Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Archive 2

Peer review request for Robin Olds
There's a new peer review request for Robin Olds that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry
There's a new request for A-Class status for Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines
There's a new peer review request for 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Zveno project
There's a new request for A-Class status for Zveno project that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising FAR
Warsaw Uprising 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 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WWII in Korea
As an American historian of Japan, I am surprised to realize I do not know about this at all - can anyone point me to information (on Wikipedia or elsewhere) about US-UK involvement in Korea during 1941-45? We read so much about the island-hopping campaigns, the battles in SE Asia, the war in China, the bombing of Japan, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, but where is Korea in all of this? Were there not Allied battles to liberate Korea? Any help you can offer would be most appreciated. Cheers, LordAmeth 12:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There wasn't any, if I recall correctly. The only major invasion of Korea during the war itself was part of Operation August Storm; substantial US troops didn't arrive in the southern portion of the penninsula until after the main Japanese surrender. Kirill Lokshin 12:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. That's what I figured. Thanks, K. LordAmeth 13:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Shouldn't we archive this page? I mean it has about 90 different discussions on it. I propose that we use MiszaBot II. We should use II not III or I because it is specifically for pages that start with Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk: , and Template talk:. Well, shouldn't we archive this page, Kirill? Dreamy 03:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh. The page wasn't that long, in terms of sheer size; but if the number of sections is a problem, it's easy to archive the old ones off.
 * (Automated archiving bots tend to be more trouble than they're worth on multi-purpose pages, in my experience; some discussions are intended to stay open for longer than others—even if they're not actively getting comments—and the decision isn't something that a bot can really make.) Kirill Lokshin 04:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for DFS 346
There's a new peer review request for DFS 346 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for AHS Centaur
There's a new request for A-Class status for AHS Centaur that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Berlin
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Berlin that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)
There's a new peer review request for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for USS New Jersey (BB-62)
There's a new peer review request for USS New Jersey (BB-62) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Northern France Campaign
Hello. I'd like to redirect the article Northern France Campaign (1944) to Battle of Normandy. They both cover the same events, the primary difference is that the former is part of the official U.S. naming scheme, so wouldn't include actions by the Commonwealth. Oberiko 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible enough. Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope
There's a new request for A-Class status for Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Charles N. DeGlopper
There's a new peer review request for Charles N. DeGlopper that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering new article for Liberia's role in World War II
Please look at the "World War II" section in the History of Liberia. I've been working on this article quite a bit and, frankly, I had no idea when I started that Liberia had played such a strategic role in the Allied effort in WWII. This section has gotten quite long and, since the entire article is also quite long (>70kb), I'm thinking that this section might be spun off as a subsidiary article. I'm trying to figure out what the title of the article would be. My current thinking is something like Liberia's role in World War II. However, I figured I'd ask here first in case there is a convention for naming articles of this type.

--Richard 06:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the section just needs to be cleaned up and condensed, something that can happen without losing any information. It's very choppy and almost list like now, with some copy editing it would flow alot better and not stickout so much. This way the parent article is improved and we don't have to create what might very well just end up as a perma-stub. Also, I don't know if there is enough information there to really warrant an additional, dedicated page. If there is some other material that I'm not aware of or you have plans on really expanding the section with the creation of an article though that might be a different story. NeoFreak 06:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think there is enough material to warrant a separate article.  I have started the article here.  I'm sure there's more to add but I don't know enough to provide it myself.  Hopefully others can help.  That's the power of Wikipedia. --Richard 08:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics list
I created the separate Missing topics list related to World War Two. Comments would be welcome - Skysmith 10:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC Operation Barbarossa
Since the anniversary of the Operation Barbarossa some editors sterted inserting the "Outcome: Axis tactical victory" into the infobox. I fing this utterly ridiculous to see this in the infobox without any corresponding text in the body of the article. Please comment in Talk:Operation Barbarossa. `'Miikka 21:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Ledbury (L90)
There's a new request for A-Class status for HMS Ledbury (L90) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 18:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for 37 mm Gun M3
There's a new request for A-Class status for 37 mm Gun M3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with World War II article structure/hierarchy
Hello.

I've been working on the structure for the WWII article, but my knowledge outside of Hitler's war with the Western Allies is quite limited. I would like some input on what sections would be best to break down the Soviet-German War and for the Asia-Pacific Theatre. Oberiko 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Greco-Italian War part of WWII
Hello. I'm wondering if the Greco-Italian War should be considered part of World War II. The Germans never declared war on Greece (unlike Yugoslavia) and had no hostilities with them until the following April (when the Battle of Greece began). The Allies didn't support the Greeks either until around the same time. Oberiko 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Did you know that Germany tried to invade Crete? True and they did. The Allies were there but they got defeated. Give me some more data on it. Either on my talk page or on here. Knowledge is Power 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Change that. It is part of World War II what was I thinking. It was a war that led into it and created the Battle of Greece. I say yes.Knowledge is Power 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Walter Model
There's a new request for A-Class status for Walter Model that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New article:South Atlantic air ferry route in World War II
Just wanted to let you know about this new article. Hopefully it does not duplicate the content of any existing article. --Richard 07:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Several campaign boxes need attention
I believe several of the world war 2 campaign boxes are flawed.

Western Europe '44-'45 Campaignbox This has less information than the campaign box on the Western Front in general. So it renders it moot. Not to mention it omits things like Market Garden. It needs a serious rework.
 * The Western Front was not a location, not one continuous campaign, whereas the operations in 44-45 were. The campaign box above is a break-down of the 44-45 campaign, everything that happened should fall into one of those stages (including Market Garden, which is in the Siegfried Line campaign). Oberiko 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Front I question the inclusion of Villefranche-de-Rouergue uprising. How is this one of the most important events of the Western Front? Also, Aintree, and Achen are smaller battles that should be included under the Siegfriend line campaign. I would sugest maybe moving some of these articles to the Western Euopre ('44-'45) box mentioned above.
 * See above, personally I don't use the Western Front box since, as I mentioned, it was a location, not a campaign. Oberiko 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Italian Campaign The Bernhardt Line is part of the Winter Line, as is the Hitler Line, but only the Berhardt is mentioned. It seems they should all be rolled up under a refrence to the Winter Line. On that note, the Trasimene Line is mentioned, why is it important?
 * There's a lengthy discussion on this, check the Italian Campaign page (the definition of the Winter Line isn't set in stone) Oberiko 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia, so if I haven't communicated in the right way or in the right place, I apologise. Homersmyid 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour now open
The A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:19, 30 July 2007 (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 you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needing attention: Nedić's Serbia
The Nedić's Serbia article needs some serious attention. There is a considerable amount of debate, edit-warring and mud-slinging in this article - mostly regarding whether or not this puppet state existed or not, and neither camp appears to have any suitable supporting material. I know nothing about the matter, so I thought it best to alert this project. Thanks. - 52 Pickup 11:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of battles
I am in the process of creating a list of battles in World War II, loosely based on Battles of the Mexican-American War. I think it should be FL material when it's done, but it's obviously a monumental undertaking, so I would appreciate all the help I can get. The list is at User:SFGiants/Battles of World War II. Thanks, ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The main problem I see here is what to include/exclude. Would the Battle of France be included? Would the Western Desert Campaign?  What about raiding operations?  Strategic bombing missions?  How would you determine if something qualifies as a battle? Oberiko 22:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would there be any problems with just renaming it to "Military operations of World War II" and including everything? Determining whether something is a "battle" is admittedly non-trivial, but there's no reason we need to limit the list to those, as far as I can see. Kirill 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II now open
The A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Enfield revolver now open
The A-Class review for Enfield revolver is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle for Henderson Field
There's a new peer review request for Battle for Henderson Field that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle for Henderson Field now open
The A-Class review for Battle for Henderson Field is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Jones (RAAF officer) now open
The A-Class review for George Jones (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Omaha Beach now open
The A-Class review for Omaha Beach is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II now open
The A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Richard Williams (RAAF officer)
There's a new peer review request for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 01:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Battleaxe
There's a new peer review request for Operation Battleaxe that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move for "Occupied Japan"
I have just begun discussion towards possibly moving the article Occupied Japan to another of several options of titles which include the word "Occupation." Everyone has different ideas and impressions based on what they've read and heard, but it is my experience that terms such as "the Occupation", "the Occupation of Japan", "the American Occupation" and "the Japanese Occupation" are far more common than "Occupied Japan" to describe this period. Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Occupied_Japan. Thanks. LordAmeth 22:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Japanese Fascists
As "the use of the term fascism in relation to Japan is contentious and disputed" (quoted from Japanese fascism), I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to label any and every Japanese involved in the government or military at the time - even the most high-up officials - a "fascist".

I think this is an important thing for us to get a handle on, and to establish standards or guidelines about. Please offer your thoughts on the matter at Category talk:Japanese fascists. LordAmeth 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Admiralty Islands campaign
There's a new peer review request for Admiralty Islands campaign that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 00:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Colmar Pocket
There's a new peer review request for Colmar Pocket that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Asia/Pacific Theatre
I'd like to propose the following structure for our dealings with Asia in World War II:


 * Asian Theatre of World War II should contain everything from July 1937 - August 1945
 * Pacific War should be a subset of the ATWW2 and contain everything from December 7/8 - August 1945
 * Second Sino-Japanese War should be considered a sub-theatre of the Asian Theatre of World War II, only focusing on operations involving both China and Japan in China.

Thoughts? Oberiko 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The division sounds perfect to me, though of course each article should mention briefly its context within the larger Asia-Pacific Theatre, and within WWII as a whole. LordAmeth 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Army (Soviet Army)
There's a new peer review request for Army (Soviet Army) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 01:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) now open
The A-Class review for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say how incredible the work of this group is. I think it is monumental that we have covered the entirety of WWII across the world. Many of the articles are FA quality it really is a joy to see. Congratulationsw to everybody this really is a major world achievement  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 18:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on replacing World War II theatre/campaign template
Hello. I'd like thoughts on replacing the current WWII theatre/campaign template.

I propose this for a few reasons. First, it looks much cleaner, and, IMO, is easier to navigate. Second, if we include "campaigns", then we potentially can have dozens of entries, as WWII was notorious for both nested campaigns and each nation having its own definition of what actions constituted a campaign, especially as during the course of the war the boundaries of various command areas shifted with the situation. I think it'd be better to explain those details within within the theatre articles themselves.

To facilitate this, I'd create theatre articles for those that don't have them (ie. Balkans theatre of World War II). If a theatre is adequately explained with a single campaign/battle (ie. North Africa, Italy, Madagascar), I'd just keep it as the link. Thoughts? Oberiko 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the immensity of the Pacific and Asia, is it not unreasonable, on the Western Allied side, to consider Pacific/Pacific Ocean Areas, Southwest Pacific, and CBI? Germans, at least East, West, and perhaps Italy (and Germany itself)? For that matter, should the Japanese theaters be considered, although that might be more of an Army vs. Navy jurisdiction? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For Asia, the Allied Southwest Pacific, Southeast Asia and CBI areas, in terms of commands and actions, tend to overlap and aren't really in sync with how the Japanese distributed and used their forces. That's why in something like the Southeast Asia theatre would be (mostly) based on the geographical Southeast Asia, not on the Allied command regions created close to five months after the Pacific War began and dictated Allied policy, not Japanese.  Within the article itself it could be explained how the Allies and Japanese viewed the command structure of the regions.
 * Italy is almost always placed primarily in the Mediterranean, as it was the same Allied forces which pursued them up from North Africa. Germany itself is already covered within the Western and Eastern Fronts, being two fairly separate forces that pincered it together; not really useful to have it sectioned out (like Poland) since it was just the tail end of two drives through German-controlled territory. Oberiko 20:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to suggest that the Axis and Allied theater boundaries will match. They won't. Still, in the context of Japan, the Army emphasis on the land mass of Asia, versus the Naval concept of island bases and the "Decisive Battle" cannot be overemphasized. I believe it would be very useful to be able to draw a continuum from the prewar Japanese Strike-North and Strike-South factions. The idea of the IJN's original concept of an eastern boundary not including Midway, and the unforeseen effect of the Doolittle Raid leading to strategic overreach at Midway, is also significant.


 * As far as a German theater, I should have been more clear. I believe the Allied strategic bombing campaign, and the German strategic defense, had a distinct separation from the Western Front until late 1944 or early 1945. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history by Kirill 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The aerial war over Europe might indeed be better off having a distinct link here; it's not really tied to either front.
 * As for the Japanese factionalization, it might be too complex a topic to be presented in what's meant to be a fairly simple navigational template. Kirill 18:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Soviet occupation of Romania now open
The A-Class review for Soviet occupation of Romania is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the German Justification for the Invasion of Polan
Before the invasion. SS men went into Poland dressed as Polish Nationalists.They then returned into Germany and raided a radio station and then thet broadcasted a fiery speech in Polish that was anti-German. Should we?Carharttjimmy 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Please get back to me.


 * Should we enter Poland and broadcast anti-German speeches? I'd say no. It isn't really part of Wikipedia's core purpose. On the other hand, if you're asking if we should include that information in the encylopedia, then it's already there. Leithp 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, well I forgot the name of it thanks. Did not know that.Knowledge is Power 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing map colors
Being that we've got a considerable number of maps, I think we should try and standardize our coloring scheme to make it easier for users who are hopping to multiple articles. I propose the following:

Any thoughts? Oberiko 15:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that I want to keep the Soviet Union and other Allies separate for three reasons:
 * The Soviets being an ambiguous power at the start
 * AFAIK, there was no area which had a mixture of Soviet and other Allied troops, with the exception of Iran.
 * The Soviet were not at war with Japan until mid 1945. Making them blue would remove this distinction.
 * I don't feel that China needs to be excluded from the Allied blue color since they declared war on Germany (even if it was just a formality) and fought with the Commonwealth in Burma. Oberiko 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Was this eventually adopted? I see no reason for separation of British Commonwealth from Western Allies in general, and instead give the dark blue to the French.--  mrg3105  mrg3105   00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really been adopted; there's very little standardization among map creators at the moment. Kirill 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Britain GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles and just reviewed Battle of Britain. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message at this task force, along with the other relevant task forces to the article, since the article falls under this topic and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs some more inline citations, and if added, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France and Battle of Britain Good Article Reassessment
These two articles has been reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the articles currently don't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the articles are well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the articles at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the articles' status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the articles can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Dreadnought now open
The peer review for Dreadnought is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Le Paradis massacre now open
The peer review for Le Paradis massacre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 now open
The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia now open
The A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 now open
The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)