Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Archive 1

World War Two page and infox
I found the attached infobox over on the World War II page

World War II infobox

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on the main project talk page ;-) —Kirill Lok s hin 00:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Campaigns
The campaigns added are exclusively US-centric. They hardly relflect the global nature of the war (heck, every event where the US isn't present, like the Battle of Britain, aren't even mentioned). Oberiko 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sofixit ;-) (Slightly more seriously, I assume it's because the person adding them was in the U.S. military; and most of them are red links anyways, and should probably be removed.) —Kirill Lok s hin 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you are going to find that there will be a problem finding information of the sort available for US wars because few other nations have their information on line to the same extent that the US has its information on line. As it is, the US is the only nation I know that has all of its governmental information in the Public Domain, and thus freely accessable. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but there's no reason to insist that everything be available online, or be sourced directly from the government; we could just as easily use whatever campaign breakdown is used by the major historians in this area (is there a common one, incidentally?). —Kirill Lok s hin 14:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been my experience that the major US historians all use the US Government sources as their major primary source because of its availability, and the fact that the US government has a reputation for documenting its wars contemporaneously, at least from the Civil War forward. Theodore Roosevelt's history of the War of 1812 is still the standard document for both sides in that war, because it is based on his access to first-hand documentation. The US Army Center of Military History remains the single point of contact on wars that the US has participated in, and they even have source material for conglicts and portions of conflicts that we were only marginally involved in. Most of the other combatants still have World War II material in a classified status. The Soviet Union used to be the leader in the battle to maintain classified status of World War II material, but now Great Britain has taken the lead since the Soviet Union has departed the scene, and Russia released their archives in recent years. The importance of the Internet for historical research revolves around the idea of accessability. It was not long ago true that if I wanted to get access to most of the things I have posted here, especially the various graphic items, I had to make a pilgrimage to the USACMH at Carlisle Barracks, or the USAIOH, also at Carlisle Barracks, which is at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Visiting those venues still requires a reservation, and official permission to use their facilities, and they charge for all physical copies they make of their materials.. Some of them require Freedom Of Information Requests. By posting everything they have on the Internet, they get more bang for their budgetary buck, reduce the number of annual requesats for access to their information archives, and reduce the number of publications they produce and maintain. BTW, the US Government Printing Office Bookstore has closed all of their brick-and-mortar stores except for their flagship store at the Pentagon in Virginia, and they have reduced their publishing budget by 75%. Now, the primary media for the publishing of their publications - including all historical publications - is the Internet. Paper versions are still produced, but in significantly small numbers, and mostly in Hard Cover. I am not aware of any other government that has gone to this length, so I expect that if ytou want access to First-hand documents from other nations, you will have to make a pilgrimage to their archives, and hope they will grant access. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

2000 Hours 11 April, 2006

You are making things up buddy boy. The US Army Center of Military History (USACMH) is at Ft. McNair, not Carlisle Barracks. The US Army Military History Insititue (USAMHI) is at Carlisle Barracks along with the War College Library. There is no US Army library or archive with the initials USAIOH. The Institute of Heraldry is neither an archive or a library. (Most heraldric items of the US Army are permanently housed at the US Army Historical Clearing House at Anniston Army Depot.)

I have never repeat never had to file a FOIA Request to obtain research materials at either of these facilities. The USAMHI collection does not include classified materials, and those held at USACMH are for the use of the organizational and command historians, and are not available to the public at all! You must be thinking of the NARA holdings, Modern Military Records, at College Park.

Finally, I can tell you with personal certainty that appointments, reservations and official permissions are not required for USAMHI or USACMH. Reservations are suggested for CMH, but you can pretty much walk in during normal operating hours, and do some research. At least I have.

Philippsbourg

Template talk:Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War
There's some intensive debate over how this should be organized and what should be listed in it going on; additional input from anyone with knowledge of the Eastern Front would be extremely helpful. —Kirill Lok s hin 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now started to reorganise the templates. Please provide input, additions, and corrections, where you see those are necessary.  Remember the goal is to reduce the size of the main campaignbox to a minimum, while being able to add smaller engagements that warrant an article. Andreas 08:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle - request for help
I would like to start an article on the Battle of Yelnia (first operational defeat of the Wehrmacht during Operation Barbarossa, but have seen a number of different spellings of the place. Could a Russian speaker please confirm that Yelnia is indeed the correct and current spelling? Thanks. Andreas 16:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this? Kirill Lok s hin 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the one spelling I did not try. Thanks a lot. On my watchlist, hopefully soon to be improved. Andreas 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Eastern Front
(''Moved from project page. Kirill Lok s hin 01:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC))


 * There is currently a Request for Comments active on the Eastern Front page. This is the result of an edit war that has been going on since Dec 2005 or so. The page has been locked for weeks (correctly - otherwise it would degenerate to a mess). It would be great if some knowledgable people could take a look at the page, plus a thorough look at the discussion page. The discussion is quite lengthy but probably necessary to see the current situation. If you can weigh in, please do so on the Eastern Front discussion page in the 'Request for Comments' section.   Thanks to anyone who can help. DMorpheus 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, hope it helps. Andreas 19:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you; those are very useful comments. DMorpheus 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted the following to try and get things going there. Deng seems to be happy with it, maybe that is a way out of the impasse?  It would be good if we could gauge what support for this exists.


 * In an effort to move this forward


 * I have edited a bit in the proposed page. I must say that I can not find any fundamental problem with it other than that it is far too long and that the battle descriptions should be shortened. If that is not done, there is a risk that newer edits on the respective battle pages will not be reflected in the main article.


 * This does not mean there are no errors or questions remaining about the proposed page. I am sure there are some, that is normal in an article of this length, but I am quite impressed with the effort spent on the article and the attempt to source.  I also believe it is reasonably balanced.  I have added verify tags where I felt more work is needed.


 * I would therefore propose to:


 * a) Replace the currently locked article with the proposed article I linked to above since it is of much higher quality.


 * b) Archive this discussion in an attempt to calm things down, and to give those who participated in it the chance to make peace


 * c) Keep the new article locked, and ask for comments to be made on the talk page to avoid an immediate edit war.


 * d) Open the new article once we can be sure that a reasonable consensus has been reached on the talk page.


 * I have no idea if these suggestions are in line with Wiki policies, but it appears to me that something needs to be done to overcome the impasse. That's my 2 pence.  Between them and another 73 pennies you can get a cuppa at a greasy spoon. Regards Andreas 08:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Andreas edits to my test page are very good and I agree with him and his edits to the page.(Deng 12:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

We need to get the numbers right
I have a dilemma with Soviet losses. Here are the facts: I really need the help of people in Wikipedia who may have knowledge on this topic. We need to get the numbers right---Woogie10w 01:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The Russian Academy of Science published a report in 1993 that detailed the data on the demographic impact of the war on the USSR. The losses were 26.6 million including 17 million draft aged males.
 * 2) The official Russian military report published in 1993 listed 6.8 million confirmed dead plus 1.3 million POW dead and 500,000 MIA for a grand total of 8.6 million military war dead. They claim 4.0 million POW taken by Germans less 2.7 liberated in 1945 yielding a loss of 1.3 million POWs.
 * 3) The Germans claimed to have taken 5.7 million POW not counting Sov MIA of whom 1 million were drafted into the German Army( Vlasov Army, SS)
 * 4) Most western historians( I could make a list) list Sov POW losses as 3 million+. Not counting in MIA
 * 5) An independent Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman published in 2004 a handbook of statistics on war casualties(with extensive footnotes, using Russian & Western sources) that claimed the USSR military losses were 10.6 million  in the war including 6.9 million Killed, 700,000 MIA, 2.6 million POW and 400,000 partisans and milita. The number of POW and MIA is more credible than 1.8 million so I posted Erlikman's data for the USSR casualties on the WW2 Casualties page. Erlikman is not an apologist for the communist system or the Russian government. He listed an estimated 1.7 million dead due to Soviet repression in addition to war losses of 26.5 million
 * 6) Back to the 2.7 million POWs and "Vlasovites" that were sent back to the USSR in 1945. I wonder how many are included in the total of 17 million draft aged males lost in the war. They were marched off to the Gulag. We just do not know their fate.
 * 7) Please go to my talk page Woogie10w 01:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)to see a posting I copied from the Dupuy Forum on Soviet Casualties. Today there is a high level Russian military official( now he is head of the military archives) who claims there is a card file in Russia today with the names of 13.8 million Soviet war dead.


 * It doesn't sound like we're going to be able to get the numbers right if so many credible (or at least useable) sources contradict each other. Our best bet is to place the numbers as a range and then provide readers with the list of sources and each of their figures. Oberiko 17:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact I doubt if anyone could ever get the numbers right. The Red Army didn't do a very good job collecting the information in the first place, so it is not realistic to expect anyone today to have a very accurate number. That would be true even if none of the histories had an axe to grind. DMorpheus 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

New Category
Not sure if it was needed, but it helps me find my way through things. 'Red Army Operations in World War II' (sorry, no idea how to link it) - I just started it and will try to categorise as many articles as possible. I think I will also use Easter to consider how to clean up the current mess that are the Red Army WW2 related cats a bit. Andreas 13:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, but won't such a structure cause some redundant categorization with, say, a potential "Wermacht operations in World War II" category? Maybe it would be easier to use a geographic category (e.g. Category:Battles and operations on the Eastern Front (World War II)) instead? Kirill Lok s h in 14:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I am happy to see it moved.  That would then enable us to clean up Category:Soviet-German War by moving all the operations/battles in it to a subcategory. Andreas 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that needs some cleaning up; I'm not sure if "Battles and operations of the Eastern Front" or "Battles and operations of the Soviet-German War" is the better name for the new category, though. Kirill Lok s h in 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

US ARMY DIVISION CATEGORIES
What happened to the various categhories that were established to segregate the various types of US Army Divisions? I just went looking for them so i could find the units therein as a shortcut, and I find them not only depopulated, but deleted. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you recall the names of the categories in question? Kirill Lok s h in 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Armored divisions of the United States
 * Category:Infantry divisions of the United States
 * SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They seem to have been renamed (presumably through WP:CFD, although I can't find the exact archive) to Category:Armored divisions of the United States Army and Category:Infantry divisions of the United States Army, respectively. Kirill Lokshin 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates
I'm currently building up userbox templates conforming to the the style found on the Military history WikiProject. I'll be building one for this task force if its members dont mind. What would be a defining image representing World War II? Your help is appreacited.Dryzen 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the Soviet soldiers on the Reichstag? Leith p 13:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good image, but will it still be recognizable when small? (As an aside, whatever image is decided upon, you might want to update WPMILHIST World War II task force to use the same one, for consistency.) Kirill Lok s h in 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In that regard I've built the template with the image from WPMILHIST World War II task force, If its decide that an another image is more repressentative, its an easy thing to modify the template.Dryzen 14:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a look of the Soviets at the Reichstag:


 * And here's how it looks with the current Supermarine image:

Kirill was right, I can't make out any detail in the Soviet image. The Spitfire one is nice. I tested out a similar one with a Panzer IV below. Leith p 14:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice, I perfer the tank to the aircraft. What do the other participants think?Dryzen 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the Spitfire has apparently been axed by a member of our friendly neighborhood image death squad, I've replaced it with the panzer for the time being. Kirill Lok s h in 23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like the decision was taken for us.Dryzen 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm, more userboxes :)))) -- Grafikm_fr  (AutoGRAF)  22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would try sticking with a photograph from WWII before filling in the blank space with a simple unit or symbol. Some of the WWII images I would suggest include: Image:Pennsylvania Lingayen.jpg, Image:1942 midway g17054.jpg, Image:NormandyLST.jpeg, Image:Yalta Conference.jpg, Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg (inelligable, I believe, but forth the mention anyway), Image:USSArizonaPearlHarbor.jpg, Image:Mccarthur-peace.jpg, Image:Doolittle b-25.jpg, or something similar. TomStar81 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't tried all of those, but I would think that any good photograph would have the same problem of not being identifiable at 40px that the Soviet flag-raising one did. Kirill Lok s h in 23:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, but I would feel better about knowing that we at least tried. That and the fact that other people who join later are probably going to wonder why we did not pick one these photos for the project. In this way we can say that we tried, but it didn't work out :-) TomStar81 00:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We should try to find a picture of the National World War II Memorial to see if it would be a good canidate for use. TomStar81 00:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Oder Neisse
Is there any point in having this article? Battle of the Oder-Neisse I think a redirect to Battle of Berlin, or maybe Battle of Seelow Heights would suffice. Andreas 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oder-Vistula and Battle of Berlin cover this perimeter I think. One could always check though... :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  12:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not Oder-Vistula, since the article is talking about the Berlin Operation. Andreas 12:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It still contains useful stuff IIRC (sorry I'm working at the moment, don't even have time to go check... :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the information could be rescued by adding it to the other articles. Andreas 12:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation Punishment / Operation 25 / Invasion of Yugoslavia
I happened to notice that there are three articles that all cover the same event. Operation Punishment stands alone, and Operation 25 redirects to Invasion of Yugoslavia, which is poorly written. I'd fix this myself but I don't know how to edit redirects. 216.242.114.115 14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've redirected the lot of them to Operation Punishment, which seems to be the only one with actual content. Whether that's the best name for the final article is something that can be discussed at a later point. Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bombing of Belgrade in World War II, anyone? Andreas 18:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That works; redirect them all there, then? Kirill Lokshin 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I have also integrated the text from Operation Punishment into the Belgrade article and rewritten that one a bit. Andreas 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Kirill Lokshin 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Campaign categories
We need to do some cleanup of the category system under Category:Battles and operations of World War II:


 * 1) Category names should be of the form "Battles and operations of the Foo Campaign of World War II", not "World War II battles and operations of the Foo Campaign".
 * 2) We're missing the very obvious Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II (under that name or some other); everything is lumped in the single Category:Soviet-German War.
 * 3) Categories should generally nest as "Foo Campaign" → "Battles of the Foo Campaign" → "Naval battles of the Foo Campaign".

Might anybody be able to help, primarily with putting together a list of the categories we have and how they're (supposed to be) nested? Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

T-34 nominated for FA
T-34 is a candidate for featured article. Please comment at Featured article candidates/T-34/archive1. —Michael Z. 2006-07-04 23:07 Z 

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight
The article Battles of Narvik which is supported by this task force is now the focus of the current collaboration of the fortnight. Please join in improving this article. Inge 12:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Aachen
The image in the info box seems to sometimes appear and sometimes not - this is rather odd. I wonder if someone could take a look. Tyrenius 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Overview campaignbox(es)?
Noting that there's no overview campaignbox for the war, I created Campaignbox World War II, but Oberiko noted that there's a WWIITheatre as well. I'm wondering what the best approach to take here would be? I think that it would be a good idea to turn the theatre template into one or several campaignboxes, for consistency with all the other such templates; would something like that be workable?

In terms of ideas, there are two at right. The top is the current campaignbox; the bottom is a more sophisticated campaignbox, listing theatres and sub-theatres. I've omitted the "Contemporary wars" line, but it would be easy to include if anyone thinks it really belongs. Comments on these—as well as any other ideas—would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The second one is imho too sophisticated. I think we should split it, like Andreas did with eastern front campaigns some time ago... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could try a collapsable one, akin to what we have on the WPMILHIST template. It would only list the top campaign/theatres initially, but clicking on a button would then open up that section so show the contents. Oberiko 17:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Those collapsible sections don't work properly on all browsers/skins, so I'm rather loath to use them on actual article content templates. Kirill Lokshin 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that in the first place we should reflect on a decent hierarchy of campaigns ans subcampaigns for each theater. I'll try to come up with something for the Eastern front... :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, anybody have other ideas? What are our options here? Kirill Lokshin 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ID Help wanted
Please forgive me if this talk page is not the most ultimate place to put my request at, but I am in need of help with the following issue; I have aquired a number of hi-res photos from Operation Overlord which I probably will upload to Wikimedia in the near future. Some of these are particularly interesting since they portray very famous persons (Eisenhower, Montgomery, De Gaulle, Churchill etc) in unusual (Normandy) environments. Now to my problem: They often appear with other presumably famous military characters which I personally can't identify, i.e. Allied senior officers and captured German officers as well. I would really appreciate if someone with particular knowledge about this could help me with identifying the persons. If you are interested with helping out, please tell me so on my talk page and/or send me a personal email (via my talk page). If you desire, I will then send you lo-res versions of the images in question to you.

My warm regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 04:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC).


 * It might be faster to just upload the pictures and let the remaining people be identified gradually; it's not as though we don't have piles of war photos with unidentified officers floating around. Kirill Lokshin 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The US Army Center of Military History is in the middle of positing its photo Archive on-line as well, and you may find some or all of your photos located there. If so, you may save yourself some time and trouble since they are in the Public Domain, and free for the asking. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. NAVY OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY LINK POSTED
I just noticed that the US Navy has posted on its historicdal website the official chronology of World War II. I linked it on the page. There is a link to a Merchant Merchant marine page as well.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: BBC project WW2 People's War
Comments on copying these articles to Wikipedia please. See Talk:Rafwaffe PeterGrecian 13:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on article talk page. Kirill Lokshin 15:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II
As you can see, I've tidied this up to re-categorise by theatre, and would like to start a discussion on how best to name the subcategories. For instance, what's the difference between Southeast Asia and Pacific Campaign? do we need 'battles and operations in each category's title? See my talk page too for some discussion of this.User&#124;Neddyseagoon 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This also extends to Category:Battles and operations of World War II and the accompanying Category:World War II campaigns and theatres. We should try to figure out a consistent set of theatre names to use. Kirill Lokshin 23:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When I was cleaning up Category:World War II campaigns and theatres per Categories for discussion (speedy rename); I searched on Categories beginning with "World War II" and pared the list as follows in relation to this discussion (there are obviously many, many more categories that start with "World War II").
 * If you agree that this is the way these categories should be renamed, just ad the cfr-speedy tag to the existing category pages, adding the desired new name, and post the information below on Categories for discussion. If there's consensus to do this, give a shout on User Talk:Chidom and I'll be happy to use AWB to add the tags.
 * That being said, I don't know if Naming conventions applies here. It says, in part:
 * "If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and also explain the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below." (on the naming convention list)
 * I don't think that's necessary, because I believe falls under Categories for discussion/Speedy item 4:
 * "Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
 * "This should only be used where there is no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory. It should not be assumed that an incorrectly formatted "radio stations" category was intended to be a "radio" category, or that an incorrectly formatted "archaeological sites" category was intended to be an "archaeology" category."
 * However, I just got burned by not doing this, so perhaps erring on the side of caution vis-a-vis the other "World War II" categories would be the wiser course. To get an idea of the scope of the overall project, enter "Category:World War II" in the search box in the toolbox, then click Search (rather than "Go"). A message will appear that it couldn't be found; choose the "index" option to get a list of everything that starts with "World War II". It's quite a long list; I only chose what I felt fell into this discussion.
 * Last note: I didn't change Category:World War II Battle of the Atlantic, my feeling is that this should be Category:Battles of the Atlantic of World War II.
 * Here's the list:


 * Category:World War II aerial operations and battles to * Category:Aerial operations and battles of World War II
 * Category:World War II aerial operations and battles of the East Asian Theatre to * Category:Aerial operations and battles of the East Asian Theatre of World War II
 * Category:World War II aerial operations and battles of the East Asian Theatre to * Category:Aerial operations and battles of the East Asian Theatre of World War II
 * Category:World War II aerial operations and battles of the Pacific Theatre to * Category:Aerial operations and battles of the Pacific Theatre of World War II
 * Category:World War II aerial operations and battles of the South Pacific Campaign to * Category:Aerial operations and battles of the South Pacific Campaign of World War II
 * Category:World War II naval operations and battles of the Pacific Campaign to * Category:Naval operations and battles of the Pacific Campaign of World War II
 * Category:World War II naval operations and battles of the Pacific Campaign to * Category:Naval operations and battles of the Pacific Campaign of World War II
 * Category:World War II naval operations and battles of the Southeast Asia Theatre to * Category:Naval operations and battles of the Southeast Asia Theatre of World War II
 * Category:World War II operations and battles of Europe to * Category:Operations and battles of Europe of World War II
 * Category:World War II operations and battles of the East Asian Theatre to * Category:Operations and battles of the East Asian Theatre of World War II
 * Category:World War II operations and battles of the Pacific Campaign to * Category:Operations and battles of the Pacific Campaign of World War II
 * Category:World War II operations and battles of the Southeast Asia Theatre to * Category:Operations and battles of the Southeast Asia Theatre of World War II
 * 'nuff said.&mdash; Chidom  talk   16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not too bad, I think. They should probably all be "battles and operations" rather than "operations and battles", though. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for HMCS Prince David
There's a new peer review request for HMCS Prince David that may be of interest to editors here; any input would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Greece
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Greece that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 14:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for SU-100Y Self-Propelled Gun
There's a new peer review request for SU-100Y Self-Propelled Gun that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

World War II Portal?
There has recently been created a new WikiProject Germany, which, I hope, will be able to get together and improve the various articles on the German civilian side of World War II. Your task force seems to cover the majority of the actual military matters well, and there seem to be projects which exist for most of the other countries significantly involved in the war. Would any of you be interested in perhaps assisting in the development of a portal which would deal with the precursors to, actions of, and aftermath of the wat? If yes, please contact me at my talk page, and we could try to hash out the details of such a portal. Thanks for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kongō
There's a new request for A-Class status for Japanese battleship Kongō that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Campaign categories
If anyone is interested, there are several renaming proposals being considered here with regards to how the various sub-categories for the Pacific Theater are named. Kirill Lokshin 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Colditz Castle
For your information, I've nominated Colditz Castle for a review at Featured article review/Colditz Castle. Please take a look! --Spangineerws (háblame)  16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II
From Requests for comment/History and geography:
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II Dispute between two editors over a number of points. It needs other editors to join the debate to help build a consensus. 10:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sugar Loaf Hill
I've just come across a reference to the battle of Sugar Loaf Hill; it would seem that James L. Day, who received his Medal of Honor for his actions in that battle, is the only article linking to it. The Battle of Okinawa article makes no reference to "Sugar Loaf Hill," although I did get a great number of fully relevant hits for it on Google. You all do an amazing job, and considering how extensive I thought our WWII coverage was, I was surprised to come across an entire battle with nearly no reference made to it. Just thought I ought to bring it to your attention. Cheers. LordAmeth 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Wuhan
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Wuhan that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for T-26
There's a new request for A-Class status for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for U.S. 8th Armored Division
There's a new peer review request for U.S. 8th Armored Division that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
There's a new peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested articles
The requested articles departement gets reorganized. The requests get moved to the specific taskforce. In case of error move it to a concerning task force. Wandalstouring 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Holocaust slave labor litigation


 * Added to open task template. Kirill Lokshin 13:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Electronic copy of translated Imperial Japanese Army history available
I just wanted to let everyone know that an English-translation of the book, "Kogun: The Japanese Army In The Pacific War" by Saburo Hayashi is available on the web. To access it, manually type the URL into your browser: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/utm/kogun.txt[/url]. Then click on any of the date links listed, then copy and paste the text to a Word file.

This book gives a high-level summary of Imperial Japanese Army operations in the Pacific War along with some brief bios of most of the high-ranking Japanese Army officers. Since it's out of print it's almost impossible to find a bound copy for a reasonable price. Cla68 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Armia Krajowa
There's a new peer review request for Armia Krajowa that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Another request
I'd like to request an article on Josef Meisinger, Gestapo chief and the so-called "butcher of Warsaw". Articles already exist on him in German and Polish. Thank you. (In future, should I do it this way, or place requests directly into the task force bar, or both?)LordAmeth 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Directly into the task bar is probably better; those have somewhat more visibility, and help keep things a bit neater. Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for USS Missouri (BB-63)
There's a new peer review request for USS Missouri (BB-63) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Doris Miller
There's a new peer review request for Doris Miller that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Edson's Ridge
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Edson's Ridge
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for B-17 Flying Fortress
There's a new request for A-Class status for B-17 Flying Fortress that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for USS Texas (BB-35)
There's a new peer review request for USS Texas (BB-35) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Kurt Welter
There's a new peer review request for Kurt Welter that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

help with ww 2 article please
Hi. could some of you guys please go over to the World War 2 article? There's currently a proposal there by only two users to rewrite most of the article, mainly to shorten it. I'm very concernred that only two people could rewrite an entire large article, consisting of dozens of people's work, without any underlying consensus. It seems to me that this would mean the removal of the work by many people by a small handful of users, mainly to attain what they consider the "correct" article length. So I'm disturbed that this is happening without any underlying consensus. i'd feel a lot better if a few more people could come over to the article, and take a look. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for T-26
There's a new peer review request for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Eric Gascoigne Robinson
There's a new peer review request for Eric Gascoigne Robinson that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for T-26
There's a new request for A-Class status for T-26 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for AHS Centaur
There's a new peer review request for AHS Centaur that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review for T-34
T-34 is now on featured article review, with the main concern being a lack of citations; if anyone has some sources handy, please drop by and put in a few footnotes. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1st Infantry Division (United States)
There's a new request for A-Class status for 1st Infantry Division (United States) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New Wikiproject: Wikiproject Colditz
I have just started up WikiProject Colditz to cover articles regarding Colditz Castle and, in particular, it's role as a Prisoner of War camp in WWII. This project aims to cover the castle and all the notable prisoners, such as Michael Sinclair and Pat Reid, who were imprisoned there. Feel free to check it out and if you want to help out, I will be most grateful! -- Qarnos 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for P-38 Lightning
There's a new peer review request for P-38 Lightning that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Morgenthau Plan
I'm concerned about this article dealing with American policy in occupied Germany; it relies heavily on a single book and is filled with original interpretations of primary sources. Someone with a sound knowledge of the immediate aftermath of WW2 in Germany needs to take a good look at it.--Nydas (Talk) 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for HMS Royal Oak (1914)
There's a new peer review request for HMS Royal Oak (1914) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting Colditz Castle
We are proposing a triple split of the Colditz Castle article at Talk:Colditz_Castle. The matter is a bit sensitive since it's a former featured article and there have been some objections in the past. We would like to receive the approval of the WWII task force before we start working on this. Cowpriest2 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a decent idea; the aricle is fairly long already, and is due for major reworking anyways (as the total lack of citations means it doesn't really even qualify as B-Class now). The resulting articles will probably be of a size that can accept expansion, too; the article on the castle itself, in particular, could use more material than what's in the current version. Kirill Lokshin 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree, no offense intended, but the article is starting to look disjointed. Oberiko 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard O'Connor FAR
Richard O'Connor has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)
There's a new peer review request for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Panzer I
There's a new peer review request for Panzer I that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Soviet partisans
There's a new peer review request for Soviet partisans that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Organizing pictures on Commons
I don't know if this is the right place to say this, but it would be helpful if some people would help to categorize the Category:World War II images on Commons. They provide a valuable media resource for article covered by the task force. They are all grouped together and need to be placed into subcategories. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks TheVault 03:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Anthony Eden
There's a new request for A-Class status for Anthony Eden that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battleship
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for King's Regiment (Liverpool)
There's a new peer review request for King's Regiment (Liverpool) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Iowa class battleship
There's a new peer review request for Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship
There's a new request for A-Class status for Armament of the Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Discovered web source on WWII Generals
I stumbled across this website today and letting everyone else know about it just in case I'm the only one that's discovered it. It's a database of brief biographical data on army general officers from all the major nations involved in World War II. The main value of the database appears to be it's information on more obscure generals, or generals that don't have much biographical detail written about them in English sources. I looked up some Japanese generals and it contained some data on them that I hadn't been able to find anywhere else. The website is at: http://www.generals.dk/. Cla68 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That one is pretty useful. Other websites offering similar information are:
 * http://www.ordersofbattle.com/PersonIndex.aspx
 * http://www.unithistories.com/units_index/default.asp?file=../units_index/documents.asp?
 * Leith p 07:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for World War II
There's a new request for A-Class status for World War II that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Operation titles
In the course of moving redlinked requested articles into the task forces' divided jurisdictions, I am trying to create redirects wherever I can or to otherwise remove items from being "requests" (i.e. labeled/listed as still needing to be created). As it pertains to Operations, though, I am for the post part leaving it to you guys to decide what redirects where. I'm no expert in WWII, particularly when it comes to such details as Operation titles, and precisely which aspects of the Allied invasion of Sicily are referred to as "Operation Bigot-Husky" or "Operation Husky" or whatever. Anyway, just putting it out there that many of these requests, the Operations in particular, may need little more than just becoming redirects to the proper battles or campaigns. Thanks. LordAmeth 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)
There's a new peer review request for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Flag for WWII
An annon on the Talk:Battle of Normandy talkpage brought up that that article's Canadian flag seems to be incorrect for the period. I rapidly checked this up and he seems to be correct. The problem is that the 1957 ensign seems to be used in most articles of the Project. I only changed the two used in the Battle of Normandy article. Anyone know whether the rest can be done by a bot and where to ask for it? The two flags in question are Image:Canadian Red Ensign.svg and Image:Canadian Red Ensign 1921.svg. While this won't be a visual issue in most cases (the infoboxes using mini flags) anyone clicking on the flag will get to see the wrong one currently.--Caranorn 12:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Batu Lintang camp
There's a new peer review request for Batu Lintang camp that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for HMS Kelly (F01)
There's a new peer review request for HMS Kelly (F01) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry
There's a new peer review request for Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)