Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 137

Propose merging of Military land vehicles task force with WikiProject Tanks
When I was looking at a list of new WikiProject, I found out that at WikiProject Military history one of the task forces, Military land vehicles task force is a possible duplicate of WikiProject Tanks. It both covers about tanks (or military land vehicles). The diffrence is the WikiProject Tanks is much more wider (newsletter, awards etc). But the task forces have assessment on more articles than WP:TANKS and there is a scope on the WP:MILHIST template. I hope everyone can voice out your opinion on this, thanks! NgYShung huh? 15:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

P/S: There is an incubator of WikiProject Tanks here, but the original owner was now blocked (User:Tomandjerry211), and the new account (User:Tomandjerry311) is now semi-retired. -- 04:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Make Wikiproject Tanks a special project

 * I view this as an option, it shouldn't be merged with military land vehicles however, is there a way for the special project to have importance rating while still using the MILHIST template? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. The MILHIST assessment infrastructure quite deliberately excludes importance ratings.
 * (I will add that I think the logic for not using them in other areas of MILHIST applies equally here: ranking the "importance" of topics that are tied up with notions of national identity and pride is a recipe for unnecessary conflict and hurt feelings. You're constantly going to be one conversation along the lines of "Why is my country's super amazing tank low-importance while our historical rival country's overrated tank is high-importance?" away from a potentially very bitter dispute.) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, I suppose we can easily do without.


 * Support I view this as the best option, by doing so we would benefit from MILHIST's templates and organization, and allows us to gather members faster, as they will be less concerned of the project dying rapidly. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, seems like a good idea. This discussion seems to be quite an attack though... ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 01:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge to Military land vehicles task force

 * WikiProject Tanks was created a few weeks ago, and is mostly new boilerplate, while the military land vehicles task force has been active—and has served as the central location for work related to both tanks and other military vehicles—for more than 8 years; if the two are to be combined, I see no reason why we would want to merge the latter into the former. Note, also, that the task force is currently able to seamlessly utilize all of the MILHIST project infrastructure (templates, assessments, task lists) by virtue of being a task force; a separate project would not be able to do so. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Military land vehicles task force which has a broader base of coverage, including: tanks, self-propelled guns, armored cars, armored personal carriers, half-tracks, etc. Further, it is already long established, as Kirill notes above. Updated note: Along the lines of TomStar81's suggestion below, WikiProject Tanks could be made a "special project" under the umbrella of Military land vehicles task force. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. The framework of WP:MILHIST is of high quality and long-established and the task force itself going strong with over 1.500 actual articles. The guiding support for article creation and improvement is valuable and useful. A seperate project started from the scratch would, IMHO, not warrant to end the task force. A seperate project could (could) even be contra-productive so a merge into the task force to unify the efforts, surely having room for discussion and introducing ideas from the former project, seems to be the most reasonable option to me. Not sure about the incubator task force for tanks though; if there is enough content and participation the project could be merged with it into a full task force instead. ... GELongstreet (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge- Per above.--Catlemur (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge An often overlooked part of our task forces is that they simultaneously serve two roles: the first is to help break up the overwhelmingly large umbrella of "the military" into more manageable bites which may be of interest to editors, and the second role is to serve as a fleet in being to help mitigate the creation of rival projects which would serve the same general function of the military history project but would not by virtue of project designation be subject to milhist oversight. It is for this reason that the formerly independent Wikiproject Battles, Wikiproject War, and Wikiproject Military merged to form the single, unified Military history Wikiproject, and it is for this reason that we have repeatedly shot down attempts made by editors to siphon out World War II and make it its own independent WikiProject. Its not that we have anything against independence for out task forces, but given the state of collapse on Wikipedia as a whole it makes more since to keep like subjects together in order to avoid what is these days a forgone conclusion that the new independent Wikiproject will collapse not long after emancipation from lack of general participation. All this being said, if there is still an interest specifically in tanks, then WP:TANKS could be recycled to come out as a special project in the same vein as OMT or the others. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. WPMILHIST is an established and very active project, and as there already is a TF covering the subject, a whole new project makes little sense. And, as TomStar said, arrangements can always be made within the MILHIST project for special interest groups. Constantine  ✍  18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. I admire the enthusiasm of the people involved but it does seem to be an unnecessary duplication of infrastructure that already exists as the Military Vehicles TF. I don't see why the interested editors simply don't just focus on the tank articles within the Military Vehicles TF (perhaps it could be renamed as Tanks & Other Military Vehicles as part of a merge). I do like Tom's idea of a special project though. Zawed (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree completely with Zawed's post above. While very well intentioned, this new WikiProject duplicates an existing one. If there is genuine interest among a group of editors to ramp up work on this important topic, a special project would be the better option to coordinate these efforts. If this interest proves sustained, a dedicated taskforce might be warranted, but the long-running success of WP:OMT suggests that the project model can work very well. I'd note that I got my start in this Wikiproject as part of defending a separate Wikiproject which duplicated an effort here, and it was for the best that they were rolled in together. I'd also suggest that the talk page for the Military land vehicles task force taskforce be re-activated if this hasn't already happened to provide a forum for planning work. Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ,,, , , , I have created a "make WP Tanks a special project option, if this is what you have suggested, please move it there. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We really don't need to over-complicate the discussion like that. Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge Having set up my own special project within Wikiproject Yugoslavia that has a huge overlap with Military history, along with all the complications that created, I agree with all the editors that think a merge to our Military land vehicles taskforce would be the best option. If it proves to have some longevity, by all means create a special project, but at the moment, I think a merge is the best option. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge I find 's argument especially convincing, and just above, the experiences of are pertinent. Merge provisionally, and see how things develop. Irondome (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't merge

 * I'm putting my vote here, kind of in protest. I prefer a merge to the task force, but if the task force is shown to be inactive, it should be up to the members of the new project to support or reject the merge. Also, if members of the task force support a merge into the project, then that should be the direction. If the task force is active, then this is an intentional or unintentional fork, and I'd be concerned about the motives of the new project for not merging. First, a question, Is there a talk page for individual task forces, or are all task force talk pages brought here? The only senses in which the destination of the merge seems to matter is in article tagging and assessment and the existence of talk pages. I think keeping article tagging and assessment efforts under the MilHist umbrella makes sense, so for that reason I'd vaguely recommend merging them to the task force. But the first priority should be increasing activity that is positive for the encyclopedia, and a dedicated talk page and active participants might imply that the new project as destination makes sense. In the meantime, I don't see why it shouldn't be given a chance as its own project, just to see where it goes. Sorry if my comment is terribly uninformed, I just think the whole matter seems odd. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments made by . Military history is a rather broad scope for a project and the existence of it shouldn't disallow other projects that could fall under that categorization. If the tanks project were defunct it would make sense to merge it, but it is a new project that is only just starting out. If the project wants to merge that is fine, but the decision should be up to the project and not forced on them. Offnfopt (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tanks and land vehicles aren't neccisarily synonymous, for instance WP:Tanks doesn't include half tracks, motorcycles, tractors, trucks, or a lot of specialized equipment, etc etc. Tanks are specialized, and an informal (likely will be formal once we gain more members) child project of MILHIST, it would be inappropriate to merge them. As a new project as well, the small scale of the project is arguably not a factor. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally ✅ to . The task force is too general to begin with, and it is too inactive itself to be a WikiProject. WP:TANKS is specialized for HTs, MTs, LTs, SHTs, ARVs, Crabs, Spähpanzers, Tank Destroyers, and SPGs. It isn't inclusive of other types of military vehicles. How does an Praga V3S has anything to do with a Königstiger? ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 23:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I already voted, but I'm changing my vote now. We should not merge. I think that tanks are a separate division of land vehicles. The WikiProject deserves to exist, because tanks are completely different from other vehicles in many senses. Besides, another WP couldn't hurt, if well maintained, of course. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 08:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge for now - Give the project 6 months to do its own thing, then revisit if necessary. They already have a logo, after all. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't merge - Surely a wikiproject's existence is defined by whether people are active in it or not. This is not a case where merging even seems relevant. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * we have already agreed to become a special project. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand by my opinion. Only time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutral/Comments

 * Note the related discussion at the top of this page. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's relevant. The 'related discussion' was just informing the users of WP:MILHIST about it's creation. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Though Kirill Lokshin comment about it, it seems like nobody was talking about it at the time. NgYShung  huh? 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn´t mean that nobody took notice of it; and it is important as it is the backstory to this whole merge proposal. ... GELongstreet (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did notice it. I actually joined the WikiProject and that's why I'm voicing on this decision. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the incubator should be moved or deleted for now since WP:TANKS was established (but not from the original incubator). NgYShung  huh? 16:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ per User:NgYShung, the TF is very inactive for one, and WikiProject tanks is quite active and new. Maybe the TF should be merged INTO WP:TANKS. ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 23:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * How about renaming "WikiProject Tanks" to "Wikiproject Military Land Vehicles", but it looks kinda weird actually... Idk, how about your opinion? NgYShung  huh? 04:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is quite impossible as everything is set up for tanks. Even the logo! There are already countless pages using the term "WikiProject Tanks" to address the WikiProject and it would take the coordinators much time to change all that. ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 09:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there are countless mil vehicles (1,200+)... Quite stressful for a start! And the term "WikiProject Military Land Vehicles" is kinda awkward! :P It's too general, too. The "Military Land Vehicles task force" should remain a task force after all... ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 09:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is actually. Don't think it's a good idea. NgYShung  huh? 09:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What isn't a good idea? ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 12:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This whole proposal seems to me to be hostile. It is not your place to try to engulf a project that is just getting started. This is a larger project so a project just getting started wouldn't ever be able to compete when it comes to a vote like this. With this type of practice you could literally engulf any and all new projects trying to get started that had any relation to the broad scope of "Military history". If the project was dead or willingly wanted to merge it would make sense to merge, but a forced merge based on a vote seems out of place for the WikiProject namespace when the project it just getting started. The WikiProject namespace is not meant to be policed in such a manner, the only time such actions should take place is if a project is defunct or willing wants to merge. Offnfopt (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅; this kinda like a newbie being bitten; the project has barely started. ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We understand that, however keep in mind that many of us are speaking from experience here. In the past Wikiprojects that have been created have not made it to their 1st anniversary, well over 90% crash and burn owing to insufficient editorial participation. There is also a risk here for us in that others may attempt to siphon out other task forces and turn them into independent projects. The world wars in particular are a frequent haven for people who would rather like to see them become independent projects as opposed to their current task force status which some feel holds back on their potential. There is also the trouble the finding enough people interested in the subject to actually make it work. Believe it or not, we are actually part of the larger WikiProject History, yet our parent project is essentially defunct because no one edits for it, all the work is done a sub level because there is where people fine tune their interests in broad steps. Dividing into small projects reduces the number of theoretical participants, which can lend the perception that your project is dead, which in turn scares people off it. On top of that a new project also demands specialized resources such as categories, templates, user notification, etc. Our concern is not that you want to move forward with this, its that a few preliminary steps that would have better felt out interest for an independent project have been passed over, and those could have offered valuable insight into how this would have played out before we went forward with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , this whole discussion is a result of 's proposal that the military land vehicles task force be merged into the new project, not the other way around. As far as I'm aware, there were no plans on the MILHIST side to try and push a merger of any sort; while I think many of us disagree with creating a separate project here, we have no particular interest in starting a conflict over the issue.  That doesn't mean that we're simply going to sit on our hands and not respond when someone proposes that one of our task forces be dismantled, however. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * NgYShung has no authority to dismantle a task force of a active project nor the authority to force merge the Tanks WikiProject into your task force when that project has members and is just getting off the ground. Your members want your task force to remain and the user who started the Tanks WikiProject doesn't want to merge with your task force so it seems to me both sides have voiced their opinions and this discussion should be closed. The Tanks WikiProject should remain as they are and same goes for the task force. Neither side wishes to merge with the other.  Offnfopt (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm all in support for the WP Tanks, but there hasn't been any activity whatsoever. I hope someone else acknowledges this. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Offnfopt, NgYShung is not trying "to dismantle" anything. This is a merge discussion and members want to do what is best for the project, for which we are all voluntarily here. I, for one, believe as an alternative that the idea of WikiProject Tanks being made a "special project" under the umbrella of Military land vehicles task force was a good one. Kierzek (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the phrasing to "dismantle" is that of, not my own. It would have been better to have a friendly discussion with instead of calling for a vote on merging.  Offnfopt (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Offnfopt, my reply above is directed to your use of the term, here: "NgYShung has no authority to dismantle a task force..." Kierzek (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See the comment I was replying to. "That doesn't mean that we're simply going to sit on our hands and not respond when someone proposes that one of our task forces be dismantled-- Kirill Lokshin" Offnfopt (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite a fierce conversation going on here... Let me point out that I did not try to remove (or "dismantle") any WikiProject or task force. This is just a proposal for merging, consensus was not even made yet. I also leave a section called "Don't merge" and I didn't even vote on either side (still going to stay neutral). I was asking for opinions, I'm not asking for a wrangle. NgYShung  huh? 09:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * it appears the consensus is to make WP Tanks into a Special project like OMT, with both of the coordinators of wp:tanks supporting it, shall I begin the transition now? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OMT? Anyways, you can begin the transition. ∞ Target360YT ∞  ( talk · contribs ) 01:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OMT link above for the WP:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan collaboration project. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , in the interest of not having to go through multiple rounds of page and category renaming again, I think there are a few things that need to be decided before proceeding with any sort of transition:
 * (a) What will be the name of the resulting special project? By convention, our special projects are named "Operation Something" (cf. OMT, etc.); you're free to be as creative or uncreative as you want with regard to what that "Something" is, but we need to know the name up front, since that will determine all of the page and category names.
 * (b) Will the assessments/worklists of the special project be structured in several phases (as is the case with OMT) or as a single set of articles (as is the case for the other projects)? Again, this will determine the category structure that needs to be set up, so it's something you all need to decide ahead of time.
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started the page as Operation Tanks, It still fits in the MO which appears to be using Codewords because tank is a codeword in the first place. I am planning to borrow the phases from OMT. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let me know once you've finalized the number of phases, and I can work on the banner code to implement them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * apologies, I already made on by taking code from OMT's. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the code that will need to be added to WikiProject Military history to generate the phased assessments, not the page tabs for the special project itself. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * } My bad, Their will be 9 phases, all of them listed at WikiProject Military history/Operation Tanks. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I help you with the initial set up? I founded OMT, so I'm familiar with what this process entails. I can slim this down, come up with a creative name for you project (if you like), and do some other stuff that may make the special project more attractive to the members as a whole. Let me be clear here: this is you special project, I'm only offering to consolidate phases, jazz up the name, and add some interesting images and such to the pages. Its up to you if you want that kind of help. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All of that except for the name change sounds good, I think we'll keep the name. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * When does this discussion end? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two possible answers to that question: too soon, or not soon enough. In all serious though it'll end when the issues in the arbitrary section break and full resolved and tanks is disbanded and reorganized as an official special project. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break
Ok then, first things first: The name. Just to be 100% sure, you want to stick with "Operation Tanks", you don't want to go with something jazz-ier or neater or such. If that's what you want to stick with so be it, although its going to look little weird when people read the current list of Special Projects and see Majestic Titan, Normandy, Brothers at War, Great War Centennial, and Tanks, but in fairness that'll be the members problem, not ours.

Moving on, you've got a total of 9 phases listed, may I suggest trimming that down somewhat? I would recommend going with the following phases:
 * Phase I: The Tanks Themselves This phase would include all tanks ever conceived, designed, constructed, or entered into service. All light, medium, heavy, and main battle tanks would be listed here, along with any exotic tank or tank designs that entered into service that fit the basic criteria of a tank.
 * Phase II: Weaponry This phase would include all weaponry systems ever installed or used on any tank or tank variant. This would include, but would not be limited to, main and secondary guns, CIWS systems, and there associated guidance and aiming equipment. This would also include all relevant ammunition for the weaponry systems in question. Any electronic warfare systems and armor designs for tanks (such as explosive reactive armor or chobham armour) would be listed here administratively.
 * Phase III: Major Historical Highlights This phase would include any notable instance of tank or tank warfare in history, such as the battle of Battle of Flers–Courcelette.
 * Phase IV: Biographies This phase would include anyone who served with or commanded a tank or tank formation in a notable capacity who meets the requirements for an individual page as set forth in the WP:BIO guidelines.
 * Phase V: Miscellaneous This phase would include anything not immediately covered by the above. This includes tank memorials, media, pop culture mentions (provided they comply with WP:MILPOP and all other applicable standards as set forth by WP:NOTABILITY), logistic support vehicles, etc. All featured media would be listed here administratively.

Does that work for you? If not, where do you foresee a problem somewhere? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds great! Sorry for the late response I just woke up. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And the name? You forgot to mention whether that's still going to stay as Tanks, and I want to be 100% sure before moving forward because its a pain in the...lower back (that whole general area) to move something of this size once it gets anchored, so if we are going to tow this to a new location now is the time to do so. (Also, as an FYI, you don't need to ping me to get me here, this is one of a few hundred pages I keep on my watchlist, so if you or anyone else edits the page I know about it). TomStar81 (Talk) 13:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's going to stay as tanks. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Next question is whether or not you want to keep the basic layout and color scheme for the pages. The layout shouldn't be an issue, but the green coloring is different then the blue hue we go with as our standard color, would be interested in changing the green to blue or do you want to keep the green. As an additional point, what you have is a light bright green, as opposed to the dark green which tanks would have sported in Europe and Asia (to an extent). IF you are set on keeping the green do you want to see about finding a darker green to better fit in the tank camouflage or would you like to stick the lighter happier green you've currently got for the project's color bars and such? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the green, maybe Shades_of_green? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That certainly is darker, and it does look about right for the tanks of the time. We can switch it out when we start moving and consolidating the pages. Am I missing anything apparent here? If not then we can move forward with the consolidation tomorrow. Do we need to custom build scripts to populate the needed lists, or can we pull existing scripts out of tweak for this task? Also, we are going to need a new tab in the MILHIST template to cover for our newly created operation: tanks, probably the easiest would be to go with   although if you guys have a better idea I'm all ears. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Existing scripts should work, and tank=yes sounds good. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  11:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential List needs Input
Related recipients of the Knight's Cross was recently nominated for deletion, with the result being to listify the contents. The list has been made in the userspace, and input is requested on how best to proceed. Please join in the conversation here. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Military person Infoboxes
A discussion is under way about replacing our infobox:military person at Talk:Douglas MacArthur. Opinions sought. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Military art TF
Hi all! I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I wonder which task force, if any, is suitable for military art and artists. I can't see them mentioned explicitly in any extant TF, unless I have missed it. Military art as a genre has some aspects of memorials, historiography, and culture/traditions, but doesn't really fit neatly into any one of them. Given the wealth of relevant material already in WP, perhaps we should create a TF, on the lines of the War films TF? Constantine  ✍  18:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If be inclined to say WikiProject Military history/Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force, however I've no objection to opening a discussion on a new task force for military art, or tweaking the existing Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force to explicitly include art. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another option might be broadening the War Films TF into a Visual Arts TF; or even merge War Films into a broader Military Art TF that could include plays, sound recordings, literature, painting or whatever else we all deemed appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I hadn't thought of that, but it is a rather elegant solution to this problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would go with Ian's suggestion of rolling art into the War Films TF. Perhaps rename it Military Art, Literature and Media or similar. Zawed (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed a good idea. Constantine  ✍  06:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing the scope of the war films task force would be somewhat more complicated than it seems, since the articles in the task force are dual-tagged (through the MILHIST banner as well as the Films banner), and the assessment categories roll up into the WikiProject Films assessment system as well as our own. If we expand the scope to include non-film items, we'd need to have some way of excluding those from the information that gets passed on to the Films project, which isn't a feature that we currently implement anywhere.
 * I like the idea of a military art, literature and media task force, but I would suggest creating it as a new one rather than re-purposing the war films one. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, I have no issue with leaving the Films TF alone if it might complicate things. I would suggest that including "media" in a new TF name might confuse things a bit as the term can encompass film as well (as it does in FA and GA topics) so perhaps "Art [which would capture painting/sculpture], literature [books/plays] and music [songs/recordings]" might be the way... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a substantive reason to avoid rolling it all together into one TF. We have an assessment "sharing" arrangement with SHIPS and I can't see how it would cause confusion if we expanded Films to military art (broadly construed). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference between SHIPS and FILMS is that the former manually copies our assessments, while the latter directly uses our assessment templates/categories. By way of example: an article within the scope of our maritime warfare task force may or may not be within the scope of SHIPS; a ship generally will be, but a naval battle or commander generally won't.  SHIPS will usually copy our rating for any article that's in-scope for them (so, for example, an article that passes ACR here will also receive an A-Class rating from SHIPS), but this is done by manually setting the same rating in the SHIPS banner, not automatically.  On the other hand, every article within the scope of the war films task force is within the scope of FILMS, so the shared assessment is implemented to be entirely automatic as a result; in other words, the same assessment-level category (e.g. Category:B-Class war films articles) is used to generate both the MILHIST and the FILMS assessments.  Consequently, we can't rename or re-scope those assessment categories without breaking part of the FILMS assessment system. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation Kirill. It is unfortunate that we are so tied to another Wikiproject that it restricts what we can do with one of our own taskforces. It appears we'll need a new TF that excludes films. Perhaps a Military art and literature TF, however the term "Military art" has another meaning, akin to Sun Tzu's "Art of War", which complicates things a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

so how will we go ahead? Is "Military art and literature" acceptable as a title? Who is responsible for TF creation? Constantine  ✍  07:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we have to go with something other than "Military art" for the Sun Tzu reason, maybe "Military visual art and literature" or "Military-related art and literature" and make it explicit in the TF that films are not included? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "War art and literature"? Or is that a little close to the Art of War? Zawed (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that "military art" suggests painting and so on to me more than it does the art of warfare (if someone said "military arts" then it would definitely suggest the art of warfare) but I don't have a problem with Zawed's suggestion of "War art and literature" -- it kinda fits nicely with "War films" too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Until this discussion, I'll have to admit I did not know there was a TF for military heraldry. I'll agree with those who say "military art" is a term of art (pun intended) and should not be used as the name of the TF dealing with artistic works associated with the military, but how will this proposed TF interface with the one for heraldry? --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Importance Scale
We should have an importance scale for all of our articles and their assessments. It would be more helpful in determining which articles should be prioritized first. Feedback anyone? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it would be helpful if we were able to operationalize it some, but overall, as far as I am aware, both the importance scale and the class scale below GA are fairly arbitrary in their actual application across WP. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * When we were first setting up the assessment system in 2006, we made a deliberate decision not to include an importance scale because of its potential for causing conflict. Military history deals with topics that are intimately tied up with notions of national identity and pride for many participants; being told that your country's favored victory/general/etc. is unimportant can be hurtful—and that's before we get into questions of national parity (i.e. "Why is the battle that my country won low-importance and the battle that our historical rival won high-importance?") and various issues of systemic bias. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And from a pragmatic standpoint, there's isn't a whole lot of utility in it. WP:SHIPS had an importance scale for a while, and we ultimately decided to scrap it because no one really used it. Which is to say, we all generally write the articles we're interested in, regardless of their "importance". Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never taken any notice of it but now you mention it, who decides what's important? It's a layer of analysis inherently OR non-NPOV and worst of all, boring. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to pile on, I've never seen the importance rating being used to focus efforts in projects which use it. People tend to just work on things that interest them, irregardless of how important other people judge them to be. And vice versa. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree we need an importance scale, they are very subjective and there are no criteria to decide where a particular article sits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The importance scale is too subjective to be useful, IMO, and simply causes unnecessary angst for some editors. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
The discussions are at: K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 29
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 29

Adding one more: K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_5

Help with Awards section for bio
I just made my first bio that had a military awards section and I need some help - I'd like to make the cool stack of awards ribbons and then table, but I'm sure I will screw it up by getting the ribbons out of order. It's for U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Gary J. Volesky. If someone else can easily make it I'd appreciate it, but if not, and for future knowledge, is there some kind of template or instructions for these? Thank! —Мандичка YO 😜 13:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/November 20, 2016
Tôn Thất Đính: another one with an AWOL nominator. Brian Boulton has just stepped down at TFA, so we're short-handed, and I'd appreciate someone looking this over to see if it's still okay. The citations in the lead were fine back when this was promoted; we usually move them below the lead these days, but that's not critical. I found one broken link, at Note #1. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have several of YM's contributions on my watchlist but not this one, and Vietnam from the Vietnamese perspective is unfortunately way down my familiarity list anyway -- maybe AC and some of the other Aussie old hands could take a look? Happy to help polish after that if necessary.... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mostly beyond my knowledge I'm afraid, although I was able to resolve a few redlinks (mostly caused by diacritics etc). Anotherclown (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Drat. This is the only available article with a date connection (anniversary) that I can use ... the other two in that list won't work. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * May not be that bad. I notice that all the book sources are English language, so we can walk through post-FAC edits and see what looks dubious, referring to some of those resources as necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Dank, I know nothing about the subject, but on even a cursory skim I think that in its current state this would fail a GAR let alone an FAR and probably ought to be pulled from the TFA queue, since if it goes on the main page the hyenas will pounce. Other than a death date in the lead there's no mention of how he died, and aside from two brief fragments (until the fall of Saigon in 1975, when he fled to the United States and In 1998, Đính claimed he felt remorse…) there's absolutely nothing post-1968 despite the fact that he lived until 2013, and although he served as Senator from 1967-1975—for obvious reasons, the most pivotal period in Vietnam's history—there's not a single word about his political career in this period, and at no point in either his earlier or later political career does it mention what any of his political positions actually were. (Even if he didn't do anything except turn up to congress and claim his expenses, that still needs to be mentioned given that he'd previously been such a big-shot and readers will reasonably wonder why someone who'd previously been so controversial didn't do anything for seven years.) &#8209; Iridescent 23:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Iri, my thinking here was that I could probably count on my homeys either way, to fix it or tell me it needs to be pulled. Thanks for getting that process started, it does look dicey. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Separately, is there a reason Thất renders differently in the page title than in the text?--  Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The text is the same. How it renders depends on your wp and browser settings. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to some of the English-language sources? - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess not. I'll pull it for now, but it would be nice to run it in the future if we can. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Type T2 tankers
I've recently reworked the List of Type T2 tankers. Not sure whether or not to tag it for Milhist or not, so will leave that for members of this WP to decide on. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday. It seems within scoop to me so I've tagged it for MILHIST. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Page move discussion
There is a relevant style/title discussion @ Talk:Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle. Primergrey (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles on ancient Roman history
Iazyges has nominated four articles on ancient Roman military history, Principes, Triarii, Hastati and Velites. All were taken through GA in 2008 by an editor who ceased editing in 2011. I have looked in detail at Velites. My initial impression was that the content is OK but not the referencing, but when I checked the sources I found that the original editor had misinterpreted them on several important points. Iazyges does not have access to the sources, but has made considerable improvements to Velites in response to my comments, and is looking for reliable sources to bring the article up to A-Class standard. I would therefore suggest that Velites should be kept as a candidate, but it would be better if the other three are withdrawn, as they almost certainly need a complete re-write to get them to the standard to be considered for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, this seems fair enough, but can you please cross post this on the A-class reviews themselves? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah sounds good, I haven't been able to find any of the velite books I need. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by cross post - copy my comment to each review or put a link in each review to the discussion here? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, as this page will be archived eventually, it is probably best to copy your comment to each review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Layout of bibliographcal details question
User:Keith-264/sandbox4 I'm cleaning out my sandboxes, this one being a revision of History of the Great War now that I've got Wells (2011) to use. I'd be grateful for scrutiny, because I'm adding some details below each volume reference and am not sure about just placing them one space below the volume. Should I box them in or something? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
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) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We need to get this done!
I came to put Nike Zeus up for A-class when I noticed that Mark XIV bomb sight was still there. It's been FIVE MONTHS! There are multiple supports and the only thing holding this up is concerns over a source that would have been GFed in any other process on the entire project. I need some closure on this, could someone either fail it or promote it already! Maury Markowitz (talk)
 * Thanks everyone! I'll begin the deluge of articles in 5...4...3... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on having infobox for military gear (Helmet, Personal Carrying Equipment, etc).
I thought long and hard about this years ago and I was wondering if I need to propose what should be in the infobox or is there a need for some kind of deliberation? Ominae (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Knight's Cross Holders List articles: Lead and opening section
FYI on the discussion: Talk:List_of_Knight%27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients_(Sa–Schr). Interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

'''Copy pasted from above linked discussion at an editor's suggestion. Below originally appeared at the Talk page of the list article above.'''

The article claims: ''Scherzer wrote his book in cooperation with the German Federal Archives. The book was chosen by Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler for the library of the Bundeswehr University Munich and Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and is considered an accepted reference there.'' On the first issue, while I do not doubt that the German Federal Archives assisted Scherzer with his research, as they assist other researchers, I would not say that they "cooperated" with him. That sounds like being equals, as if the relation between Scherzer and the Federal Archives has been somehow official. If it was official, that claim should be corrobated by RS. Instead this and the other claims are referenced to Scherzer's own webpage and the "cover" of the 2007 edition. Since he is also the publisher, I would not qualify that as a reliable source. We are not talking about published reviews, but about Scherzer himself quoting from private correspondence. As to the WASt, that is the opinion of one Mr. Betten, no first name given. The same with Seidler, who did not "choose" the book for the library, but wanted to ensure the author that the library would buy it. One just might as well quote Ulrich, *Butz* or "Doktor Krollspell", no last names given, praising the work on the internet. Without saying anything about the quality of the work in question, I deem these statements to be promotional. It seems as if the text has been used for each and every list, but I might as well start this discussion here.--Assayer (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Promotion
 * I'd suggest raising it at Military history talk and linking to this thread at a minimum. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll revisit @ MilHist with a link here. Overall, the intros in this and related articles are overly detailed for a list article, since the background is covered at the main article on the Knight's cross. My suggestion for the intro is as follows:


 * The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its variants were the highest awards in the military and paramilitary forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low-ranking soldier for a single act of extreme battlefiled bravery. Over 7,000 awards were made since its first presentation on 30 September 1939. Presentations were made to members of the three military branches of the Wehrmacht—the Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy) and Luftwaffe (Air Force)—as well as the Waffen-SS, the Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD—Reich Labour Service) and the Volkssturm (German national militia).


 * Listed here are the Knight's Cross recipients whose last name starts with "[__]". They are ordered alphabetically by last name. The rank listed is the recipient's rank at the time the Knight's Cross was awarded.


 * This would avoid other POV issues, such as AKCR's "order commission" being piped to Blue-ribbon panel; uses of Third Reich instead of Nazi Germany; etc. I propose that the section on Background can be dispensed with as well as excessive intricate detail covered in the main article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with K.e.coffman's suggestion above; for reason's of concision and to avoid any possible pov issues. Kierzek (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the Background section being removed, as it is not excessive detail. It is necessary to explain the different grades and when they were authorised in each list, and the Background section serves that purpose. Expecting readers to click on the main article to find out that information is unnecessary. It is basic information about the KC and its higher grades which is integral to any list of recipients. BTW, conducting this discussion here, where it is unlikely to be seen except by those that watchlist all of these lists is inappropriate. It should be conducted centrally where the community can have its say, either on the Milhist talk page or on the KC talk page. If you persist, so far as I am concerned, outcomes of discussion held here applies only to this list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

End copy/paste.

Additional input welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: As for use of Scherzer, I have seen him cited as an RS source in other RS work. With that said, I don't own a copy of his work and rely on others herein for details. Kierzek (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would consider Scherzer RS for the purpose of establishing who received the KC and when, over Fellgiebel who was part of the AKCR and therefore is a non-independent source. Scherzer based his book on the documentation in the archives, which is always a good sign. But it was still a self-published work, so the fact that it was not published in an academic or mainstream publisher suggests that the audience for this work is limited. The copy in the intros suggests that it was "endorsed" and "acceptable" which seems pov, but is also unnecessary, since the purpose of the List articles is not to judge his work, but to simply list the recipients. That's why I was suggesting that the leads be streamlined to remove this "sausage making" from the view of the general reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From an examination of the lists, it would appear that Fellgiebel is used to compare and contrast with the information from Scherzer, noting there are occasional variations between the two. would be best to comment on that, but it appears self-evident. I don't consider that Fellgiebel's association with the AKCR makes him unreliable for the details of any particular recipient, because it is the individual recipient that he needs to be independent of, not of any connection to the KC. Unless you can demonstrate where his data is unreliable? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The initial discussion stemmed from the copy in the lead being promotional dif (as I understand it), not the validity of the listings themselves, unless the OP had something else in mind. I pointed out other pov issues in the intro copy and suggested the intros be copy-edited for concision to "bypass" such issues, essentially. I.e. I'm not proposing that the lists themselves be changed, just the introduction, common across all such list articles. Does this make sense?
 * Separately, to address the concern about the initial suggestion to remove the "Background" section, instead, it could be simplified as follows:
 * The award was instituted on 1 September 1939, at the onset of the German Invasion of Poland. A higher grade, the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross, was added in 1940. In 1941, two higher grades of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves were instituted: the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds). At the end of 1944 the final grade, the Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, was created.
 * Or similar along these lines. I personally find the section, (List_of_Knight%27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients_(Sa–Schr)), to be difficult to read due to italics, foreign words and difficult prose, so something more streamlined might work. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I could live with it if the full date of each change were included rather than just stating what year they happened in. The German name of the source document, which translate as "something gazette" or similar, seems a bit unnecessary. Invasion should be in initial lower case, and there is an arrant parentheses after Diamonds. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My main concern is indeed with the sentences that make it appear as if Scherzer's book was some sort of official work written in cooperation with the German Federal Archives and so forth. It's never a good idea to copy "reviews" from the back cover of a book. The lead is the same with all 27 lists. --Assayer (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the suggested background section changes work, with the tweaks which Peacemaker67 has put forth. Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for input on re-draft of an article
Hello, I've prepared a new draft of an article but because I've been involved in writing two of the sources used I want to establish whether there would be consensus to copy it across. Slightly more detail at Talk:Buckton_Castle but that's pretty much the long and short of it. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject United States - The 50,000 Challenge
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota
Hello all,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of Indian Coast Guard directors general needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of Indian Coast Guard directors general; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Official History of the Great War DVD-ROM question
History of the Great War I'm redoing the article but need information on the NMP dvd-rom publications, can anyone help? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of succession boxes
A disagreement has arisen on the use of succession boxes in articles on subjects who commanded units that generally do not have stand-alone (blue linked) articles. I would appreciate additional input on the matter; the discussion is at Talk:Wolfgang_Späte. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Passchendaele
Anyone mind if I move the title to The Third Battle of Ypres or The Battles of Ypres, 1917? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of moving this discussion to Talk:Battle of Passchendaele to avoid duplication. Please continue thither. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Operation Brown Water
Would anyone be interested in joining a new special project to cover brown water ships like Monitors, gunboats, or any other ships that served in rivers, it would be broken down into the following phases:
 * I: Ships
 * The ships and their classes


 * II: Equipment
 * Any weapon or piece of equipment on it.


 * III: Campaigns (Name suggestions welcome)
 * Any battle, war, or any event in which two enemies, with at least one being brown water ship, fired on each other.


 * IV:Major Events
 * Development of them.


 * V:Biographies
 * Important engineers and admirals/commanding officers


 * VI:Miscellaneous
 * Anything obviously brown water related that doesn't fit in anything else.


 * Would anyone be interested? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Bannon help with United States Navy career info
Stephen Bannon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Bannon#United_States_Navy_Officer

Can people please help to add his United States Navy service to his infobox?

Specifically, trying to find date range for his years of service, and his ending rank?

And also to add section on that military service to the text of the article, itself?

Thank you ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion
I just moved 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion to Category:Field artillery battalions of the United States Army. Is that correct? Is a "Field Artillery Observation Battalion" a type of Field artillery battalion or is it a different thing? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Formally, it's in the Field Artillery Branch, so I guess it's OK, even if they entirely lack any cannon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved this article to Category:Field artillery units of the United States Army so thankyou Kendall-K1 for finishing the job. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Units and formations with numerical titles failing to display properly in categories
A recent algorithm change to the way categories display has inadvertently screwed up the categorization of many articles on Wikipedia including the military categories of units and formations with numerical designations (1st Infantry Regiment, etc.), so instead of displaying the 1st Infantry Regiment (01) under "0", 14th Infantry Regiment under "1", 32nd Infantry Regiment under "3" and so on, it now lumps them all under "0-9", e.g. see Category:Infantry regiments of the United States Army and Category:Infantry regiments of France... There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization which you are invited to join. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand the change, what it is intended to do is remove the need to "pipe" numerical lists, so that it now displays 1st, 2nd, 3rd naturally, rather than the preivous, 1st, 101st, 10th, 2nd display. It would only mess up the order of heavily "piped" lists.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed article
I am proposing an article on the 1297-98 expedition/campaign by the English to Flanders. I am not sure how to describe the article as I have seen expedition and campaign used in texts. I suggest one of the following: Any comments would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * English expedition to Flanders (1297-98)
 * English campaign to Flanders (1297-98)
 * The first looks better to me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go with the first title choice. Kierzek (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to use a dash ("–") instead of a hyphen in the date ranges. Also I'm pretty sure WP:MOSDATE was recently changed to require four-digit years even in a range like this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked, two-digit end years are ok for two consecutive years like this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * AIUI only where space is at a premium, as in tables with numerous columns; elsewhere full years are definitely preferred.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No: when the years are consecutive or space is at a premium. &#8209; Iridescent 22:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be English campaign in Flanders if that form was used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks will go with English expedition to Flanders (1297—98). Regards Newm30 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Year ranges like that should use an ndash (short dash) without spaces per MOS:DATERANGE, e.g. 1297–98. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article already exists under the name of Anglo-French War (1294–1303).--Catlemur (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a broader war and I could include a paragraph with main article link to English expedition to Flanders (1297–98). The reason for this is that there were other expeditions to Gascony that also fit within the war and I can go into further detail and reasons and issues than trying to tie it all up in one article. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of reliable sources for one of our Featured Articles
Your attention is drawn to: Reliable sources/Noticeboard Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Luftwaffe pilot web-resources
Hi team Apologies if this has been queried before. Can you please comment on these on-line resources regarding German WW2 pilots. If you read through their introductions and then their bibliographies you will find they have done a huge amount of research and accessed extensive original microfiche records and many respected books on the subject matter. Having a small library on the German pilots (30-50 books) I find extremely close correlation with the data provided in these resources and the published materials and a high co-incidence on the same published sources. Would you accept their accuracy as a suitable reference for Wiki-articles?

http://www.ww2.dk/lwairfields.html    &     http://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%20-%20General%20Introduction.pdf

http://www.ww2.dk/lwoffz.html   &    http://www.ww2.dk/Lw%20Offz%20-%20Introduction%20-%20Apr%202016.pdf (from 50000 official microfiche documents - p18-20 detail the official British War Archives used, which included 160 tonnes of captured documents (p18))

https://web.archive.org/web/20130928070316/http:/lesbutler.co.uk/claims/tonywood.htm (also with extensive Allied air-war information. Individual files have details of the exact official microfiche records used for that file)

I have downloaded and merged these files onto a single spreadsheet and filtering by individual pilot gives some of the most complete records I have ever seen. I don't believe they have been fabricated nor promoting any pro-Nazi agenda. Your comments please, can people verify details of the official Allied archives used? Do people have doubts to their authenticity? thanks Philby NZ (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think it might be best to post this query on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as they might be better equipped to assess this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Knight Cross recipients
FYI, I've created the above page to track redirects of the articles on non-notable KC recipients, per discussion here: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Interested editors are invited to check up on the progress or participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Neologism in Moro Rebellion article?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Moro Rebellion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Several templates have been submitted for discussion, which can be found here:
 * TfD:Knight's Cross recipients in the Nationale Volksarmee
 * TfD:Knight's Cross recipients of the 262nd ID
 * TfD:Knight's Cross recipients of the 334th ID
 * TfD:Knight's Cross recipients of the 112th ID

Interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

German counter-attack, 25 September 1917
Does anyone know what the defaultsort should be? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not an answer to your question, but my experience with default sorts is that they hinder more often than they help. Categories may be arranged differently, so that a default sort that works for one category places an article in an unusual place for another category.  It seems to me that omitting a default and "piping" to fit categories works better.  YMMV --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks babe RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

New 5000 Challenge for Australia
Hi, WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge and the wider WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge are up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Australia and Oceania like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Australia but fuelled by a contest if desirable to really get articles on every state/territory and subject mass improved. After every 100 articles done for Australia this would feed into the main Oceania one. I will start a smaller challenge for your field of focus if there is the support. I would like some support from wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start anyway with some articles to make doing a Destubathon for Australia and Oceania worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few articles needing assessment
I noticed that several projects including this one seem to have a lot of articles needing to be assessed. I found a lot under Category:Military history stubs that I did and I poked around a few other categories as well. I just wanted to drop a note here in case others wanted to help. I don't know what task forces or other things they might need but I can help drop them into the right buckets for others to refine better. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look at things in my area. Some clearly have been expanded to start IMO without reassessment.  Found one that was a MILHIST stub but no project tag - there may be more.  Don't know how that happens.  Quite a few are just definitions of military terms, without further expansion Monstrelet (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Steve Truglia stuntman, SAS?, SBS?, etc
This person died recently, and their BLP had a lot of claims of a military career that were unsourced, or sourced to his own website whicht appears to be dead.


 * "Truglia had a long background in UK Special Forces from 1980–2000, and served with both the British Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS) as a reservist. In 1988 he joined 289 Commando (RA) (V), and in 1994 joined the Royal Marines Reserves SBS and qualified as a Swimmer/Canoeist (SC3), He was a qualified army physical training instructor (A grade). He was an armed and unarmed combat instructor and an evasive driving instructor, and worked in close protection in the private sector at the highest level (formerly Saladin and KMS).[1]


 * In 1981 Truglia passed the Parachute Regiment's 'P’ Company, and in 1982 was awarded the best student award on his parachute course at RAF Brize Norton. In 1988 he passed the Royal Marines Commando Course at Lympstone to earn his green beret. Truglia completed over 200 military parachute jumps from balloons, a variety of aircraft, daytime and at night, on land and sea. In 1991 Truglia was awarded the US Marine Corps Gold Parachute Wings at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, whilst on an exchange attachment with the US Marines' 2nd ANGLICO. He is one of only a few UK soldiers to have completed parachute jumps from an OV10 Bronco aircraft."

If there is any truth to any of this, it would be worth sourcing reliably. I fear his 'obits' may have been sourced from WP.

Is this something this Wiki Project might have an interest in? --220  of  Borg 07:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Review of GA nominations by User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
Can anyone please take up my GA nominations listed below?
 * Sam Manekshaw (nominated on 2 August 2016, close of 4 months)
 * Kodandera M. Cariappa (nominated on 13 August 2016, more than 3 months ago)
 * Field marshal (India) (nominated on 4 September 2016, close 3 months)
 * Param Vir Chakra (nominated on 5 September 2016, close 3 months)
 * Somnath Sharma (nominated on 24 September 2016, close to two months)

I am posting this message because, these are presently the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 12th oldest nominations in the warfare queue of GA nominations. In respect with quid pro quo, I have taken up 41 reviews till now of which 7 are on review. It would do me a favour if anyone of you could take up these reviews. If you observe the queue, you can figure out that some other nominators in between did not take up any reviews. I request any of you to some forward to help me in promoting them to GA and some eventually to FA. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 13:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Japanese WW2 aircraft id needed
Via OTRS we have an comment that File:Mitsubishi A5M replica, Tokorozawa Aviation Museum.jpg is not an A5M but a Ki-27 Oscar. Any Japanese aircraft specialists want to comment one way or another. Thanks Nthep (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a photo of the Nakajima Ki-27 replica at the Tokorozawa Aviation Museum. Its Allied nickname was "Nate". The Nakajima Ki-43 was called "Oscar". Samf4u (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not an A5M as those all had prominent "razorbacks" on the spine of the aircraft that the cockpit was faired into and more pointed, ellipitical wings. The cockpit looks correct for a Ki-27, as do the radio mast and wing shape, but the engine in the Ki-27 was faired much more smoothly into the fuselage, without a "waist" as is apparent in the photo. OTOH, that might be an artifact of the angle and I don't have any Ki-27 photos that are good enough to see how visible any waist was. So, on balance, a Ki-27.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Found another photo from a different angle Nakajima Ki-27 replica.jpg. Samf4u (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I'll thank the person for the heads up and request a file rename at Commons. Nthep (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job guys. Clearly not a A5M, no three blade prop, different engine cowling; does have non-retractable landing gear. Ki-27, I recall came out in 1937. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A note of thanks to as well, for correcting the Commons category last month.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is no doubt everyone saies. At Nakajima Ki-27 replica.jpg Japanese explanatory of this aircraft 九七式戦闘機（Ki-27 Nate). --隼鷹 (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The image is used in the Mitsubishi A5M and the replica itself is listed as a "survivor". Perhaps a Japanese WWII specialist could drop by and sort out? Monstrelet (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Nice work identifying the aircraft. Parsecboy (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fort notability guidelines
This came up after a few articles were created on forts in India - are there any notability guidelines for ancient forts? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, no. No guidelines on ancient forts.  Also no guidelines on ancient footpaths, ancient lighting systems, or ancient chiropractic techniques!  (grin)  My point is that the most common use of subject-specific notability guidelines seems to be circumventing WP:GNG, which means more of them is something we do NOT need!  And in light of that, the best answer to your question is this: has the fort in question ever been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent published secondary sources?  If so, then notability is certain!  If not, then notability is doubtful, at least for the present.  Hope that helps!  And my apologies for the smart alec third sentence there.  KDS4444 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mohangad is one in question. Most of the mentions seem to be travel related ("see the ancient fort!") --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Pages using deprecated image syntax
Does anyone know how to remedy this? I've been seeing it lately on articles I've worked on such as Gas attacks at Wulverghem but the guide page isn't any help. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, cancel that, I think I've done it. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the issue was/is, but the Advanced editing menu has a Search and Replace feature. A simple one I've done is replace 'Image:' with 'File:'.  But this can only be done on 1 article at a time. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed |image =Ypres area south, 1914-1915.jpg to |image = File:Ypres area south, 1914-1915.jpg|image_size=300px and the deprecated.... went away.Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand your change. Was there a visible error with the Infobox before?  I'm not seeing errors in the previous version of the article (before today). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't ;o)) it was trial and error. No, Actions of the Bluff, 1916 has "Pages using deprecated image syntax" in the hidden categories section. I assume it's for the same reason. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Duh, I didn't think to look at the categories. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just did the same to the Bluff and the hidden category went. Keith-264 (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Liberation struggles and liberation movements
Howzit all.

Posting this here as it's especially pertinent to military conflicts, and their description thereof, on Wikipedia.

I work mostly on African conflict related articles, and something I've increasingly noticed is the use of "liberation lingo", describing wars and conflicts as "liberation struggles" and the parties that waged them as "liberation movements". WP:LABEL says terms like "freedom fighter" are vale-laden labels which attempt to skew the readership's opinion, so my question is do the former two also fall into this category?

Liberation-this, or liberation-that is, I believe, an example of loaded language (except when used as a proper noun, such as National Liberation Front or Vimochana Samaram). It's use is common in describing the liberation of European territories from Nazi rule following WWII in the First World; however, in the Third World the word is mostly derived from communist terminology and used to denote a successful guerrilla war or an insurgency. Often both sides would claim to be fighting for freedom. Use of this language in that particular context is currently grossly pervasive in some areas of the encyclopedia. It doesn't help that the United Nations has a list of "liberation movements" it recognises, but then again the UN isn't subject to the rule of NPOV.

If indeed liberation lingo is an enormous breach of WP:WORDS and WP:LABEL as I suspect, we should make it a point to avoid this terminology in our articles as much as possible.

I've already broached the topic at Manual of Style, but was informed I should gauge consensus in the community first. As all of us at MILHIST will probably be the most affected by any change in policy towards conflict-related articles I felt we would likewise benefit the most from this discussion. -- Katan gais (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I could see using these terms when a foreign occupier has been replaced by domestic rule, as in the WWII examples you cite. Agreed it seems inappropriate when one domestic ruler is replaced by another, even if the first was a dictator and the second a representative democracy. Can you link to some examples of what you would consider to be inappropriate use? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are just a few of the examples, which I've identified over the past couple of months. Nearly all of these concern the Rhodesian Bush War and the various guerrilla campaigns directed against South Africa's apartheid government.


 * It's clear that the trend of describing internal and civil conflicts as "liberation struggles" waged by "liberation movements" is not going to go away any time soon. It's common lingo in Africa and parts of Asia (especially India) and South America. I believe this deserves some sort of clear consensus as to when it's appropriate and when it's not. -- Katan gais (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If only descriptive terms are to be used, how many conflicts that you approve of are going to have to be renamed invasions, repressions, colonial wars, slaughters and terrorist atrocities? It might be better to try a case-by-case analysis of the RS. Keith-264 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * None. With the possible exception of Bangladesh Liberation War, there are no articles concerning specific conflicts which include "liberation" in their titles. This is mostly a content rather than a title issue. A case-by-case analysis would be plausible, but based on what precedent(s)? -- Katan gais (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked over a few of your examples and I am now inclined to agree with Keith-264 (about case-by-case analysis of the RS). What we call a particular conflict should depend on what the RS call it. Your first edit is correct, because we have an article by that name, so that's what we call it, presumably based on RS (if not, there needs to be an article move discussion). Your use of "First Gulf War" in the second edit is correct for the same reason. Your third edit should just say what the RS says: "loyalty to Gaddafi for his support for the anti-apartheid struggle." So the article should say not "South African liberation movements", not "South African nationalist movements", but "South African anti-apartheid struggle". I don't think we need any extra policy around this. I did not check the rest of your examples. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, I wouldn't like the term First Gulf War because that looks like an ideologically biased term to me. I'd prefer terms like First US War of Aggression against Iraq and Apartheid, Zionist Occupation of Palestine. Keith-264 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you don't believe liberation struggle and liberation movement are in and of themselves value-laden labels which should be avoided.


 * I can't seem to get a clear answer on whether these constitute a violation of NPOV or not. They said the same thing at Manual of Style. Just for once I'd like a "yes", "no", clear-cut response. -- Katan gais (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll get a yes or no answer. Like all loaded words, we shouldn't use them unless RS does. And even then, if there is disagreement, we attribute the label and give both sides. But beware of using attribution just to cast doubt on the use of a term. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that all labels are potentially ideological and propagandist and that there can be unloaded ones is a bit of a circular argument. NPOV would be judged according to the number of uses in the RS followed by an argument that the RS are biased by commercial as well as ideological concerns. It isn't good enough but Wiki isn't moral philosophy.Keith-264 (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a common issue in WWII Yugoslavia, where the Partisans labelled themselves as liberators, but the Chetniks disagreed. I think we follow the sources in each case, and use the consensus of the available material. I don't support any blanket ban on the use of "liberation". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this edit was an improvement: the opposition to the Apartheid government wasn't really motivated by "nationalism". I've changed it to "anti-apartheid movements". Nick-D (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What is victory? RFC
There is presently a discussion at Talk:Operation Castor as to whether or not the Infobox for Operation Castor (the initial French capture of Dien Bien Phu) should state "French Union victory" or "Viet Minh defeat", in addition to "Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost". As everyone acknowledges that the French achieved all their objectives in an opposed military operation, I believe that it is correct to state "French Union victory" or "Viet Minh defeat". Can other users please provide their comments on the RFC. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian SOBT query
The following appears in the article SR-47

"Regarding this fact, it has been acknowledged the use of the SR-47 rifle by the Bulgarian elite counter terrorism force the SOBT (СОБТ, in Bulgarian)."

Given the article states only seven weapons were produced, six with the US military and one in a museum, I immediately thought hoax and was going to delete except for the fact that the claim is repeated in the SOBT article itself. Anyone expert in counter terrorism able to explain this?Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither article has any references that support the claim, in fact except for one reference about a similar rifle by a different manufacturer, neither article has any references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii and the American Civil War
KAVEBEAR would like some help expanding this article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

WWII: Raw numbers of Allied troop strengths in a specific region?
Hello. Am interested in seeing raw numbers (preferably month by month) of WWII Allied troop strengths (UK, US, Australian) in a specific region-- the Bengal province of India. Surely such a source or sources must exist, preferably on the Internet? Tks in advance Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The British official histories have useful appendices of data on this kind of topic, though probably not by province. See the War Against Japan series. The official histories of the Indian effort in World War II might also be worth checking out. To help get you started, the titles and publishing details of these works are available here. The figure for Australian troops was almost zero, as no Australian Army units served in India. A small number of Australian soldiers were deployed to training units in India and the like as part of exchange programs, but from memory numbered only in the dozens. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Eight million thanks, Nick-D! Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination without correct map
I would like to nominate Æthelflæd, daughter of Alfred the Great and the chief female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England, for A-Class, but I only have a map for her husband, and I have requested an amended map at the graphics workshop. Is it OK to nominate the article without waiting for the correct map? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for it - you could make the argument that the current map, given that it provides the situation in England at around the time she took the throne is perfectly valid. You might even keep it in the article once the updated map is available to show the territorial changes during her reign. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I have not tried to get a map for when she died as the situation was changing so fast at that time that it would not be practical. I have blown up the southern part of the current map - to make room to show more places - and asked for a map showing the places which are mentioned in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Several templates have been nominated for discussion; please see this entry, as well as below it on the Templates for discussion page:


 * TfD:KC recipient template.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

History of the Great War
It's been suggested that I put faces to names but having looked through commons, I can't find photos of Edmonds et al. If anyone could help by uploading the usual suspects I'd be grateful. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Military operation or Military intervention
Per the meaning I found for 'intervention', one may say that not all the military operations are military interventions. Said that, I'd like to know if we can have separate lists for 'Military operations' and 'Military interventions' of a country. I know that the latter can be a sub-list of the former. Thanks. felestin1714 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

List of National Defence Academy alumni FLC
Having the passed the A-class review, the list is now a FLC. Presently the list is divided as Chief of Staffs (Army, Navy, Air Force), Wartime Award Recipients (PVC, MVC, VC), Peacetime award recipients (AC, KC, SC), but an editor has proposed to revamp the entire structure stating that the present one is complicated to surf, and must be done based on services. Bit I feel that even if the alumni has been divided per the services, again they need to sud-divided among chiefs, wartime and peacetime award recipients, and would be the same as it is, now. I request comments regarding this on the nomination page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Raul Escribano
Would someone mind taking a look at Raul Escribano and assessing it? Article was just created by a new editor, who for some reason added a Edit protected to the article's talk page. I think the creator might be mistaking the template as a way to protect the article from being edited by others. Anyway, I'm also not quite sure if this soldier's rank or the positions he has held are sufficient for WP:SOLDIER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As a brigadier general, he is notable enough under WP:SOLDIER. You may be right about the template. TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification about WP:SOLDIER . The template was removed by another editor. Also, thanks to anyone who saw my original post and did some clean up on the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Based upon c:User talk:Marchjuly, it appears that has declared a WP:COI and may have actually been ordered by his superiors to create the article about Escribano. This is an interesting case, so I'm not sure if anything needs to be done with respect to this other than perhaps advise Erik4j relevant policies/guidelines that relate to COI editing and point him to a page like WP:PSCOI. Anyone come across this kind of thing before? Could this be considered a form of paid editing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is correct. I work for BG Escribano as an office assistant and he wanted a wiki page to be created for him. I am in the Air Force as an E-5 assigned to a joint position under him, but to my understanding, the term soldier is used for any Army member much like for the Air Force, Airman is used for any individual Air Force member. I apologize if I have mad editing errors but I am not terribly keen on how this editing format works. My boss has a fear that the "anyone can edit wiki" will maybe mess with his public information, so to alleviate that, I did add the edit protection with the understanding that it stops edits without references. The general gave me a task and I'm trying to get this done as best as possible. I used the template from Malcolm Frost's wiki page as a guideline and edited the information to match BG Escribano. Let me know how I can fix any issues! Thanks for your help, it is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik4j (talk • contribs) 1 December 2016 (UTC+9) (UTC)


 * Thanks . Your boss is correct that the "anyone can edit wiki" means anyone can edit the wiki, including his page ... if he's been a bad boy that might indeed mess with his image. He needs to understand that he does not own the article and has no control over its destiny. You need to read WP:PSCOI and WP:COI and, ideally, make suggestions for change on the talk page of the article and not to the article itself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again . In addition to what posted above, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because it seems that your boss might have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is about. Basically, articles can be created and edited by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime. The Wikipedia community has established various policies and guidelines over the years to try and maintain a certain standard, but the project is based upon the collaborative editing of volunteers who want to contribute to helping to build the encyclopedia. Wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold, but also wants them to establish a consensus through discussion when there are disagreements. COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something which is highly discouraged by the community. Wikipedia articles are intended to be written in our own words in a neutral manner and article content is supposed to reflect what independent, reliable sources say about the subject; articles are not only supposed to reflect what the subject (or those connected to the subject) wants the world to know. Since many COI editors tend to be pretty concerned with the subject's image and portraying it in a certain way, an article can quickly devolve into something too promotional for Wikipedia purpose. When this happens, other editors will step in and clean up the article accordingly. FWIW, Escribano satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for military personnel so the article is unlikely to be deleted simply because it was created by a COI editor; it will only be deleted if there is a very strong policy-based reason that cannot be appropriately addressed. Moreover, even though Escribano does not have any final editorial control over the article, there are still things he can do if he has concerns about the article as explained in Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Also, this WikiProject has lots of dedicated members (many might even have served or still serve in their country's military) who work hard to try and keep military-related articles in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and who have much experience with these types of articles, so they can be a good resource for information and assistance.
 * One last thing, please try to remember to sign your talk page posts. It's considered good talk page practice because it makes it easier for other editors to know who posted what and when. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks TParis. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reached out Hi guys, I've reached out to OP as a fellow Air Force member and I'll try to resolve this.--v/r - TP 19:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I became aware of this article at T:COI. It seems to cry out for more diverse sources and frankly reads like a Defense Department press release. However, as pointed out above, this is 1) unquestionably a notable subject and 2) the subject ordered a subordinate to write about him. Given that this is the military, and not a widget manufacturer, I think this has to be dealt with extra care to avoid unnecessary repercussions in R/L. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

GlobalSecurity.org removals
User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 has been removing links to several websites on a number of pages. The one relevant to MILHIST is GlobalSecurity.org, and the user is removing it with the edit summary "removing conspiracy theory website www.globalsecurity.org". Has this reasoning been discussed somewhere before? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note, this has also been raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in this thread. Parsecboy (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have seen that source being deleted in past years as being unreliable. I don't know about it being a conspiracy theory website, because I haven't looked at it for years.  However, I do recall it was generally considered not up to Wikipedia standards of a verifiable source.— Maile  (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's my recollection too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise. GlobalSecurity.org isn't reliable (as it's a random collection of stuff these days, sadly), but I haven't seen it hosting conspiracy theories. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

New article created about controversial Russian propaganda analysis website -- PropOrNot

 * PropOrNot

New article created about controversial Russian propaganda analysis website -- PropOrNot.

Article spun out from content that was growing overweighted at the article Fake news website.

Related to this WikiProject as a group that purports to analyze Russian propaganda and cyberwarfare and psychological warfare.

Could use help and extra eyes due to possible interest from parties on both sides of the political spectrum and potentially from interested parties both in the United States and in Russia.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can also please use extra eyes at Fake news website. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Style discussion
There is a relevant discussion at talk:Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle. Felsic2 (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles
-- Red rose64 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that one of the three proposals in this RfC involves creating a separate "Good Lists" rating and process independent of the GA process. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army-related vandalism
Hello guys, we just stopped a Twitter-coordinated, intense 1 hour multiple IPs vandalism on Free Syrian Army.

I would like to add the following. As the Syrian Arab Army are crushing the Free Syrian Army in Aleppo, the SAA supporters will likely rejoice and vandalize a bunch of FSA related articles. Please watch out vandalism on FSA articles this coming days. If something suspicious arise, ask a semi protection on WP:RfPP. Wish you the best ! --Yug (talk)  23:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Excessive ideological references and Cuito Cuanavale
Howzit all.

We have an ongoing discussion here about lacing the text of Battle of Cuito Cuanavale with references to white supremacy. In several new revisions which have been contested by two other contributors in addition to myself, one side of the conflict has been repeatedly described as "white supremacist".

The editor responsible has countered that references to the ideology of South Africa in the day are necessary to help readers understand the conflict. I have contested this. Many people believe the colonial powers espoused a white supremacist ideology, but that doesn't mean we go around to every battle or campaign-related article concerning the Algerian War or the Portuguese Colonial Wars throwing in references to that fact. Ditto for modern African conflicts similar to Cuito Cuanavale, such as the Rhodesian Bush War.

Anyway, some constructive commentary by some more experienced editors would be very much appreciated, as we seem to be at a bit of an impasse here. -- Katan gais (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian military in the battle of Ilovaisk
Hi, MilHist,

We have a problem trying to find a consensus on the Battle of Ilovaisk article. Considering a critical role that Russian military played in the battle, I've proposed to rephrase the wording of the Battle result to a neutral one: "Major defeat of Ukrainian forces" from previous "Decisive DPR victory". This proposal was reverted by EkoGraf (see ). It was explained that in battle articles it is the winning side that is usually stated, not the defeated one. But in the same time, EkoGraf denies mentioning Russian military in the Battle result, saying the sources that prove Russian military participation are not good enough. See the article's talk page, where the sources were discussed: Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk.

I'm asking the community's help to participate in our discussion and express its opinion on the topic. --VoidWanderer (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2016 now open!
 Military history newcomer of the year 2016

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 17 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
 * [user name]: [reason] ~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2016. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations

 * The Bounder, for Operation Mincemeat and Henry Morgan. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, for their contributions to Indian military history, including today's featured list destroyers of India. (note: has been around for more than a year, but I think it's still within the spirit of this honor) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hammersfan for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service, their first Milhist GA (as far as I can tell). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Iazyges: Iazyges has been on en WP for a while now, but only joined the project in July this year. If their work on their namesake article Iazyges and on Velites are an indication of things to come, I am impressed and am looking forward to reading and reviewing their future contributions on Roman topics. (NB: no quid pro quo involved here... :-)) Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert Brukner: a new user as of this year (not just to Milhist), Robert has made thousands of edits in writing naval-related lists. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude: for their efforts in improving Roman military history, like Battle of Antioch (218). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * acfrue, for work on Vietnam-war related articles like Operation Game Warden, Operation Homecoming and Operation Market Time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For their consistent efforts to improve the coverage and accuracy of many of our contemporary Australian articles (for instance Special Air Service Regiment, Battle of Aidabasalala, INTERFET and quite a few others). Anotherclown (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Participation
Greetings all. I'd like to request your participation in the Article for Deletion discussion here if you have the time. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Several templates have been nominated for discussion; please see the First entry at Templates for discussion and several that follow. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Are individual, specific weapon designs "inventions"?
Question I think probably best asked here. Can a specific weapon design be considered an invention and be properly categorized in a Category:Inventions by country subcategory? My thinking is that, for example, the machine gun is an invention, but the HS Produkt VHS machine gun is not, it's just a variation on an existing design, an iterative innovation at best. Am I way off? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it would have to be a totally new and innovative design to be considered an invention; that very rarely applies. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn’t go quite that far: the whole design need not be new, but it should include at least one major innovation. Accordingly one might consider the introduction of a feature like gas-assisted cycling, or the disintegrating ammunition belt, sufficiently important to call the first machine gun to use it an “invention“, but certainly not something that merely refines or recombines existing components.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  21:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A component or subsystem in a device such as a machine gun could be a new design in of itself. That wouldn't make the entire device an invention, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Australian Owen Gun is often referred to has having been an "invention". But it's an unusual example as most modern weapons are designed by (often large) teams, and pre-modern weapons largely evolved over time. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Disinformation article needs help and eyes please

 * Disinformation


 * Talk:Disinformation

Ongoing attempts to reduce mention in the intro and in the article of origins of the term and technique with the Soviet "Dezinformatsia".

Could use extra attention to the page please.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Major research improvement for Disinformation. Have a look see and let me know what you think. Sagecandor (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

probably perennial, but
Hey. When I review FACs, it's really easy to jump between the article itself and the relevant FAC because of the "Currently a Featured Article Candidate" link atop the page. I just started doing A-reviews, and there's no similar link. I have to navigate here and there and everywhere between the two. It's inconvenient, for me at least. Has anyone asked for such a link somewhere? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is a link on the talk page but it's hidden away. It's under the MilHist project banner WPMILHIST → Additional information... → "This article is currently undergoing an A-Class review." ("Currently undergoing" is linked to the ACR). I certainly wouldn't oppose a proposal to make it more prominent. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Displaced people in casualties
Hello. Recently, there have been a lot of conflicts with displaced people. I want to know whether the number of displaced people can be in "casualties3" or civilians casualties section of infobox. Or should it be in another section of the infobox? 117.241.118.109 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno, they're not deaths or woundings, so why should they be in the infobox at all? I say leave them to the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been displaced people from most conflicts. I wouldn't classify them as casualties, tend to agree with Sturm. If displaced persons were a major consequence of a conflict like Syria, perhaps it would be appropriate for the lead, but generally should be in the main body IMO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

John Glenn article help
There have been a couple hundred edits the last couple of days to get his article up to snuff now this it is on the front page due to his death. I am currently trying to expand out all of his spaceflight sections. Would anyone here (or multiple people!) be willing to expand out his military sections? It has very high visibility due to being on the front page right now, and I want to make sure that not only is all the information accurate, but it is actually there when people want to learn about him.

Let me know if you need anything or have any questions. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Uggh. I have rewritten the World War II section for you. It was truly terrible, riddled with errors. And the article really needs to have a consistent reference style. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Teamwork makes the dream work. Thanks! I'll try to hit the space sections hard this weekend. They are in pretty poor shape, but I don't think have any errors thankfully. I'll check on the citation style, I thought that got hammered out already. Kees08 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Added some ISBNs and straightened prose. Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass moves of Chief of Defense Staff articles
User:Hmains has massed-moved a large number of articles about Chiefs of Defense Staffs to "List of..." titles. His stated reasoning was "article is a list". However, most if not all of these articles have large amounts of prose, usually at least half the whole article,and so are not stand-alone lists. I reverted the first one to show up on my watchlist, Chief of the Defence Staff (Canada), but didn't moved any more once I saw how many articles were involved. The user is not a novice, having edited since 2005, with an edit count of over 80,000 editson English Wikipedia. Another editor did bring up the subject briefly at User talk:Hmains 5 days ago.

Should these articles be moved back to their original titles? Thanks. - BilCat (talk)
 * I say yes. There was no established consensus for the moves to have occurred, and that should render any move null and void. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree that discussion should have occurred. There is enough in the articles/lists to suggest it isn't black or white. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of them should certainly be moved back. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with moving them back until there is a discussion on WT:MILHIST with a ping to User:Hmains. Inserting a table into an article doesn't make it a list.  Question:  Would it be helpful to establish a category for these articles?  --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, they should definitely be moved back, plenty enough prose that it doesn't need to be a list. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I also concur; they should be moved back. Even if they are lists, there's no requirement that a list be titled "list of", and if there's no separate article for the primary topic it's appropriate to have the list there. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. In the absence of Primary article, there is no call for moving it to 'List of...' Least surprise probably also applies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've begun moving back the pages, but there are a lot of them, so any help would be appreciated.

Also, the user involved has been adding list categories to the redirected List pages, per this diff. I know next to nothing about category guidelines, so does anyone know if this is permitted? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We do sometimes put redirects in content categories (WP:Categorizing redirects). I don't see a problem with that, unlike with the moves. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rename Arctic warfare
See the discussion at: Talk:Arctic warfare about a proposal to rename Arctic warfare as Cold-weather warfare, because the bulk of the article pertains to winter campaigns that are not in the Arctic, but includes mountain warfare. Any concerns, here? Please discuss at the article talk page. User:HopsonRoad 14:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal notification
There is a merger proposal for: Democratic National Committee cyber attacks to be merged ---> into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election.

Discussion is at: Talk:Russian_influence_on_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election. Sagecandor (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Serious Copyvio on USS Asheville (PG-21)
I stumbed across the article and was interested in making an article for its class, but when I went to its sources, I discovered that it was almost a carbon copy of its source, I could use help in fixing it. Thanks. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  03:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * US Government products, such as the USN's website, are automatically in the public domain so the copyright status is fine. This is currently correctly tagged in the article, so copyright-wise, there's no need for action. I'm sure that the article can be improved though! Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll find that most all articles on US Navy vessels are copies of DANFS, though I (and others) have been slowly going through and rewriting them and including other sources. There was a time that the DANFS copies were considered perfectly acceptable, even at FAC (see for instance USS Siboney (ID-2999), a FA from 2008 that still incorporates DANFS text) - standards have risen since then. Parsecboy (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Manchukuo
Is there any significant interest in the creation of a task force (or official sub-taskforce in Japanese MILHIST) for Manchukuo military history? As of now I don't think any Manchukuo MILHIST article is above B class, and work on it is desperately needed. Thanks. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  23:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pending a request by a group of interested editors, I see no need to start a task force in any form. We've had conclusive proof over the years that task forces and the like cannot be driven from the top to encourage editors to work on that subject; they exist to coordinate the activities of editors working on the same topics, if that's what those editors want.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To go a step further, probably the best indicator of editor interest is the state of the articles that would be covered by a hypothetical task force - if no one is working on them, there likely won't be any interest. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Military history of the Soviet Union
User repeatedly removes mention of major events from history from page Military history of the Soviet Union. 
 * Military history of the Soviet Union

Removes all mention of:
 * 1) Berlin Blockade
 * 2) Cuban Missile Crisis
 * 3) Prague Spring

Bit of background:

Same user has history promoting Kremlin-run mouthpiece Russia Today and Sputnik News on page for a five-year-old WP:BLP

Are these edits by this user appropriate for Wikipedia ? Sagecandor (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At page Great Depression, inserts spam links to www.marx2mao.com to a PDF of Joseph Stalin.  . Sagecandor (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * (restored respons) you edit the entire day full nonestop and you accuse me of being paid for this? you go instantly to noticeboards instead having a debate in the talk page all the time sagecandor, i gave my reason they should be counted because they are not military conflicts. The listening should be changed and focused on military conflicts--Crossswords (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See Ad hominem. Sagecandor (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Crossswords's actions are plainly inappropriate. All of these events have huge military significance. Kges1901 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed,, what can be done about this? Sagecandor (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input here. I got some advice, and started individual discussions at the article talk pages:
 * Talk:Great_Depression and
 * Talk:Military_history_of_the_Soviet_Union. Good participation at the first one, none at the 2nd one unfortunately. Sagecandor (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Sagecandor "Kremlin-run mouthpiece", just curious but do you use equivalent terms like the state-run for the BBC or corporate sleaze-bucket (pace Maxie Keiser) for CNN/Al-Jazeera/The Times etc? ;o)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion (addition)
Several templates have been nominated for discussion: K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First recipients of the Knight's Cross, plus four that follow at the TfD page.

Peer review: Vlad the Impaler
All comments are appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem with edits by user 87.58.97.23
Someone with an IP address username is editing the List of World War II flying aces article with nonsense and incorrect information. One of the additions, which the user later undid, was "You're Mom," credited as a Nazi pilot with 666 kills. One addition not undone was the duplication of Clarence Emil "Bud" Anderson's entry (pointed to a non-existent page), which already existed and was properly linked to the Bud Anderson page. Even if the duplication were done properly, the user provides incorrect information concerning Anderson's score and birth date. Can we deal with this person?

Evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.58.97.23

Thanks, Finktron (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Start by giving warnings for test edits or vandalism; any user can do this. This user has made only 3 edits so far and nothing in the past couple of hours. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I'll do that in the future. Finktron (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're after a quick response from Wikipedia administrators to vandalism, filing a report at WP:AIV is the best option. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Virtual editathon on Women in the Military
Until the end of December, WikiProject Women in Red is hosting an online editathon on Women in the Military. You are all welcome to participate.--Ipigott (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Citing German Wikisource
Any idea on how to use the cite Wikisource template for a German Wikisource article? Namely citing this, at Kaspar Kornelius Mortaigne de Potelles.--Catlemur (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The parameter wslanguage determines the which wikisource is linked. If you insert wslanguage=de it will point to the German wikisource. Dead Mary (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Community GA Review of George H. W. Bush
G'day everyone, please be advised that the George H. W. Bush article has been nominated for a community re-assessment of its compliance with the Good Article criteria. The article has been nominated for this review since March 2016, but the discussion has stagnated due to lack of participants. If a few interested parties get involved either to edit the article, or join the discussion, a consensus should hopefully be able to be established either to keep or delist the article. The review page can be found here: Good article reassessment/George H. W. Bush/1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

USS Columbia to be officially designated as SSBN-826 tomorrow
Per this reliably sourced announcement, https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/secnav-mabus-to-officially-designate-first-orp-boat-uss-district-of-columbia-ssbn-826, Secretary Mabus will officially designate the USS Columbia as SSBN-826 tomorrow, USS Columbia (SSBN-826). Safiel (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Netherlands East Indies Forces Intelligence Service
Re: Netherlands East Indies Forces Intelligence Service

Is the above article the same article as at the National Archives (if you search) "NEI Section" 1939 - 1946 H7 [SRD (Services Reconnaissance Department) HQ -] NEI [Netherlands East Indies] Section IASD [Inter-Allied Services Department]. Also the same section as Section "C" in IASD? Adamdaley (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Anybody? Adamdaley (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're asking - that's probably the issue. If you're using archive material though, there's an overwhelming likelihood that whatever you're writing will fail WP:OR. If there are no WP:RS (published, high quality sources) as there appear not to be, I'd imagine the topic doesn't meet the notability guidelines and should be folded into another article.—Brigade Piron (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the National Archives (Australia), there is "NEI Section". Which is Netherlands East Indies Section. I am asking if this would be the same as the Netherlands East Indies Forces Intelligence Service? Because if it is the same, I have information stating otherwise which also includes a printed material in a book. Adamdaley (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess nobody knows. Adamdaley (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I get it. Nobody likes me now. But there is no need to be ignorant and arrogant at the same time. Adamdaley (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Adamdaley, there's no need to be so self-critical. The Milhist community values your presence as an interested and committed editor. The very fact that you're here to check things sometimes shows you have the willingness to learn more from your peers. In answer to the substantive question, it's very hard to give a definitive answer from the information above. But on the basis of the wp article, the IASD was an Australian/U.S.-and others "Combined" organisation, while the NEIFIS was a Dutch-only organisation. That would tend to suggest that the answer to your original question is no. But That's not to say the Australian National Archives file does not have information from both organisations. Is there an online file record that you can link? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In my original message above, I said if you or anyone type the following: "NEI Section" with the years 1939-1946 in the National Archives of Australia. Twelve results found. Only 2 with digital copies. The first copy is that of SRD (Services Reconnaissance Department) HQ] NEI [Netherlands East Indies] Section IASD [Inter-Allied Services Department]. While reading this file, it does state that it is the it was "Section C" of ISD, but I cannot see anywhere that I have read of the "NEFIS 1, NEFIS 2 or NEFIS 3". It also states the operations. Unfortunately, the sources for the NEIFIS page isn't much of a help concerning the NEFIS 1, etc. Adamdaley (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
Two categories that may be of interest to this project have been nominated for deletion:


 * Recipients of the SS Sword of Honour
 * Recipients of SS Ring

K.e.coffman (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Attack on the Gommecourt Salient
Is there a mistake in this that has led to Interlanguage link template link number this? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review for the Jadunath Singh article
A request has been made for the article on Jadunath Singh, an Indian Param Vir Chakra recipient, to be peer reviewed. Interested editors are invited to participate in the review here: Peer review/Jadunath Singh/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

USAF Links Lost (again)
AFHSO/AFHSD has now moved their website to afhistory.af.mil, resulting in the redirection of all afhso links to their homepage. This change broke all of the urls to USAF publications in WP article references. For some reason AFHSD is now linking the books on their website to the pdfs on media.defense.gov. Not only this, but some USAF publications, such as Anderson's & Johnson's USAAF stations & airfields books are not currently listed on their website, and are as a result not available on the web. Kges1901 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, until the AF gets their caca together, Anderson and Johnson can be cited as:


 * These cites are to the AFHRA versions, rather than the AFHSO versions. As for the specific unit Lineage & Honors pages, new pages are being recreated by AFHRA, but while doing the WikiGnome work of replacing references for USAF units, I have found that the "new" pages on the AFHRA site are not always the most recent pages. Sometimes a more recent version of the information is available on an archived page; sometimes there is no difference, and sometimes TSG Dollman has updated the information.

I'm much more frustrated by the fact that a jillion references to Maurer and Ravenstein that I've recently updated are now dead links. At least the citations themselves are valid.

There has got to be a bot that can update this information. While there are hundreds of articles citing Anderson and Johnson, there are thousands citing Maurer and Ravenstein.;  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

New articles
Would someone from MILHIST mind taking a look at Emmett Smith Davis, Cyclone's Flying Circus and USS Sotoyomo (YTM-9)? They are new articles which have yet to be assessed by any WikiProject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships
Could I get some eyes/comments over at this article and the talk page. Issue is regarding this good/long standing revision being gutted and replaced with a complete mess. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Better name for Unit Dongmyeong?
Comments appreciated at Talk:Unit_Dongmyeong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:34th Infantry Division (United States)
I'm having some difficulty with a new user on Talk:34th Infantry Division (United States), who is removing my reply to his post. The user appears to represent the 34th Infantry Division in some capacity, and may therefore have a conflict of interest. All notes and warnings I've issued have been removed. If anyone,especially an admin,can step in, it would be appreciated, as I have to go offline for a few hours. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

PS, I have reported the username to WP:UAA. - BilCat (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see they are blocked now, which is good. The fact that a brand new account would show up with their very first edits being of a controversial nature on a talk page, then start blanking other user's comments on top of it, is a red flag.  This is probably someone who has been here before, possibly starting a second account to evade a block or ban, made even more so evident by their knowledge of unblock appeal procedures which they have pressed no less than three times on their user page, complete with edit summaries something also a new user wouldn't be that very well versed in.  If they return causing further problems once the block has expired, I would recommend an indef block.  I am not an admin, but feel free to contact me to comment on the case if a stronger block is needed. -O.R.Comms 23:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on OberRanks comment's above I've taken a lap through the history and I think you're right: we may have a sock. I've listed my preliminary findings at Sockpuppet investigations/Combatinfvet, if either of you are interested in voicing your concerns. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. The thought that the user might be a sock had crossed my mind, for the reasons OR points out. At least they kept their disruptions off the article page. BilCat (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with finding sources for Battle of Massard Prairie
I spotted this article by chance, aside from the fact that the title is "Battle of Massard Prairie" whereas the first line of the article refers to the battle as "Action at Massard Prairie", the article is completely unreferenced and does not appear to have had any major going over since 2011. Neither of the original authors are currently active on Wikipedia.

I think therefore that finding sources for this article should be considered a priority, it is quite long but without any sources everything in it is up to challenge.

Graham1973 (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazi awards listed in Wikipedia articles
This is a situation that comes up every few years, where a user or group of users will begin removing certain awards and decorations from articles on Germany military, Nazi Party, or SS biography articles. The common theme is that user will claim that the articles should not include Nazi Party political awards, the German Occupation Medals and, in some cases, even military and sports qualification badges on the basis that such awards glorify the Nazi regime, are insignificant or, most recently "overly intrinsic". Over the past ten years, this has been brought up on such articles as Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich and in every case there has been overwhelming consensus to avoid blanking awards from articles on German and Nazi personnel. There is now an almost identical discussion at Talk:Karl_Wolff and I ask that some more users get involved in the discussion as we appear to be at impasse. -O.R.Comms 16:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A reaffirming of prior consensus or a new consensus is needed, as at this point the discussion is at an impasse. Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Massive 2-part Okinawa draft
I've been redeveloping material from the deleted Operation Red Hat into an new article on a wider subject which is in my sandbox 1. It was deleted overs complaints of poor sourcing and facts being misrepresented (some valid, some disputed) and I would like to request that editors give it a once (or twice) over for factual errors, poor sourcing, and synthesis and original research. Many new sources have been released since the deletion that support the large majority of the previous article but several areas may require further support. I used a lot of primary PD text but did not change much text to maintain context and for fear of inputting my own interpretation (as there was formerly an accusation that I was "cooking stuff up"). However, I am still finding several of my own close paraphrasing edits and even copyedits of non-public domain text so it is not complete by a long shot. I already know it is still very long and complicated. It was pointed out to me that it is currently even longer than our article on the Vietnam War however the Vietnam war was only about 19.5 years and the Okinawa activity in the proposed sandbox article covers 72 years (to date)- a lot of which is Vietnam War material specific to Okinawa. There are many controversial subjects covered and each one requires weight for both sides. Many subjects will probably require their own articles at some point. An issue I see on the horizon is that any big moves of topics from this subject to another article would very likely put way too much weight on Okinawa with the inclusion of a lot of this material (as with Project 112 or AGILE). I haven't reached any other conclusion on that aspect yet other than it's too long. The title is wide open to suggestion and might need to change if much material is moved in or out. I was hoping to get some feedback and identify all of the places that need work, further citations, or quotes before going too far forward to avoid and/or rectify/(or explain) the past or future complaints prior to any more embarrassments. It was suggested to me to ask here. Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it, I will post all of my comments on the talk page. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain how you have addressed the significant concerns which led to the article's deletion through Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat? It still seems greatly over-long, and packed with large quantities of material which either isn't directly relevant to the topic or which should be covered elsewhere (an obvious question is that why does an article covering an operation which commenced in 1970 and was completed in 1974 need to cover 72 years of history?). As this seems to be essentially the same article as what was deleted from skimming the structure and your above comment, I don't think that it should be restored, and it would qualify for speedy deletion if it was under WP:G4. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking and asking. I am a little bit more competent in editing (in my opinion) but I'm not great and made A LOT of mistakes that I am still correcting and apologizing for. I have not published it yet and was hoping to find and resolve all potential issues before I did.  That was my sole purpose of asking.
 * Bringing up the past article is only going to be of value if editors can please identify a specific concern or another editors concern that you feel has not been adequately addressed or rectified and possibly mark them as such.
 * The main concerns with the deleted article were mostly the variety of subjects covered that were seemingly unrelated to Red Hat, Sourcing. Synthesis, My lack of competence and in part other editors lack of understanding of what the Red Hat military mission covered or even was about. There was also some discussion (some embarrassing) on my talk page that I have deleted because I did not know how to archive it. old talk.  I can find more if it in the history if needed.
 * Some editors involved in the deletion discussion referenced challenges about other pages in their complaint. When the issue was discussed with that editor on that articles talk page, the complaint fell flat as in this talk section and sections below it. Other editors made complaints about things they already knew had been removed. I unfortunately had at least one source in the article that was unreliable (I didn't know how to look this up on the notice board) and then incorporated or moved it into another page.  This got attention of the first editor involved in the deletion discussion and next he came after this entry.  I learned that lesson the hard way.
 * There are some issues that remain such as the requirement for more sources and the use direct quotes of primary source. I attempted to use them without taking them out of context but it is preferred to find better reliable sources. There may be issues that were not resolved yet and I hope that reviewing editors can point those areas of concern out to me to improve.
 * I'm not sure WP:G4 would apply. As you know, WP:G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement." First, the draft article that was deleted is far from "essentially the same article". | diff The same subjects may be included in a now wider subject but the deleted article is greatly different from the newer draft. The subject topic has changed and therefore a complaint that a subject still "isn't directly relevant to the topic" is moot. A sections relevance to the topic is subjective to the new topic.
 * More importantly, the sources are different in that many of the sources and events in the newer draft had not been published prior to the deletion in 2013 or between writing it and 2013 and the article draft has been improved by incorporating newer sources which negated many of the previous concerns (but not all of them).
 * As an attempt to answer the question, this was at a time when Operation Red Hat was reaching its 50th anniversary and in the media, the Red Hat Operation and what all it encompassed was being redefined.
 * In a nutshell, chemical weapons were deployed to Okinawa prior to 1952. The Red Hat military mission to deploy to Okinawa (Project 112 YBA/YBB/YBF) was 1962-1965. The Red Hat mission continued on Okinawa from 1962-1971. The redeployment part of Operation Red Hat lasted from 1970-1971 (planning started in 1969). And the Red Hat mission involving chemical storage and surety (to destruction) at Johnston Atoll was 1971-2000 or about 48 years. Twelve year later in 2012 more facts and documents are released and explored by reliable sources changing the understanding of Red Hat to include Project 112 with much of the documentation is still classified. I also tried to explain that at 267th Chemical Company.
 * However, the question posed above wrongly assumes that Operation Red Hat was only during 1971-1974. If a proposed article on Operation Red Hat only covered the 1970-1971 redeployment operation from Okinawa to Johnston Atoll during "Operation Red Hat," then it would be challenged literally to death with several of the reliable sources I have already cited including those that were released 45 years ago. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake news website - move discussion
Article is Fake news website.


 * Requested move discussion at: Talk:Fake_news_website. Sagecandor (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What has this to do with Military history?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stretching AGF but not to breaking point, it's certainly arguable that there's a demonstrable link between falsification of news and military activity. This is probably a legitimate notification. &#8209; Iridescent 22:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Article discusses cyber warfare, information warfare, psychological warfare, US intelligence, UK intelligence, and Ministry of Defence (Sweden). Sagecandor (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Several templates have been nominated for discussion; please see the first entry, and those that follow:


 * Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the bomb disposal service.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bophuthatswana conflict (1994)
The RM discussion is ongoing. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Grammar question
In the sentence "On 18 September 1866 Alexei was promoted lieutenant.", my instinct says it should be "promoted to", but is the other form also correct/not wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd write "promoted to" or "promoted to the rank of..." if I thought that the potential audience wouldn't know what a lieutenant was. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This may be a British English thing. In the film Lawrence of Arabia, after Lawrence takes Aqaba and returns to Cairo, General Allenby says: "I'm promoting you major."  Either way seems perfectly understandable to me.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As a British English user, I still think that leaving out the word "to" creates ambiguity. Does "I'm promoting you major" possible mean "I'm promoting you, major" or "I'm promoting you [to] major"?--Chewings72 (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The latter. Both spoken and written, commas can change the meaning of a sentence.  In the film, Allenby does not pause between 'you' and 'major' so "I'm promoting you, major" is not a correct transcription of what he said.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, either way, the guy got promoted. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ditto, semantics. How many angels can sit on the end of of a pin (or something like that) Cinderella157 (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If payroll bungle your wages and call your complaint "semantics" do you back down? ;o))


 * PS I bet Allenby's lines were written by an American scriptwriter or an illiterate English English Lit graduate. Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Promoted major" (instead of "promoted to major") is indeed standard terminology in the British forces. Incidentally, to me as a Briton, "I'll write you" (instead of "I'll write to you) or "he went Tuesday" (instead of "he went on Tuesday) look just as bizarre! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry - Request for help
Greetings all. As soon as my "Siege of Arrah" article has been through its GA Review I intend to start working on an article about the Bengal Light Cavalry, from the formation of its earliest units until its total disbandment during the Indian Rebellion of 1857. I have been unable to find many sources, in particular there seems to be no information about the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry (whose mutiny at Meerut triggered the wider Indian Rebellion, making them very notable) and I would appreciate pointers from my fellow members of this project. Are there any sources available online that I have missed? I've tried all my usual searches and I'm drawing a blank. Thanks in advance! Exemplo347 (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/may/forgotten.htmSlatersteven (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V4WjAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT139&lpg=PT139&dq=3rd+Bengal+Light+Cavalry&source=bl&ots=ENJuxAzEKU&sig=8AopsODkagno4BW5cBBzZFxMAL0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje26qTjvvQAhVHIMAKHdh0DWI4FBDoAQhLMAk#v=onepage&q=3rd%20Bengal%20Light%20Cavalry&f=falseSlatersteven (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.sitehostplus.com/a-cavalry-officer-during-the-sepoy-revolt-experiences-with-the.pdfSlatersteven (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those. I may have to keep looking or rethink my plans as I'm unable to find a comprehensive history of the Bengal Light Cavalry. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Exemplo, have you had a look at Bengal Cavalry Regiments 1857–1914 by Ronald Harris, published by Osprey/Bloomsbury? I can't get snippet view here, but it might be available in other locations, and with luck it might be in your local library. It looks like it might be helpful for such a topic, but I can't tell without snippet view, unfortunately. By the way, nice work with Siege of Arrah. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can dig it out. In the meantime I've found quite a good source for the specific 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry unit so that might be what I work on next. Oh, and thanks - it's the first time I've created a totally new article and pushed it through to this stage. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

White House sentries
I have been talking with about merging White House sentries into White House Military Office. The sentries page is short and should make a great redirect. Is an appeal to Merging necessary?-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  21:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, a merge may be appropriate here given that there are only a small number of sentries (I'm by no means an expert, though). It is probably best to give notice on both articles, though, using "merge" tags etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  14:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A-10 'Warthog' GAR - assistance needed
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article has been a Good Article since 2010 and has been undergoing a Good article reassessment (GAR) for the past few months. I've done a lot of copy editing in attempt to address the comments, but apparently still not good enough. Help from others/different eyes seems necessary. Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Horace George Victor Roberts
There's currently an AfD discussion taking place here: Articles for deletion/Horace George Victor Roberts. I've added my comment & if anyone thinks I've said something daft, feel free to jump in and contradict me! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I doubt that will happen. The article needs details and sources to show notability as you stated there. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Francien de Zeeuw
I have a question about the appropriateness of replacing redlinks with links to a non-Enlish Wiki pages? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Except where there‘s no hope of a viable article at that title, I believe it’s preferable to use Ill. As long as the local target does not exist, it displays as a redlink with a small additional link to the non-English version.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Odysseus, would you mind doing an example for Marine Vrouwenafdeling in the article to clarify your explanation for me please. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to User:GraemeLeggett I see how it works now. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Happy Christmas everyone! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Operation Grandslam
Just wanted to note that has just created a fine article on an operation by ONUC in the Congo in the early 1960s. Our coverage of what ONUC got up to has been patchy and inconsistent; this is a great article and it would be great to see other articles, including the main ONUC and Congo Crisis articles improved as well!! Great work!! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Template:Infobox US Field Artillery with Template:Infobox military unit.
A discussion of changing Template:Infobox military unit is currently taking place at Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 27. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion (December)
Several templates that may be of interest to this project have been nominated for discussion. Please see the first entry, and six that follow:


 * TfD: Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Colonial war
I've recently overhauled the Colonial war article, removing the near entirety of the original text which was all unsourced (and for all I could tell, conjecture) and replacing it with new Harvard-style cited material. The topic is, for all its importance, incredibly broad and I'm by no means near completing the article. I think I have a pretty good general description of "colonial war" but areas concerning strategy or the synopses of the conflicts on various regions of the world are lacking. Large amounts of info will need to be combed through in order to construct summaries of the characteristics of colonial warfare for each continent. Any assistance from an expert or someone with access to good sources would be greatly appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Really great work so far! Clearly an area that needs in-depth work. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Same from me. I don't have the sources or knowledge base to contribute, but you've taken on a tall order and are already making a significant difference. Does anyone know who works on colonial war-type articles? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm working on Bengal famine of 1943 in a sandbox, and have needed to read articles about colonial India etc. If this project is very long-term, then maybe a couple months from now I can chip in on India stuff specifically. [But alas I am not in possession of any general knowledge in the topic domain]. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why the pic of a rare colonialist defeat at the start? Hardly representative, I think. Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look and think it's a good start for a very ambitious article title. Might I suggest looking for more non-colonialist and ex-/neo-colonialist sources? I'd also suggest that the period didn't end with the Portuguese Junta giving up in the 70s, that it was an interregnum which ended perhaps in 1979 (except in Palestine) with the Soviet intervention in the Afghan civil war or the invasion of Iraq in 1990 or was superseded by a period of proxy wars in from the 50s to the 80s before resuming. Keith-264 (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * From a quick read through on the phone I'd agree, a fine effort and a very good start. Well done and keep up the good work. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thank you all for taking a look. I would just like to say that even if this topic is outside your usual editing domain but want to help out, let me know. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, for the Australian and Oceania section, you might be able to glean some ideas from these articles: Military history of Australia, Australian frontier wars and New Zealand Wars. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's some great work. If I were writing it, I might be inclined to order the article chronologically or by colonial power rather than geographical region. After all, most geographical regions outside Europe were subject to colonisation by more than one European power (the Portugese, the Spanish, the British, the French, followed later by the Italians and the Germans... and some territories changed hands over the years). The book Victoria's Wars covers Britain's various imperial skirmishes in the 19th century. You might also want to decide whether you consider Britain's campaigns during its withdrawal from empire in the second half of the 20th century to be in scope, and if they're not the article should probably mention that that is what is commonly understood by the term "small war" these days. There's scope there for a featured article if you fancy doing the research but it's a big project. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Outside opinion
At the Ulysses S. Grant main article two editors want to include mention of President Grant signing an act establishing national holidays and two editors oppose. Opinions for and against are numerous and can be found at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant. Outside opinions are needed and welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixing broken links for Canadian Military Memorials
Where is the best place to request broken links be fixed? The links on Canadian Military Memorials are broken. An example of the fixes needed is here. There are currently 354 such links across all namespaces: 354 links. The ID numbers are the same, but the links need fixing. Some of them are on talk pages, but the majority are on article pages. Can anyone here help? Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone familiar with AWB could probably make short work of that if the ID numbers are the same. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now created National Inventory of Canadian Military Memorials and am slowly sorting through all this. Adding this note in case anyone with AWB did want to fix the links, but I suspect I can get most of them (it is less than it seems as some pages have many links). Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review announcement
G'day all, a couple of peer reviews have been started for several Milhist articles and orbats:
 * Battle of Buna–Gona
 * Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle
 * Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese forces and order of battle

Anyone who is interested, is invited to take part. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2016 now open!
 Military historian of the year 2016

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 17 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of forteen days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
 * [user name]: [reason] ~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2016. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations

 * Peacemaker67: For their contributions to articles about warships, especially Yugoslavian warships. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Kges1901: For their consistent and prolific contributions in the area of the military history of the Soviet Union, including a large number of new articles on Heroes of the Soviet Union. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Borsoka: For their contributions to articles on Hungarian royalty. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keith-264: for his contribution to modern trench warfare. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * KAVEBEAR: for what they have done with Hawaiian military history. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy: Made several significant contributions to Austria-Hungary military history. Had numerous GAs to credit this year, and also A-Class and featured content. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 08:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * AustralianRupert: Knowing that he is not one to garner accolades, I nonetheless nominate him for his work on the battles of the Kokoda Track campaign and particularly the Battle of Isurava - not to mention his many other contributions, both as an editor and co-ordinator. It is always a pleasure to collaborate with him and his manner is an example of leadership are such to which all Wikipedians should aspire. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keysanger: for his contributions to Chilean military history, specially warships and cartography.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * for his extensive contributions to Medieval history, most recently his ongoing series on Henry VIII's Device Forts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For his ongoing efforts to improve our coverage of the Manhattan Project and nearly everything associated with it (not to mention his efforts as a project coordinator and continued support in the form of MILHIST bot, and help improving other articles through our review processes etc). Anotherclown (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For still writing high quality content after all these years (including by my incomplete count at least 6 GAs, 4 As, and 1 FA this calendar year - probably others) and his ongoing work for the wider project via the Bugle (and elsewhere of cse). Anotherclown (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For his continued high quality content work (especially with our biographies), as well as his ongoing project work as a coordinator and with the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For opening the discussion which lead to consensus the reorganization of the task forces early this year. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For saving us and our fingers from the agony of a 45-60 minute manual closure of A-Class reviews. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the usual suspects are already listed, I would like to nominate Cplakidas for his prolific contributions in the fields of Byzantine and Middle Eastern military history.--Catlemur (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For consistent, solid work on Soviet division histories. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For ongoing efforts in reviewing articles at GAN and A-class Review. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons, but for those who are less aware of Sturm, he has and continues to create quality content about warships from around the world. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I thank you for the nomination, but must decline it in favor of any of the other quality editors listed above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting
Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged. The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes ( ~ ) to nominee's sections. All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 31 December 2016. Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Anotherclown
 * 1) Support AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --  MarshalN20  ✉🕊 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Auntieruth55
 * 1) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Irondome (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * AustralianRupert
 * 1) Support Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 13:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support acfrue (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Exemplo347 (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Cinderella157 (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Zawed (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Nostalgia of Iran Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Miyagawa (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Petebutt (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support KMJKWhite (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support  Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 06:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Cuprum17 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Dead Mary (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Jak474 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Borsoka
 * 1) Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Wish this total was higher—Borsoka has done some truly commendable work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Catlemur (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support KMJKWhite (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Irondome (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cplakidas
 * 1) Support Hchc2009 (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Mr rnddude (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Catlemur (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Nostalgia of Iran Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support auntieruth (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hawkeye7
 * 1) Support -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Smmurphy(Talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support acfrue (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support--Catlemur (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support GABgab 05:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support KMJKWhite (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --  Shudde  talk 10:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Cuprum17 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hchc2009
 * 1) Support Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Mr rnddude (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Zawed (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Nev1 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support  Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)
 * 7) Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ian Rose
 * 1) Support -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Twobells (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --  MarshalN20  ✉🕊 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * KAVEBEAR
 * 1) Support Miyagawa (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support — Maile (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- MarshalN20  ✉🕊 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keith-264
 * 1) Support Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bertdrunk (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Woogie10w (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dead Mary (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keysanger
 * 1) Support auntieruth (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Kges1901
 * 1) Support AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Thank you for all the work you do on biographies of military people. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Wreck Smurfy (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support VoidWanderer (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cloptonson (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Irondome (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support  Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)
 * 9) Support Dead Mary (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Milhistbot
 * 1) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - MarshalN20  ✉🕊 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nick-D
 * 1) Support  Rjensen (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Smmurphy(Talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Woogie10w (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Edward Sandstig (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 06:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Parsecboy
 * 1) Support Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 13:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Smmurphy(Talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support GABgab 05:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -  MarshalN20  ✉🕊 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Peacemaker67
 * 1) Support AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 13:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Mr rnddude (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Zawed (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support GABgab 05:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Nostalgia of Iran Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Miyagawa (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support auntieruth (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Cuprum17 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wreck Smurfy
 * 1) Support Kges1901 (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --  MarshalN20  ✉🕊 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2016 now open!
 Military history newcomer of the year 2016

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 17 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
 * [user name]: [reason] ~

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2016. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations

 * The Bounder, for Operation Mincemeat and Henry Morgan. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, for their contributions to Indian military history, including today's featured list destroyers of India. (note: has been around for more than a year, but I think it's still within the spirit of this honor) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hammersfan for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service, their first Milhist GA (as far as I can tell). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Iazyges: Iazyges has been on en WP for a while now, but only joined the project in July this year. If their work on their namesake article Iazyges and on Velites are an indication of things to come, I am impressed and am looking forward to reading and reviewing their future contributions on Roman topics. (NB: no quid pro quo involved here... :-)) Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert Brukner: a new user as of this year (not just to Milhist), Robert has made thousands of edits in writing naval-related lists. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude: for their efforts in improving Roman military history, like Battle of Antioch (218). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * acfrue, for work on Vietnam-war related articles like Operation Game Warden, Operation Homecoming and Operation Market Time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For their consistent efforts to improve the coverage and accuracy of many of our contemporary Australian articles (for instance Special Air Service Regiment, Battle of Aidabasalala, INTERFET and quite a few others). Anotherclown (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting
Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes ( ~ ) to the nominee's section below.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 31 December 2015.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * acfrue
 * 1) Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Smmurphy(Talk) 01:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support KMJKWhite (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cloptonson (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support  Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)
 * 8) Support Cuprum17 (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hammersfan
 * 1) Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support KMJKWhite (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Iazyges
 * 1) Support Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--Catlemur (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -- Constantine   ✍  09:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Nostalgia of Iran Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Miyagawa (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support auntieruth (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Dead Mary (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Irondome (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
 * 1) Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Euryalus (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Hchc2009 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Catlemur (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Zawed (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- Kierzek (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support -- Constantine   ✍  09:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Nostalgia of Iran Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Miyagawa (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support auntieruth (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support  Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)
 * 15) Support &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 06:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Dead Mary (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Irondome (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Melbguy05
 * 1) Support All the editors nominated have made great contributions though. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - per my nomination statement above.
 * 3) Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr rnddude
 * 1) Support Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Euryalus (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Molestash (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Catlemur (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- Kierzek (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -- Constantine   ✍  09:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Nostalgia of Iran Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support KMJKWhite (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Dead Mary (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert Brukner
 * 1) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Mr rnddude (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Fdutil (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)
 * 5) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Bounder
 * 1) Support -- Euryalus (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --- been showing up in all sorts of places making useful contributions, don't stop now! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. — HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Kierzek (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Petebutt (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Irondome (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support -- Twobells (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Article listed for deletion - Battles fought by Sikhs
Greetings all, happy new year! I've come across this deletion discussion and I thought I'd inform the editors in this project. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Franco-Tahitian War (1844–47)
I recently created Franco-Tahitian War (1844–47). It is a topic that has escape coverage on Wikipedia or even the French wiki despite how interesting it is and important it is in the history of Oceania. I hope anyone reading this would be interested in helping me expand upon it, especially more on military issues, diplomatic issues, creating separate articles for the famous battles of the conflict, and research with numbers and casualties. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work so far on this. I have assessed it as Start Class. The main improvement I can suggest is an addition of a section entitled "Aftermath" or similar, that examines in detail the after-effects of the conflict. That would bump it up to a B class if it's done with sufficient coverage! Good work, as I said, and good luck with your future articles. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Edward William Purvis needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Edward William Purvis; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A couple of peer reviews that need attention
G'day all, due to Veblenbot being down, a couple of Milhist peer reviews weren't added to the main PR list and, as a result, appear to have had limited attention:


 * Peer review/Vlad the Impaler/archive1 (open since 13 December 2016)
 * Peer review/Spanish ship Fenix (1749)/archive1 (open since 20 November 2016)

I have manually added them to the PR subpages now, so they should show up on the main PR page now. If anyone is interested in reviewing, please get involved. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht transcript on Talk pages
Revisiting this topic...

The matter of the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts has been controversial over the years. Most recently, it was discussed at the NPOV noticeboard (permalink), as well as at this Talk page (Quoting from London Gazette versus Wehrmachtbericht), and various article Talk pages such as on Manstein link and Bach-Zalewsk linki.

The material was deemed undue and was subsequently removed from articles. An editor has recently began reinserting this material on Talk pages of related articles, stating that this was being done for the purposes of archiving the transcripts: sample diff 1 and diff 2. I don’t believe that this is needed nor desirable, given that Talk pages are not storage areas for material that by consensus has been determined to be unsuitable for the main space.

I would appreciate more input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * it's obviously unnecessary where the transcript exists in the article history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently, editor also disagrees: "don't remove additions to the talk page unless it is vandalism".


 * I don't believe these transcripts belong on Talk pages, but perhaps more input is needed to convince the two editors? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter: it isn't vandalism. You can't start deleting editor's comments/edits on talk pages.
 * I also note, that you've done this yourself, on quite a few articles before now. Dapi89 (talk)
 * To clarify: you've dumped the transcripts on talk pages as well. Dapi89 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have placed Wehrmachtbericht transcripts on Talk pages as part of the discussion, for example here: and not to preserve them for "archiving".
 * Wehrmachtbericht report, take 2

What is the purpose of having them as comments on Talk pages? How does this further the improvement of the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't put them there. Perhaps the editor in question has something in mind? Perhaps he intends to reopen the discussion? Dapi89 (talk)


 * So was the revert on "behalf" of the other editor? What was the reason of the reverting editor to restore this material? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You already know. You don't delete things without discussion. Have you learned nothing yet? Dapi89 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I do not know why editor Dapi reverted, and they apparently did not have a good reason either, as they referred me to MisterBee for an explanation. Re "You don't delete things without discussion", that's exactly why I sought feedback here, as well as at NPOV noticeboard before removing the transcripts from Talk pages.


 * I concur with editor that this "archiving" is not needed since the transcripts exist in the article history. Is this feedback insufficient?  K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The current consensus appears to be for these transcripts not to be included in articles. Where they were previously included in articles, they exist in the article history and can be retrieved should the consensus change. Of course, editors are free to challenge the consensus, but cutting and pasting the transcripts into the talk page isn't good practice unless the consensus is currently being challenged. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At the risk of opening a whole other kettle of fish, would this material best be posted at Wikisource? (with some kind of introduction explaining the context, etc, so readers understand what they're seeing). Not that I know what Wikisource's inclusion criteria are! While this material isn't useful in encyclopedia articles, it does seem to have some value as a historic artefact and is presumably PD. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that Wikisource would be the right approach. The subject of "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht" has received no attention from reliable secondary sources that I could find. The Wehrmachtbericht itself is discussed in RS as component of Nazi war-time propaganda and for its role in the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. The sources I consulted are listed in the bibliography of the linked article.

The sources that discuss the Wehrmachtberich mentions as a commendation are fringe (read, neo-Nazi) publications, such as:
 * This feat earned him his third reference in the Wehrmachtbericht on 27 March 1942. In July 1942 he was one of the leading German night fighter aces with 37 aerial victories.

(via Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld).

The source, Helden der Wehrmacht – Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten ["Heroes of the Wehrmacht – Immortal German soldiers"], has the dubious distinction of being mentioned in Antisemitism Worldwide, 2000/1 alongside such book as "KZ-Lies" and "The Wehrmacht as Liberator".

In short, there's been no attention from RS to the topic of Wehrmachtbericht as a military commendation (to my knowledge), and adding the transcripts to Wikisource would be highly problematic, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Project Y needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Project Y; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to look at this and the one below for a while but keep getting distracted by my own articles or other things. I'll try to get to them before the end of the week. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change of article title
A proposal has been made to change the existing title of Red coat (British Army and Royal Marines) to "Redcoat". Could any members of WikiProject Military History who are interested in the subject access the Talk page and vote support or oppose as they consider appropriate. Buistr (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

No Page Numbers in Ebooks
Articles such as Operation Grandslam cite ebooks as sources, however those ebooks lack page numbers. Should they be accepted as they are or rejected? The article is currently nominated for GA, therefore the community's input would be greatly appreciated.--Catlemur (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Citing sources states the following:

"Specify the page number or range of page numbers. Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole. When you specify a page number, it is helpful to specify the version (date and edition for books) of the source because the layout, pagination, length, etc. can change between editions.

If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title."


 * So frankly, I really don't see why this is an issue. Concerning Operation Grandslam, I have provided the chapter names and numbers (as the policy suggests in lieu of page numbers) on the talk page and appealed for help in integrating them into the article. As for the Black Sea Raid, another article I wrote in a similar manner that Catlemur has tagged for ref issues, it passed a GA reveiw, once I explained that page numbers were unavailable. Seeing as they are not required by policy, and especially because they are not available, I don't see why page numbers should be required for GA status (which has relaxed standards for citations, in comparison to FA status). If someone wants to question this principle part of WP:Citing Sources, I would think that such a discussion should be brought up on its talk page and these articles have the tags repealed until consensus is reached. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides using chapter names above, the | at = field in cite book can be used to indicate location via things like sections, paragraphs (if easy to count), footnotes (if the book uses inline citations). Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fine with chapter names and section titles. I saw neither in the two articles in question, hence this topic.--Catlemur (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've used chapter or section titles also in the past and think that should be ok. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my most recent A-Class nom, Alan Rawlinson, relied on an ebook from an established author who seems not to use print for some of his works, and section titles (of which there were many) seemed to do the trick for referencing. Even though ebooks are obviously searchable, I'd agree with Catlemur that chapter or section titles should be used to narrow down the location of the cited material. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that section titles have been added to Operation Grandslam, can we expect the same to be done for Black Sea Raid?--Catlemur (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll see what I can do this evening. If not then, then hopefully sometime this weekend. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - Done. Miller is a webpage, so that doesn't have any specifications but I completed all the other cites. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done! I started the GA review for Operation Grandslam, it just needs some minor tweaks before it is ready to go. Cheers.--Catlemur (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Don Bacon (politician)
Please assist me here. Don Bacon (politician) is a retired United States Air Force Brigadier General, and the newly sworn in U.S. Representative for Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. His article currently contains massive uncited text of education, assignments, flight information, and awards. It's directly copied from his internet bio; shouldn't we just be including it as an external link? This is also the case on the articles of other military figures. I see no guidance on how or why this is acceptable on Manual of Style/Military history or any other page within this project. Is this the intended way of presenting this information? How and why is this okay with the greater Manual of Style? We're listing their resumes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That Air Force biography page is on a US Government web site is public domain; that needs to be cited as a source. The copied text really should be reworded so it meets Wikipedia standards and is not plagiarism.  The entire article needs to meet Wikipedia standards actually. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that response. There's a WP:SPA reverting any attempts to make the article conform to Wikipedia's standards, so I'd appreciate any extra eyes and watchlist adds. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Muboshgu: As I indicated before, the biographical template that I have been using on Wikipedia is pretty standard for USAF leaders. In June, I shared several Wikipedia links with you regarding similar pages. Based on your response ("I don't know about other pages, I know about this one.") you didn't seem very interested in considering that there might be other biographical formats that exist outside of your personal tastes. Also, after extensive reading it has become clear that the "rules" you are so passionate about are more "guidelines." Instead of focusing on this one page, why don't you go to the folks at Wikipedia and file a complaint against the entire military for the way they format biographies. Obviously the people who have edited the countless pages formatted in this style are all ruining your universe. Senator1776 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC notice
Here is a link to an RfC that relates to this WikiProject: Talk:Banjica concentration camp Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Inverness Copse, Menin road Belgium map ref
Does anyone know how to find the map reference please? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Perhaps a formula to work it out? Regards

Requested Move discussion notice
There is a Requested Move discussion taking place to discuss renaming the article L1A1 self-loading rifle to L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle HERE. It may be of interest to the members of this Wikiproject. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about WW2 is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A Class Review - Siege of Arrah
Greetings all. The A Class Review of the Siege of Arrah article could use some more input. If anyone spots details that would lead to the article not passing a Featured Article Candidate review (which I'll be nominating it for, following this review) then please point it out. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)