 ANI that taught me someone is going to say "show me diffs", and you better have some. Not easy to always create at the last minute.  It was for that reason, and that reason only, that I started backtracking and documenting.
 * The fact of the matter is, that my first edit to Audie Murphy was Feb 5, 2013. The editor in question has been making disruptive edits since May 16, 2011.  And I think it's OK to say "disruptive" without sidetracking the issue of getting the article in shape. And I think it's OK to say that from what I have been compiling, of the editor's 33 edits in 2011, 27 of them were reverted by multiple editors for reasons mentioned above. I'm still working on 2012, because I do have a real life and am not paid for this.  But in that 3-week editing span of March 2013, this editor made almost 60 edits and, one way or another, were reverted over time if not when he did them.  Many editors participated in that besides me. So, please, I realize you only want the best and would not want to accidentally give the impression that ownership is an issue here.— Maile  (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The word "ownership" was placed very intentionally to stress to new-comers to this article that here is none except in the form of "I'm trying to get this to FA, give me some room" because you don't have the privilege of doing it unhindered in sandbox. What we have is a strange content dispute, fortunately it's not an uncivil one full of daily edit wars and cat-fighting, but more related to the fact that none of us know a thing about U.S. medals in depth, and the only one who claims he does is somewhat lacking in competence. If he was more up-front and sociable I think you'd agree, you'd be more willing to hear him out, but it is his attitude and backhand manner which prevents this, more than anything. I'm trying to remain in the middle of this issue. I'm certainly on your side with regards trying to keep the article professional, upto standards and not full of crummy edits, but I also see the need to look at the sources he has presented and review the disputes, because he's still a part of the Wiki community, and a community is only as strong as its weakest member. Keeping him in check is a passive way of protecting the article. I've responded to his list of disputes, in detail, and discounted pretty much all of them due to their impractical wordiness. My edits to the article have mostly been neutral copy-edits and tweaks, staying out of controversial disputes over the biographical context itself, but in the end someone does have to referee this match between you two and keep it from breaking down and resulting in the article itself being harmed. So far there have been no serious incidents, but I think you need to get this to FA as soon as possible, because Wiki grants FAs higher protection, even under WP:3RR, and I know your "dream goal" is to get Murphy not only to FA, but onto the main page. Let's make it happen, hmm?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 23:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. And I do appreciate all your efforts to be the man in the middle. To some degree you are correct about why I really don't want to go around in circles with that individual. Part of it is the competency issue, how the message is delivered.  Part of it is that editing history says there will be no end, no matter how valiant the efforts. And a large part of it is what I said to a Good Faith editor on a different article.  You can claim to be anybody you want and insist you are a knowledgeable editor.  On Wikipedia you can claim to be a personal assistant to the Pope.  I'm not impressed with anyone's view of them self, I guess is a good way to say it. The proof is in the pudding (did that saying originate in England?). Some of Wikipedia's best editors are right here at this project, and I don't see any strutting and preening from those I personally consider the best.— Maile  (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Access to US Naval Institute Proceedings 1963 Vol 89
G'day all, I am wondering if anyone has online access to ancient volumes of Proceedings. I am after an article in Vol 89, 1963 relating to the invasion of Yugoslavia... Any help gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's in anything other than issue one of that year I should have access to a hard copy, though it will take a week or two for me to be able to visit the relevant library. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. Google Books is telling me that it starts on p 138, and is titled Royal Yugoslav Navy in World War II By Z. V. Adamich, Commander, Royal Yugoslav Navy (Retired). Looks like it might be the April issue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator election results
The 2013 project coordinator election has now concluded! Our new tranche of coordinators for the coming year is as follows:


 * Lead coordinator

indent=2|

AustralianRupert


 * Coordinators

indent=2|

Anotherclown

Cdtew

Cliftonian

Dank

Ed!

Hawkeye7

HJ Mitchell

Ian Rose

Nick-D

Peacemaker67

The ed17

Tomobe03

TomStar81

Congratulations to the successful candidates, and thanks to everyone who helped to make this election a success! Kirill [talk] 11:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A T Pumphrey
While working through the deletion of abandoned AfC submissions, I ran across Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A T Pumphrey. It was pointed out to me by DGG that Pumphrey does not immediately meet the notability guidelines for military personnel, but I thought that might be a claim towards his notability as an inductee of the Army Aviation Hall of Fame. It was suggested that I stop by here for another opinion. Can somebody take a look and see if the biography can be rescued? If not, I will delete the AfC as abandoned. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Caps, no caps on names of medals (American military)
As carefully scrutinized as things get in reviews, this might be worth noting in the Academy courses. Came up on the Audie Murphy talk page, as to whether or not to capitalize an American military award. A-list and FA MH articles have it both ways. User Roam41 provided 2010 DoD Manual, and I provide which was already an inline citation in the article. Both seem to say the same thing. I concur with what Roam41 stated, that when spoken of in general terms, lower case applies. When referring to a specific authorized medal, it's upper case. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World
I've created the new article about the book Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, which discusses the subject of targeted killing.
 * Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

Further suggestions for research and additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World.

Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Going through the Stub articles
I've been going through the "Stub-class" articles and improving the assessment with other WikiProjects as well as the Military History WikiProject. I've created a subpage on my username listed here:
 * User:Adamdaley/Miscellaneous

Anyone is welcome to pick an article to assess. In a way its to keep them off the "Requesting An Assessment" section, and please assess each article with the "B-class" criteria. Adamdaley (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I ran a report a few months back on the "most unlikely stubs", which is here, if you feel like cherrypicking. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, I am having a difficult time in trying to get people into helping out. To help out with the articles I find in the "Stub" section. I do not want to assume too quickly that users who are interested in Military History are unwilling to contribute to helping out. On the other hand the majority of articles I am finding that are bigger than a "Stub" assessment are articles concerning aviation. I can easily count 24 articles, that could easily be bumped until a high "Start" and even a "C". Once I've gone through them, I'll put them onto a subpage of mine. I simply do not have the knowledge and confidence in assessing these articles. The above subpage of mine has been deleted by myself. Adamdaley (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adam, I have been under the impression during my time with MILHIST that assessing an article against anything up to and including B-class doesn't require any knowledge of the subject matter, merely the knowledge possessed by a general reader (or as WP:MH/B? puts it, an awareness of whether the article can "reasonably answer any questions a general reader (not a specialist) might have"). That being said, I assess a whole bunch of articles against B-class criteria that I know absolutely nothing about, because it doesn't seem like you're required to.  So, am I missing something?  I happen to think I'm not, because a plain reading of the B-class FAQ pretty clearly says you need no subject-matter expertise.  I will try to assist in assessing as I have time, but as my time is sometimes limited, I often try and stick to content generation.   Cdtew  (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is by and large true. The sticky one is B2 coverage and accuracy, which is hard to judge if you don't know the subject at all but you don't need an expert knowledge.  Another issue with B2 is is the criterion general across the encyclopaedia e.g. if you only write one paragraph, it's never enough, even if there is no more, or is it within the context of the article e.g. a judgement against a knowledge of what is out there.  Obviously the first could be assessed by an intelligent general reader, the latter needs expertise.Monstrelet (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that even GAN and FAC have issues with subject-matter expertise, I still don't think that B-class should require any prior knowledge of the subject matter whatsoever. The criteria are stated in such a way that it leaves it in the discretion of the reviewer to judge completeness, but I was more expressing confusion with Adam's (and others prior to him) statement that he lacked "the knowledge and confidence in assessing" certain articles.   Cdtew  (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I was trying explain how a reviewer who doesn't hold your interpretation might have doubts. The criteria are, as you say, ambiguous. Which means that we don't need expert reviews for B class but we must live with the inconsistencies. Monstrelet (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but my thought was incomplete. It should have said "I was more expressing confusion with...[the oft-heard] statement that...[a reviewer] lacked 'the knowledge and confidence in assessing' certain articles, especially given the guidance provided in the MILHIST FAQ.  I feel like this question/comment comes up often, and is answered easily by the FAQ, no interpretations required.  If that's not true, then the FAQ should be changed.  Cdtew  (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we disagree. The way we work as editors means that being over prescriptive in terms of expert knowledge at this assessment level isn't going to work.  We need to clearly set criteria than any sensible editor with an interest in military history can use without needing deep expertise in the article topic.  And, if that isn't clear (which given the number of times confusion is encountered, it probably isn't) we need to tweek the FAQs.Monstrelet (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like I've made a big discussion with this. Yes, I sometimes doubt myself with the "B2" criteria. Even "B4" on some occasions. As for the articles in the "Stub" section, I've found over 75 articles that could potentially be a "Start" or "C" assessment. I'll work out how to put those articles on a subpage for people to assess. Adamdaley (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The first 26 articles have been put here: User:Adamdaley/Articles needing assessment Adamdaley (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone right through the "Stub" sections and have made a small reduction since there were plenty of redirect articles. There is a big list on the above subpage. Adamdaley (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The list is growing by the hour. So please anyone is more than welcomed to assess! Adamdaley (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've managed to do about 10 redirects (or so), bumped a couple upto "Start". The list is growing, so please feel free to assess this list since people get pissed that I add articles to the "Request" section when I require a second opinion. So assess these and I won't bite, I promise. Adamdaley (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've started assessing the ARW articles; I'll try to finish that set as I am able.  Cdtew  (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are still plenty of articles to be assessed from the "Stub" section and a list of them is located here: User:Adamdaley/Articles needing assessment – It would be appreciated if everyone could get stuck into them, so they could be replaced by other "Stub" assessments after they are all assessed from my page. This would mean that the overall assessments wouldn't be stuck in the "Stub" assessments. Adamdaley (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been able to get the Africa Military down from 1,022 "Stub" articles to 972 "Stub" articles. Adamdaley (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The African stub articles are down to 929. Remember there is still plenty more articles here to be assessed: User:Adamdaley/Articles needing assessment ..... Adamdaley (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've still got a big list of articles that need to be assessed located here: User:Adamdaley/Articles needing assessment ... I cannot put them where the "Requestments for B class" are. So please feel free to assess them. Otherwise I'll be a little disappointed cause I know a particular user has been very interested in doing this and I am very appreciative of that user, while I hope he knows who he is. Adamdaley (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Need some help with H. C. McNeile
Some minor edit warring going on at H. C. McNeile with editors who don't know much about the military. Contentious points are referring to the Royal Engineers as a "regiment" rather than a corps - this may be a common usage, so I might yield given a discussion by those with a military history background - but also reference to specific engineer units. I tried to clean up some unit names and terminology, but because the proper designations didn't match the limited frame of reference of the editors there, they have reverted, citing the (probably incorrect) references. Would anyone be willing to take a look? Specifically, the sentence as originally placed reads:


 * , including 1st Field Squadron, 15th Field Company and 33rd Division

which I thought might be better served, and consistent with other articles on WP by reading''


 * '', including 1st Field Squadron, RE 15th Field Company, RE as well as the divisional engineers of the 33rd Division

The first two units appear to be units from other divisions, while the source indicated does not specify which RE units in 33rd Div. As constructed, the sentence implies that "33rd Division" itself is a unit of the Corps of Royal Engineers which is of course not the case. 68.144.172.8 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Case in point - [article reverted] by one of the editors who has taken "ownership", because he believes that as a lieutenant, the subject of the article commanded the 33rd Division.68.144.172.8 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Balls to the ownership smear, I'm afraid. As I pointed out to you earlier, don't revert: go to the talk page to discuss, rather than your constant edit warring. I have no idea why you keep banging on about lieutenants not leading divisions: McNeile wasn't even a lieutenant when the war started. The article talk page is where you should be discussing, rather than the article space, and you'd better have some bloody good sources to justify your actions. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. An internet tough guy demanding stuff - or else. Or else what? WP stays irrelevant and mostly terrible? Good show.198.161.2.241 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've added a comment to the article's talk page. I'd like to encourage all parties to join the discussion. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done, Australianrupert, thanks.131.137.245.209 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Convention of Alkmaar
Should this article have the entire text of the convention? Shouldn't it be moved to WikiSource? 65.64.177.101 (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree that the actual text of the convention would be better placed on WikiSource; but, as a practical matter, this would turn the article into an extremely short stub. I'm not sure whether there's any real potential for an article specifically about the convention itself to grow; if there isn't, then I would suggest merging the remaining content into Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland and linking to the WikiSource text directly from that article. Kirill [talk] 11:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request‎
Greetings! In accordance with the conditions set forth in the previous discussion of the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning title dispute, a new move request has been filed and is now underway. bd2412 T 20:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeking confirmation
Hi all,

I am working on improvements to the Treaty of Versailles article. I am seeking confirmation that the following sourced material is accurate, as the article does not appear to have any active editors for me to cooperate with. I have checked google books, however the book is not available to be previewed so I currently do not have any way of ensuring the accuracy of this paragraph.

"Correlli Barnett argues that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany′s eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. But Barnett asserts that, because the Austrian empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states and Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany. In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the Treaty 'much enhanced' German power (Barnett, p. 316). Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) 'divided and permanently weakened' Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never have disrupted the peace of Europe again (Barnett, p. 318). By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain 'had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War' (Barnett, p. 319)." - Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (London: Pan, 2002)

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

edit-a-thon at UC Riverside
FYI: The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013.

This is relevant to the Military History WikiProject because UCR Libraries host the Tuskegee Airmen archive: http://library.ucr.edu/tuskegee/ -- "THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN ARCHIVE collects and preserves, as part of a national effort, the history of the Tuskegee Airmen, who broke the race barrier in military aviation for African Americans and other minorities. The Airmen advanced race relations through their contributions to the integration of the Army Air Forces during World War II."

If you're in southern California please participate if you can; or remote participation is fine. You can also leave questions for the librarians on the talk page -- they are excited to share the collection :) Details here. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help add Signpost boxes at the top of this page?
The Signpost interviewed this WikiProject on four different occasions: in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. There is a box at this top of this page that links to the 2012 interview, but there is no link to the three other interviews. I wonder if anyone here can add those links. Thanks in advance. X15:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we've interviewed this project six times; every year since 2008 (there was also an overview of the project in 2007). The standard WikiProject Report template would look a little out of place with your current design, so you may want a collapsible list of all the interviews. You can find the interviews in the archive, just sort the table by project name. –Mabeenot (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow
I'm about to make a post about WP:Flow over at the coordinators' talk page, which doubles as Milhist's strategy and planning page. Flow will affect us all, and the developer team would love (their word) our input (as I found out here), so please come participate. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Jorm is one of the good ones. He's aiming to have Flow solve a whole lot of problems. It will be bumpy for experienced users to learn a new system but after hearing about the feature set I think it will be worth it. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I do not agree completely that Jorm is the good guy. The Visual Editor disaster was largely his fault as was the push to keep rolling it out when it clearly wasn't ready. I would caution you to be very skeptical when dealing with the WMF. Given their track record its extremely likely they will say what you want to hear and then just go ahead and do whatever they want anyway. I have no large problem with Flow other than it not allowing templates. If they can get past that kickup I think it will be great, but if they cannot get it to work with templates (at least in some fashion) its pretty much a showstopper. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, why don't you let Wikipedia alone after you supposedly retired? Stop trying to stir up drama. Binksternet (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? Brandon was nothing to do with the VisualEditor. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrm. I have had nothing to do with VisualEditor, so I'm not sure how the disaster was "largely" my fault. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the "cannot get it to work with templates"; that's patently untrue.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jorm, I'm looking forward to helping make the Flow rollout be as smooth as possible. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

GA backlog
Gday. The number of GAs awaiting review is starting to creep up again, currently 33 with very few under review. If anyone is looking for ways to contribute pls have a look at Good_article_nominations and see if any capture your attention. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is getting a bit out of hand. There are some quite old nominations there as well. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review question
I'm reviewing Russian Corps, one of the plethora of the many collaborationist groups in Yugoslavia during the Nazi Occupation and am having a problem judging if the article can be considered to be reasonably complete if it doesn't detail a single combat that the unit engaged in. The article is fine in all other respects, and the subject unit was more of a guard force for important installations than an active combat unit. It did fight the Partisans on occasion, however, but no details are given, not even victory or failure. It also fought the Red Army in 1944, but again no details are given. I'm inclined to say that it cannot be considered reasonably complete without at least some sort of summary of its combat actions (or even one battle), but I'm concerned that I might be judging things too harshly. So I thought that I'd ask for opinions from a knowledgeable audience rather than waste time waiting for a second reviewer to opine. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Russian Corps was essentially a guard force. The main sources on it that I am aware of are Tomasevich (2001) and Cohen. I have a source that mentions one Corps member (and three German customs officials) being killed by Partisans in June 1943 and the resulting massacre of 400 hostages by the Wehrmacht (under the 100 for 1 order). There is a book in Russian, but I haven't been able to locate a copy of it. It served mainly in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, which suffered from a lot less resistance activity than much of the rest of Yugoslavia after the brutal suppression of the uprising there in late 1941, until the Partisans started to recover there in 1943. As a result it wouldn't have seen much in the way of pitched battles while stationed there, so there may not be a huge amount to tell. However, after it was integrated fully into the Wehrmacht and got involved in the fighting retreat across Yugoslavia, I would have expected to see some information about engagements it fought in. The complicating factor is that it had a very small German cadre, used Russian as its command language, so there may be sources in Russian I am not aware of. I just had a quick look at the article, which I was planning to contribute to soonish, and would say it might meet the minimum standard for criteria 3a, but it is line-ball. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any academic sources off the bat that discuss the Russian Corps specifically. I would guess any actions they were involved in were credited to whatever organization like the Chetniks they were supporting. It looks like there might be some information in the book The German Reich and the Second World War: The Eastern Front 1943/44 - The war in the east and to the side fronts, but my German isn't good and there is no German language version of this article from which to work.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will go to my closest library on monday or tuesday and take a look into the volume is there is anything worth to mention about the corps. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to the short article around page 1080 or so. I didn't see anything in there about engagements, mostly about their origin from Russian emigres and the relatively older age of the unit's members. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of books which may be of interest for article authors: Русский корпус на Балканах во время II великой войны, 1941-1945 (Russian Corps in the Balkans in the Time of the Second World War, 1941-1945) by I. B. Ivanov (here) and Russians and the Second World War in Yugoslavia by Aleskei Timofeev. The latter title may be googled up in Serbian translation (Руси и Други светски рат у Југославији) - I'll have a look if there's anything of substance and post back.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just jot down notes over here together with the page number for your reference (I'm looking at a 2010 edition printed in Belgrade, ISBN 978-86-7005-089-1): p46: p47: p48 Further text in the chapter deals with other ethnic Russian collaborators - immediately following group discussed is Varyag, and it appears there's nothing more on the corps in there. Hope this helps--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Timofeev indeed has a chapter on the subject translated in Serbian as Емигранти у војним и полицијским антипартизанским формацијама у Југославији (Emigres in military and police anti-partisan formations in Yugoslavia) on pages 46-65
 * The corps is referred to as Руски заштитни корпус (Russian protection corps)
 * Initially reporting to Neuhausen
 * In late 1941 it comprised 1,500 members
 * Initially used in anti-Partisan operations, guarding mines in Krupanj, later in Bor and Trepča
 * Deployed as auxiliary force in winter of 1941/1942 together with Nedić's and Ljotić's forces as auxiliary in German led anti-Partisan operations in Serbia
 * Growing in numbers in 1942 following an influx of volunteers coming from Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Greece
 * In 1942 officially name Russian protection corps after it is included in the Wehrmacht
 * The corps comprised five regiments
 * The corps never operated as a unified fighting unit, the regiments were the largest operational units
 * The regiments or their elements were assigned as auxiliary forces to German or Bulgarian occupation forces
 * The corps was only occasionally involved in minor combat of local significance, largely assigned manning of brick bunkers protecting railway in Ibar River valley, Bor, Trepča, Majdanpek, and Krupanj mines and also along Serbian borders along Danube and Drina rivers deployed together with various Serbian collaborator factions (SGS, SDS, SDK - note: acronyms in Serbian)
 * In October 1944, the corps consisted of 11,197 men
 * Term "protection" removed from the name of the corps in October 1944 officially
 * Corps involved in heavy fighting with the Red Army and the Partisans in Serbia, sustaining heavy losses in the process
 * Corps retreated to Slovenia via Bosnia, fighting "several relatively fierce battles"
 * Commanders noted as in the article
 * By the end of the war, most of the corps fled Yugoslavia and surrendered to the British
 * At the time of the surrender the corps consisted of 5,584 men, and a total of 17,090 men were a part of the corps at some point during the war
 * Casualties amounted to (killed, wounded, missing) to approximately 6,709

I have just located a copy of Vertepov's book on the Russian Corps - itself referenced by Tomasevich on page 192, note 38 of War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945. I'll see what can be found there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 24 provides info that elements o the Corps took part in January 1945 capture of Travnik. That would make them a part of German Operation Lawine. Page 26 identifies the elements as the 4th and 5th regiments. Elsewhere on the web I found this (not quite sure it constitutes a WP:RS though) indicating the same and identifying the 4th and the 5th regiment of the Corps as the elements of the Russian Corps involved in the Operation Lawine (see page 364 of the PDF in particular specifying "4. puk ruskog zaštitnog korpusa, 5. puk ruskog zaštitnog korpusa") too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 27 specifies that Shteifon was killed while passing through Zagreb.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pages 25-26 (info breaking across pages) specify that the 1st regiment and a battalion of the 2nd regiment guarded a bridgehead north of Brčko in autumn of 1944 reportedly to allow the "Greek" (that's how it's presented in the book, presumably Axis forces stationed in Greece) to withdraw.
 * Page 26 seems to identify the 4th and the 5th rgmts as "Southern Group" of the corps.
 * Page 27 specifies that the 4th and the 5th rgmts defended Travnik together with German and NDH troops against the Dalmatia Corps of the Yugoslav Partisans (note: the Dalmatia Corps captured Travnik in October 1944) The two regiments retreated north in April 1945 and joined the 1st and the 2nd rgmts near Brčko. The corps was reportedly then assembled as a whole in a single force for the first time. At the time of the German surrender the corps was located in the vicinity of Ljubljana and then moved north to Austria through Karavanke.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 28 specifies that the Corps surrendered to the British on 12 May near Klagenfurt. At the time of the surrender, the Corps comprised 3,500 men, while in June 1944 their number was approx. 12,000, with the loss attributed to combat operations.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pages 38-39 indicate that the Corps consisted of a single regiment, organised in 4 battalions on 2 October 1941. The battalions were commanded by Major General Egorov (1st), Colonel Shatilov (2nd), Col Endrzheevskiy (3rd) and Col Nestrenko (4th). The 2nd regiment was set up on 18 October.
 * Page 40 indicates Egorov became commander of the 1st regiment on 23 October and the 2nd regiment was commanded by Col Zhukov.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pages 73-75 detail a successful minor combat, defending Stolice mine in Serbia on 8 December 1941 fought against Partisans.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 76 specifies establishment of the 3rd regiment began on 8 January 1942 at Banjica, with Col Shapilov as commander.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 77 specifies establishment of the 4th regiment at Banjica on 29 April 1942 with General Cherepov as commander.
 * Pages 77-78 specify the Corps was divided in two brigades, with the Major General Dratsenko commanding the 1st Bde on 11 May 1942 and the brigade HQ established in Aranđelovac on 22 May. (No info on presumed 2nd Bde or composition of the 1st though)
 * Pages 79-81 specify the 1st rgmt was deployed along Drina in 1942 (Loznica, Ljubovija and elsewhere), and that the 1st rgmt started to be transformed on 9 December 1942 with arrival of Kuban Cossacks, specifically Major General Naumenko, but the transformation was not completed by the end of the year
 * Page 81 specifies 2nd regiment in Negotin, Bor, Majdanpek and other localities in the region, i.e. separate from the 1st
 * Page 82 specifies 3rd rgmt deployed to Kosovska Mitrovica
 * Page 83 specifies 4th rgmt deployed to Kraljevo area. The regiment was disbanded on 30 November, its 1st battalion assigned to the 1st regiment and the rest of it assigned to the 2nd rgmt--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 116 states that the 1st rgmt was transformed into a Cossack Regiment in January 1943, places the regiment in Loznica in April and mentions a "large" operation of the regiment in Zapolje (presumably Zapolje, Bosnia and Herzegovina) on 11-15 May, quoting "heavy combat with bandits".
 * Page 117 places the regiment in Loznica and Ljubovija again, including 1-8 July defence of Drina Bridge at Zvornik against Partisans. The source cites the regiment allowed passage of 379 wounded Croatian soldiers and civilians, 1000 healthy soldiers and as many refugees. The regiment lost 2 killed and 17 wounded there; a raid to village of Nedelica where the regiment clashed with Partisans on 19 July.
 * Page 118 notes several skirmishes with Partisans in Loznica or Zvornik area (1st rgmt)
 * Page 119 notes few skirmishes with Partisans in and around Negotin (2nd rgmt)
 * Pages 120-121 note new commander of the 3rd regiment Major General Gontarev (17 March 1943), activity of the 3rd regiment in Kosovska Mitrovica and Vučitrn (mostly moving battalion HQs about) and that the 1st and 2nd regiments were operationally subordinated to 704th German Division, while the 3rd was subordinated to the 1st Bulgarian occupational corps.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pages 144-151 cover the 1st regiment in 1944: The section notes 5 January combat with Partisans in Klenak resulting in death of three Cossacks; the 1st rgmt prepared defences along Drina in Zvornik, Bajina Bašta and Loznica areas expecting 16th and 17th Partisan Divisions to attempt crossing there (28 April); The passage also notes several skirmishes with Partisans in Zvornik and Valjevo areas in September 1944, as well as combat south of Loznica on 20 September with a "small group of Partisans", and major combat in Loznica itself (partisans again, 23 September) causing the regiment to fall back to Šabac and loss of 7 killed and 23 wounded. The combat continued daily throughout September with up to 53 casualties per day. On 23 October, the regiment abandoned Šabac and Klenak (not sure which one - near Belgrade or Ruma though) and moved to Laćarak, and then to Tovarnik on 24 October ordered to hold ground there. On 12 November moved via railway through Vinkovci to Brčko, with elements deployed in Gunja; on 8 December regrouping north of the Sava River. On 11-13 December, fighting Partisans in and near Vrbanja village, claiming 43 killed Partisans (no info on Russian Corps losses though), with further combat on 21-22 December, while protecting retreat of German army pulling out from Greece.
 * Pages 151-155: the 2nd rgmt fought Partisans at Ibar River on 7/8 September, trying to deny Partisans crossing. On 8 October, the regimental HQ established in Požarevac evacuated as Soviet armour approached the town. As elements of the regiment moved towards Belgrade and Grocka, the force came into contact with Soviet troops and armour in Ripanj area (south of Belgrade) sustaining heavy casualties. The regiment (elements at least) arrived in Šabac (22 October), then moved to Sremska Mitrovica (23 October), Vukovar (25 October), Osijek (26 October) then to Vinkovci (28 October) and Stari Jankovci. Further parts of the regiment moved to Zemun (13 October), then Ruma (14 Oct), Vinkovci (16 Oct), Stari Jankovci (24 Oct). Elements of the regiment were deployed to Brčko in December.
 * Pages 155-157: 3rd rgmt fough 2400-strong Partisan force advancing towards Jošanička Banja on 31 March 1944 and managed to repel the attack and 3-5 August in Ibar valley when substantial losses were sustained. On 9 September, elements of the regiment moved to Požega, and on 11 Sept to Čačak.
 * Pages 157-160: the 4th regiment was reestablished on 15 December 1943, and was based in Jagodina, Paraćin and Ćuprija. Regimental HQ moved to Aleksinac on 30 April and on 15 October to Čačak. On 19-22 October, the regiment fought advancing Soviet troops and Partisans and defended Čačak-Kraljevo road. On 27 October-2 November the regiment fought in Čačak area and then left the city, arriving in Sarajevo on 13-18 December. Elements of the regiment moved from Sarajevo to Kiseljak on 18 December. The regiment fought Partisans in Kiseljak-Busovača area on 26-27 December
 * Pages 160-163: The 5th regiment appears to formed up on 18 January 1944 in Obrenovac. The regiment fought partisans on 1-2 May in Mravinci village area losing 11 killed and 25 wounded. On 18 July the rgmt fought in Ibar valley (Jošanička Banja) and regimental headquarters moved there from Obrenovac, with battalion HQs in Zvečani, Jošanička Banja, Ušće and Vučitrn. Another battle was fought with Partisans on 4-5 August near village of Rudnik along with elements of the 3rd rgmt - forming the Ibar Battlegroup. Partisans attacked regimental positions in Leposavić on 24 August.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is great stuff, guys, much appreciated. I've notified the editor to add this material to the article so it will pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I have more information about the Vertepov book, Tom? Thanks. 23 editor (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I found a reference to the book in Tomasevich as outlined above and googled it up, finding a PDF online - in Russian though, if that's not a problem. Its full title is "Русский Корпус на Балканах во время II Великой Войны 1941-1945 г.г." (Russian Corps in the Balkans at the time of the 2nd Great War) and it was published by (reading from the inside cover: НАШИ ВЕСТИ in New York in 1963. There also appears to be a reprint I'm confident you'll be able to find it, but I'll check to see if I can find it once again (downloaded it myself, so no url at present) and email you the url (can't remember off the top of my head). The PDF I got consists of scanned book, stored as 23M of images though, so I fear machine translation is not really possible, but I'm ready to lend a hand as much possible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No I believe the book says everything you say it does. I just meant details like the year it was published, publisher, location, etc. Otherwise, everything looks good. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to move or copy this section to the article talk page for completeness? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)