Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force/Archive 5

Operation Iceworm - proposal, base or hoax?
This article seems to be confused over whether a US military project to build an underground nuclear missile base in Greenland led to any construction - the base is described as being a 'prospect' but it's also stated that a "total of 21 tunnels with total length of 3000 m was built", including installing the "world's first mobile nuclear reactor". Is this a hoax, or does the wording need improving? A google search of 'Operation Iceworm' doesn't return any reliable-looking sources in the first few pages of results. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Afd it on grounds of being a hoax. Thats what I would do, anyway. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Camp Century was real and was powered by a nuclear reactor - check the reference that I added some time ago to Thule Air Base. I'd ascertain what was done and what wasn't and merge the remaining good info to Thule Air Base. Buckshot06(prof) 12:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Article should be renamed to Camp Century. It was 150 miles from Thule, and an extraordinary construction. (See the amazing official US Army film on You Tube, including hand-loading the nuclear reactor - in an ice tunnel!). Definitely deserves an article, IMO.
 * Operation Iceworm, if it was underlying it, wouldn't have been something the Army would have wanted to make so much noise about. But googling camp+century+iceworm gets a respectable 360 hits, and the stub on dk.wp cites a couple of books.  Jheald (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, maybe Operation Project Iceworm does deserve its own article.   This has to be WP:DYK territory.  Jheald (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuller source documentation now at Talk:Operation_Iceworm. Jheald (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for United States military history
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Copied from WT:MILHIST -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on picture in Vietnam war
Not sure if this is the correct place. The picture of the B-52 is the same, but the operations occurred in two different location. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Operation Patio - location = Eastern Cambodia
 * Operation Linebacker II - location = Democratic Republic of Vietnam

Copied from WT:MILHIST -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

King Armored Car
I was wondering if I could get some opinions on the above article; specifically, what needs to be done to get it raised to B-Class (aren't you glad to see me setting my sights so high?). Thanks mates. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs to be referenced, using footnotes . It would be nice to see it expanded, but understandably there may not be enough information available to you, to do so. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about now? I'll add more info as I find it. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Copied from WT:MILHIST -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Copied from WT:MILHIST -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A request
If it doesn't already exist, can somebody attempt a page on the 8" Mark 71 (as I saw it designated) "low-recoil" gun. As I understand it, it was under study in the '70s as a replacement or supplement for the 16" being phased out. Thanx. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP blocked source
I started some work on 25th Infantry Regiment (United States) and a source I was working with (a clean-looking article) was blocked by Wikipedia's spam filter. I've commented out the reference for now, but does anyone have a good idea on a workaround? I know I can find another reference as a last resort, but... Rklear (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the source URL?-SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

attention pls.
I don't have the time or specific knowledge to tend to B-52 crash at Thule Air Base and right just now. Could somebody look in on it for me plz? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Copied from the Military history talk page. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Single Reference For US Government Heraldic Images, Including All Military Services
I've noticed that templates have been made for Image References for each of the US Armed Services. This is totally unnecessary since The United States Army Institute of Heraldry is the single Designer, Issuer, Repository, and License Issuer for ALL Herald Items used by the United States Government, including all of the Armed Forces and Services.

For that reason, this is the single template that is useable both here and over on Commons for such images:

- US Army Institute Of Heraldry

- US Army Institute Of Heraldry

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

duplicate articles
Bruce Carlson & Bruce Carlson (USAF officer); I dunno what to do. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 04:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Make sure all the information in both articles is included in Bruce Carlson, then make Bruce Carlson (USAF officer) a redirect to it.
 * Looking at the history of these two, it appears the article was at Bruce Carlson until January 2007, when someone moved it to Bruce Carlson (general) to make the main article a disambiguation page, which is not the way to go about it. More to the point, he was disambiguating from another Bruce Carlson, a violin restorer, who didn't, and to this day doesn't, have an article. To make a long story short, Bruce Carlson (general) eventually moved to Bruce Carlson (USAF officer), and someone else overwrote the disambiguation page with the article. Anyway, Bruce Carlson is where things belong. Rklear (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

USAF portal
Portal:United States Air Force has been lacking in maintenance lately. The previous maintainer stopped consistantly contributing almost a year ago, and there has been little work done to the monthly features since. See portal talk:United States Air Force if you are interested.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

6941st Guard Battalion
I found this link over on the German Wikipedia because I was doing some editing over on Commons, and found one of the images linked to this file. I think we should have an English Language version of this file over here.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/6941st_Guard_Battalion&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D6941st%2BGuard%2BBattalion%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGLF_enUS294US295

Google did the following translation:

|6941st Guard Battalion Google Translation

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Norfolk -> Norfolk, England & Norfolk (disambiguation) -> Norfolk
A requested move has popped up at WP:RM about moving Norfolk around. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bear River Massacre and content dispute
Rather than bringing in the big guns and trying to blow this new Wikipedia user/editor out of the water, I'd like to have a couple of more knowledgeable folks that occasionally frequent this page to help provide a little bit of mediation between myself and somebody new to the Wikipedia process. I know this individual is new in a number of ways, and I'm being gentle on him as much as I can but he now sees me to be an enemy that must be defeated.

For background, see Talk:Bear_River_massacre and some additional conversations on my user talk page (although I think the main article talk page covers the main source of contention here).

If I'm out of line here, I would like to be corrected and be nice to this new contributor, but he doesn't seem to want to play nicely here. With statements like "Personally, I think the whole wikipedia article needs a rewrite. Maybe I will delete it and leave a note regarding my opinion" I don't see anything good happening in the near future. It isn't quite up to an A-class article yet, but I'm trying as time and resources permit.

I'm just asking for another set of eyeballs that understands military history to come and check out what is happening here and not throw the wrath of administrative powers against him or to turn this into a full all-out edit war/arbitration action here. Perhaps all that is needed is somebody a little bit more diplomatic than I am. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance
I'm trying to avoid an accusation of edit-warring in the article List of United States military history events. The opening paragraph of the article clearly states: Note that instances where the U.S. gave aid alone, with no military personnel involvement, are excluded. So, over the course of several months, I have removed instances of CIA operations that didn't involve US military personnel. Lately, 2 editors have made an issue of trying to re-insert these instances into a section that clearly shows in it's instructions: Before adding an event, please check and see if the item you want to add is already in the article CIA sponsored regime change. All the info being inserted is in the linked article about CIA sponsored regime change and is not about the US military. One editor started a discussion about it, but isn't really participating in a discussion. Am I totally off base on this? As far as I see, I am removing info that doesn't belong in the article, but I don't want to get caught in an accusation of an edit war by some admin that doesn't get it. Can anyone be of assistance? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an admin (and long-time Milhister) Niteshift, so contact me if anyone gives you any grief. Buckshot06(prof) 09:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stryker variants
There is a proposal at the military land vehicles task force to move all stryker variants to lowercase names. Thanks!-- Patton t / c 12:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812 Work Group
May God Bless You Always!

I am looking to form a work group to focused on the War of 1812. A lot of the articles dealing with the War of 1812 are lack citations and references, some need some serious editing, and many need to be expanded. I would like for the articles dealing with the War of 1812 to be "A"-Level or better. The War of 1812 is one of the most neglected American wars, but this need not be the case here. I have been working HLGallon on the Battle of Chippawa, but much work is left to do. I was told to place this work group under the WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force, but United States has a big stake in these articles as well. Anyone interested in helping? (Steve (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

I have a small collection of books on the War, including Teddy Roosevelt's seminal work on the naval war. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about Wikicommons
I have noticed that our files over on Wikicommons are being deleted because they view them as orphans. I have been cleaning up the categorization of our images over there, but some of the things we have linked to this page are already gone. -SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some investigation over on Commons, and they have started Project Pages over there as well. It seems to me that we should have a Project Page over there to represent our interests. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger discussion
There is adiscussion about merging the article List of United States military history events into an article about US wars. I don't think the reason is sound. Could some others take a look and maybe weigh in on it? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A-7D production data
A-7D production data has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List of units of the United States Navy
Hi all. I'm struggling to keep this list up to date and wikilinked; any assistance would be welcome. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "U.S. 7th Infantry Division"
The following articles: are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7th Infantry Division (United States)
 * 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)
 * 2nd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)
 * 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

Help!
would someone who is an editor of the "United States military history task force" please contact and advise me. i am trying to contribute to wikipedia. i wrote a template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Comparative_military_ranks. i attempted to add this template to template:US officer ranks. my template was called a "copy edit" and deleted. i have also run into trouble with template:Military ranks which just gives commonwealth info and is not in military format. one reason i want to contribute is that when i tried to compare the rank of my brother-in-law, a navy seal captain, the obvious searches turned up irrelevant or confusing info. thank you. diremarc (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

USS Avenger (SP-2646)
Can someone check out and get USS Avenger (SP-2646) up to snuff? Came across it as a newpage and looks to be in decent shape, though orphaned an unwikified. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick glance. It appears to have good information, but needs to be sectionalized and have more inline citations.  I would say it is at least a Start level article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Combat Logistic Battalion 4

 * Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment  Roger Davies  talk 04:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor is making unhelpful edits to Combat Logistics Battalion 4. These may be jokes (use of the term Pog for logistics soldiers, complete over use of acronyms, etc), however, they are not encyclopedic in my opinion, and as such I have given the editor a warning about making "joke" edits. This article needs a lot of work (only a stub) at the moment but is on a topic I don't know anything about (US Marine logistic unit). I only came across it during a patrol of new articles for tagging with the mil hist tag. If anyone is interested in improving the article, I would appreciate it. Also, it needs more eyes on to prevent further unconstructive edits. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Iraq and weapons of mass destruction for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Military budget of the United States(article revision history)
Request assistance from fellow wikiproject contributors regardings a dispute regarding my recent edit to included cited statistics to the article in the commentary section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Outlines of American military conflicts
The Outline of Knowledge has proposed the creation of outlines pertaining to the Indian Wars, Civil War, WWI, WWII, and the Cold War (with seperate outlines for Korea and Vietnam. Outlines develop better when someone with an extensive knowledge of the topic works on them. If anyone here is able and willing to do it, feel free to expand and revise. For more information onoutlines and their use, see here, or feel free to contact myself. Cheers, Minnecologies (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary: -- Mr.Z-man 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
 * The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
 * I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - ~alexz/pop/.
 * This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
 * This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
 * There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
 * The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
 * The data is now retained indefinitely.
 * The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
 * Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" -

Category rename proposal
There's a proposal to rename to. All editors are welcome to comment at the discussion at the Categories for discussion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Louis H. Carpenter now open
The peer review for Louis H. Carpenter is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder but, with about 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.
 * Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.
 * Roger Davies talk 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army departments
I'm cleaning up some U.S. Army stub articles. Can anyone give me the first date departments were introduced as organisations within the U.S. Army, and a source? A list of all departments ever active would also be useful (again sourced). Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(prof) 07:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean departments as in geographic administrative divisions or departments as in staff departments? If the former, Army Regulations of 1861 specify that "military geographical departments will be established by the War Department" (Article VIII, p. 13). They existed prior to the 1861 regulations, and I suspect that their creation dates back to the later 1700s/early 1800s.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly - geographic administrative divisions/commands. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Coffman's "The Old Army" might give you a specific date for the creation of the first department, although I suspect it's going to be in the late 1700s. I've never seen a unified list...it's always been more of a matter of putting them together based on time period. Reconstruction throws a wrench into things, because it set up separate military districts that were numbered as opposed to geographically named. Robert Utley's two books on the Frontier Army would be a good starting point for date-based lists of the departments, but then you have to decide if you want to deal with districts and sub districts as well. Those were far more fluid.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A possible resource
Coast Guard Museum/Northwest, Pier 36, ISC Seattle, 1519 Alaska Way South, Seattle, Washington. I've long known there was a museum there. What I didn't know is that they have a 3,000+ volume library. First rate on the Coast Guard itself & on lighthouses, not bad on military history in general. Also, FWIW, quite a bit about Arctic exploration. Open to the public (although you do have to go through basic military-base protocol to get in; have ID with you). I suspect the other Coast Guard Museums in the U.S. have similar libraries. Anyway, for anyone who is doing serious research in related areas and not finding what they need in other libraries, it's good to know this specialized library exists. - Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance
At the article Military budget of the United States an editor User:johnpseudo appears to be expanding the article outside of its scope in an attempt to push a POV that is in opposition to the subject of the article. May I please get some assistance? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeking references
I am looking for assistance in finding references regarding Asian Indian Americans during World War II. During the 1940 US Census "Hindu Americans" were the fourth largest group of Asian Americans after the Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos. So far I have not found significant sources which to create a paragraph for Indian Americans in the article Military History of Asian Americans. If anyone would like to assist, they can place references they find on the article's talk page. Thank you in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

classification for Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort
I saw that the Article for Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort and was wondering what is needed to get it out of stub status and and at least up to start status. It has references and external links but it is still not a very big article. I don't know if the size of the article is what is holding it back. If someone does look at it, please let me know either way. Marine79 (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is start status already; needs more references to raise its level further. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Combat Camera Squadrons
I saw this series of articles 1st Combat Camera Squadron, 2d Combat Camera Squadron, 3d Combat Camera Squadron and 4th Combat Camera Squadron. The article on the 2d has been around since October 2008, the other 3 are brand new, less than 2 weeks. I do not see anything in any of them that would make them notable but I thought I would ask here before doing anything with them. What is the general consensus on USAF squadrons are they generally considered notable in their own right? These do appear to be independent of the lead wing at the bases they are stationed at but IMO that does not make them notable.  GB fan  talk 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that there's no reason to assume that non-flying squadrons are automatically notable. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I work with a Combat Camera unit in the Marine Corps and I wouldn't say that my unit or any others are necessarily notable. There are several Marine Corps squadrons, which are not flying squadrons, that have articles but I suppose if there is a decent amount of information or history it could possibly be useful for a encyclopedic or reference purpose.

I noticed that the 4 articles are pretty short and simple and I tagged the one for the second squadron for a POV check since it says "we" when describing them. I think if they are going to stay they need a bit more referencing, but I'm not the greatest at the wiki formatting. I'm willing to help if I can.Marine79 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted on my talk page, these articles could be redirected to List of United States Air Force combat camera squadrons (though the question of whether this is a notable enough question for a list is a good one) Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed these are all subordinate units of Air Force Public Affairs Agency that seems notable enough, but it's subordinate units are not listed on the article I could add a section and link them but if we decide they aren't notable enough for articles we could put links to the Squadron's websites or something on the AFPAA article. That should help the overall organization of the related info but should a larger review of the notability be done by a group of people within the project?  I admit I'm a pretty new guy to the Project but I want to help where I can.Marine79 (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it - be bold is one of Wikipedia's main guidelines! Merging all this material to the Air Force Public Affairs Agency seems to be the best solution to me - without checking for sources, it should be notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully support what Nick says. AFPAA is notable as (I assume) a FOA. List of combat camera squadrons can probably be redirected to it. Be Bold - or, to go with Army Engineer lingo, Essayons! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for editor review
Can interested editors please give their opinions on Talk:General of the Armies regarding the status of Washington as a "seven star rank". Every so often, a new editor will arrive at this article and began changing things to say that Washington was senior to John J. Pershing in both position and rank, seeming to imply that "General of the Armies of the United States" is a senior rank to "General of the Armies". In the process, this typically removes valid sourced material and is very frustrating given the extreme effort it was to hammer this article into its present form. This is also simply not a separate rank, it is merely a shortened version much like "Lieutenant Colonel" can be called as "Colonel". Anyway, we need some more input on this talk page. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My advice to you is to create a(n) FAQ page to add to the article talk page that outlines these issues and their answers so that when these problems do arise all editors can see what the consensus is based on previous discussions. We have these FAQs on certain articles to help keep articles stable when these kinds of situations arise, hence the suggestion. I'll take a look at the page in a little while and see about commenting there; at the moment, I have yet to look through the FAC/FLC/ACR pages to see about updating my comments during the review process. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can point me to the format for adding that as a header, I'll see if I can come up with something. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The original issue is still unresolved. The editor who made these changes returned and reverted to the version stating Washington is a seven star general. References clearly are against this and this is the same type of edits which were reverted during the original conversation about this. The user is stating these edits are "unsubstantiated and completely false" I've added dispute tags on the article and asked for third party opinions. -OberRanks (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and POV edits have now caused the article to be protected. The main issue is now another editor claiming Pershing "wasn't really" a General of the Armies. Some sneaky edits also removed an agreed upon notice that stated the article shouldn't indicate Washington was a 7 star general. Could really use several editors getting involved here. A single editor is making these controversial edits and it is getting pretty serious. Need some help with this. -OberRanks (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in World War II FAR
nominated Puerto Ricans in World War II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Underwater Archaeology Branch, Naval History & Heritage Command
Folks, anyone interested in taking a look at this new article that I have nominated for DYK? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD
I've nominated Clifton Wolcott and several other casualties of the Battle of Mogadishu. It is at Articles for deletion/Clifton "Elvis" Wolcott. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious....why? Considering all the useless bullshit articles we have, would it have hurt to leave them there for a while? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
You are invited to join the discussion |here.  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  14:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (Using )

article creation needed
I was surprised to see that this article does not exist. Considering it is a Direct Reporting Unit, I assume its notability is secure. Could someone create it? Griffinofwales (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Militias
Hey does anyone know if there was ever a task force working on militias, if not I propose we do something about it. Tetobigbro  talk  06:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, presumably this very task force would cover them, no? If you're interested in setting up a working group to focus on them specifically, that could certainly be accommodated, but I haven't seen much interest in the topic over the years, so you might have to go at it alone for a while. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks and that's what I was mainly suggesting, if I were going to make the group, would it be best to just do it from this project and go from there, of from the main milhist page? Tetobigbro  talk  19:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The normal place for working groups is under a task force page; see WP:MILHIST/TF for instructions on how to set one up. Please let me know if you run into any trouble with the infrastructure; I'd be happy to help with the setup if you so desire. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest User:Damon.cluck as part of the working group, he does lots of stuff with the State National Guard pages (Which are in pretty bad shape right now). Sadads (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ranger related topics
In several articles about the Rangers, such as United States Army Rangers, a single editor has been making big changes to the articles and proposing mergers etc. It would be nice to see more than he and I discussing the future of these very significant articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories
I've been working with the uncategorized articles list, and just came across a batch of several US military bases that didn't have any categories on them besides the stub templates. However, as I'm not overly familiar with the categorization structure for military facilities, the best category I could find — and even then, only after much fumbling around to guess at how it might be named — was. Could somebody who's more familiar with the topic review the following list of articles to see if there are more specific subcategories that they might belong in? Thanks.


 * 1) Camp Butner
 * 2) Camp Darby
 * 3) Camp Funston
 * 4) Camp Greene
 * 5) Camp McTureous

- Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There really are no current definitions (at least that I'm aware of), but during the Indian Wars period (which is when many of the posts you mentioned were established) Camp was used to designate a (presumably) non-permanent post while Fort referred to something viewed as more long term. Many of them, such as Funston, were "swallowed up" by larger forts, while others remained on their own and eventually evolved into permanent posts in all but name. A good historical example of some of this is Whipple Barracks in Arizona. It was Fort Whipple, then Camp Whipple, then Fort Whipple again, and finally Whipple Barracks (when it became more of a quartermaster depot).Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

United States Army Center of Military History
Hey all, I currently have an internship with the CMH and they have charged me with editing on Wikipedia on their behalf. I accepted because they fall under the definition of a cultural institution as suggested by WP:GLAM. Most of my edits involves properly referencing and developing unit pages so that the Unit Lineages and Honors are correct/up-to-date and unit Special Designations are referenced properly. Additionally, I am making sure that CMH materials online are properly referenced and urls are still good for better access for researchers. Lastly I am making sure public domain use of CMH materials, text and images, is properly tagged. If anyone would like support or additional help from my end, feel free to contact me, I can't guarantee that I can help, but I could put you in contact with the proper people at the office. My hope for the future is further cooperation between the Wikipedia community and the Center. Sadads (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Navigational templates for conflicts by state?
I'm mainly interested in Illinois history. I have created a draft version of a navigation template for armed conflicts taking place in Illinois, modeled on Template:American conflicts. It is located at User:Fishal/Illinois conflicts, but I will subst it here. My questions: are templates like this acceptable to you at this project? Do you think they would be useful? Would it be helpful to have a Category:U.S. state war and conflict navigational boxes?

Sincerely, Fishal (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that is appropriate and you might want to add the templates to Category:Military in the United States by state, or have each template contain a sub-category like "Military conflicts in Illinois" which it automatically tags. Might want to call the template: Military Conflicts in Illinois. Violent conflicts could be anything - riots, neighbor duels, cat fights. Sadads (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should it not include the riots, then? Fishal (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking from the Military History side of things. It depends on what you want it to do. Some States, like Virginia or South Dakota, probably need whole sections for wars because the number of battles in the Civil War and Indian Wars respectively, plus additional times that the National Guard or State troops are called up for suppressing civil disturbances. I think you probably should do riots and military in two separate templates, but that is just what I would do.  Either way would be appropriate, but mind the Categories, and make sure you help us organize those cats as you add the templates. Sadads (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking one template but two categories. This would mean the template could not automatically categorize the pages, but anyone could simply add the correct category and template at the same time.  Or is it, in the opinion of the MilHist people, more appropriate to keep the two completely separate? I ask because some incidents blur the line between wars and unrest, such as the Mormon War (two organized militias facing one another) or the Charleston Riot (Union soldiers versus an armed political faction).  I know how well-organized the MilHist articles are, and I do not want to do anything to mess up that organization.  Fishal (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me, you are the one putting the work into the templates. Make it your own, and if someone wants to change it, it isn't that hard to repair. Probably should wait for some more MilHist people to respond though, I am not exactly up on all their standards. I am relatively new to the project, though not the topic area. Sadads (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have created two: Template:Illinois conflicts and Template:Illinois riots. New categories created are: Category:U.S. state war and conflict navigational boxes, Category:Wars involving Illinois, Category:United States wars by state, and Category:Riots and civil unrest in Illinois.  Fishal (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of P'ohang-dong now open
The A-Class review for Battle of P'ohang-dong is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Discussion
This discussion appears to be hitting a stalemate Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_15, please comment Sadads (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Third Battle of Seoul now open
The peer review for Third Battle of Seoul is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split of 330th Bombardment Group (VH)
This article has reached 114KB, well past the size recommended for spliting and I have proposed that it be split into two separate articles, 330th Bombardment Group (World War II) and List of Combat Missions of the 330th Bombardment Group (World War II). A discussion on the proposed split is here and comments (both for or against) are invited. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   08:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

19th century photo of troops in Greenfield, Massachusetts
Commons:File:Greenfield, Mass.--review of the 2nd regiment on Main St, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg is a 19th century stereo card on Commons showing troops being reviewed in Greenfield, Massachusetts. If anyone knows whether these would be U.S. Army, state militia, or even something else, could you please add that information on the relevant Commons page or its talk page? If you know your way around adding Commons categories, even better, but I'll add that page to my watchlist so I can deal with that if needs be. Thanks in advance for any help. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 05:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle now open
The peer review for Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec now open
The featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hadong Ambush now open
The A-Class review for Hadong Ambush is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Bentonville now open
The peer review for Battle of Bentonville is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 07:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Iwo Jima
Please see Talk:Battle_of_Iwo_Jima. This is an important article in real bad shape. Can someone help out ? 217.235.21.30 (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Chesapeake (1799) now open
The peer review for USS Chesapeake (1799) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island now open
The A-Class review for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Chaplain-Medic massacre now open
The A-Class review for Chaplain-Medic massacre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 07:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Sidney Mashbir now open
The peer review for Sidney Mashbir is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Douglas XP-48 now open
The peer review for Douglas XP-48 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tag and Assess proposal
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Thomas C. Kinkaid now open
The featured article candidacy for Thomas C. Kinkaid is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Leslie Groves now open
The A-Class review for Leslie Groves is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Merge 4 project with WikiProject United States
It has been suggested that 4 inactive or defunct United States related Wikiprojects be merged into WikiProject United States due to long states of inactivity. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

United States military history articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the United States military history articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into WikiProject United States. Although this task force falls under WikiProject Military History and that project would continue to maintain and control of it I thought it would be ok to associate the task force to both WikiProjects Military History and United States. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Atlanta clarification
The opening line to Battle of Atlanta currently reads:

"'The Battle of Atlanta (also known as the Battle of Decatur) was a battle of the...'"

But yet there is another article called Battle of Decatur, which talks about a battle in Alabama. Are both articles correct? Can anyone find sources proving that the Battle of Atlanta was also called the Battle of Decatur? Guoguo12 --Talk--  20:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

204th Support Battalion
This article was tagged as a copyvio from globalsecurity.org (I think they copied from here, a public domain source), and put up for speedy deletion. Anyway, I stubbed it, and added a reference. I'm having a hard time finding more good sources for the article, so not sure if it's worth saving? should be merged somewhere? or if I'm just not looking in the right place for sources. Perhaps someone here can do better with the article than I can. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)