Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 75

It occurred to me there's a really vast body of information there, certainly enough for a good portal. Before I subcat anything, I thought I'd best to inquire here. I'd like to break all links down into three separate directions (Civil wars by location), (Civil wars by time period), and (Civil wars by type, per grouping on the Civil war#Premodern_civil_wars outline). All links would be cloned between the three, sub-catted and filed appropriately. Does this sound ok? Any issues or other ways of viewing the list I should have considered? If I should quadruplicate the links into four separate directions, I'd best know it now. What time periods should I define? BusterD (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to break it down, I see no reason to reinvent the wheel; we already have perfectly usable trees for other conflicts:

• Category:Civil wars by country
• Category:Civil wars by era (mirroring the sub-cats of Category:Battles by era; the finer-grained breakdown is already available through Category:Conflicts by year)
• Category:Civil wars by type

Kirill 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

By location, here's what I propose:

• Category:African civil wars
• Category:Asian civil wars
• Category:European civil wars
• Category:North American civil wars
• Category:South American civil wars

BusterD (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A general "by location" category will soon overflow with trivial sub-cats, in my experience. If we want to do something like this, we can create Category:Civil wars by continent (to parallel Category:Wars by continent, with sub-categories like Category:Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Asia); but this should ideally collect parts of the by-country tree, as that one does. Kirill 16:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I like by continent, then by country. BusterD (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

By type, here's what I propose:

• Category:Religious civil wars
• Category:Revolution civil wars
• Category:Separatist rebellion civil wars
• Category:Coup civil wars

Ideas? Critique? I'll wait a week before I start the process, just in case. BusterD (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the names seem rather strained; perhaps "Revolutionary civil wars"? Or, alternately, flip the name order and have something like "Civil wars caused by revolutions"? Kirill 16:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How about:

• Category:Religion-based civil wars
• Category:Revolution-based civil wars
• Category:Separatist rebellion-based civil wars
• Category:Coup-based civil wars BusterD (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that reads a bit better, in my opinion. Kirill 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I might unintentionally start an edit civil war over whether a war is primarily a coup or a revolution... BusterD (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about the concept of a "Civil wars portal"? There's some really nice correlatives which could be drawn... BusterD (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Civil wars? Sounds good to me, so long as we have someone to maintain it. Kirill 16:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The basic sorting is now done. Now I'm going to throw the net wide a bit, add some category tags, and build the list of topics. I notice a dearth of CW-marked articles in the Ancient China sphere, and I suspect there's some considerable tag fishing to do, but right now the category constitutes an impressive body of already created work. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Michael the Brave; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Krulak Mendenhall mission; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads. Thank you. Rlandmann (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?--mrg3105mrg3105 05:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out the talk page. Leobold1 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In the old Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) guidelines it was suggested that

Armies if numbered, spell out the number and put it at the front

Corps if numbered, use capitalized Roman numerals and put them at the front

But AFAICT there is no advise on this issue in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide. There is a discussion on the name of 3rd Shock Army (Soviet Union) on the article's talk page. So it would be useful to hear what others think on naming of armies and corps. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is though that the historical name of the units was numeric. Why were the Armies singled out for the spelled-out treatment in the old style guide? Why would the Corps use Roman numerals across all nations? Why would I need to type out Sixty-seventh Army, if I can write 67th and be correct?--mrg3105mrg3105 12:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I'd likely be more likely to type 8th Army than Eighth Army...however, this is probably one of those 'Redirects work' things. Narson (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. We've been moving towards using the historical usage on a per-country basis, but redirects are cheap in any case. Kirill 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like it would be worth formalising in the style guide, to avoid inconsistency within sets of articles and to save editors having to dig out books to check the terminology every time they want to refer to 3/III./Third Bicycle Corps (Liechtenstein) etc. Leithp 15:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"3/III./Third " reminds me of another stylistic issue. Where in ref U.S./Br/Canadian corps "I Corps" is correct, ref Ger, isn't "I. Corps"? Or does that only apply if it's "1. Div"? (And, for readers who don't know, mention if it's "eye core", "eye corpse", "one corpse", or "one core"? I've heard all 4... 8(). Trekphiler (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Koli Point action is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Kleidion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Al Mansurah was a very small article it is expanded now.Samsam22 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As an idea for a new page to branch off Battle of Britain (copied from Talk:Battle of Britain):

Any thoughts on a link out on mistakes made by both sides & potential consequences? Chances of Ger victory, RAF attacking German bases (per Allan), that like. Trekphiler (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. This would be rather speculative, perhaps branching into Alternate history (of which I am a fan!). I mean, the consequences of various mistakes made were realised on the German side, as for the British it would seem quite obvious consequences of continued mistakes would have led to defeat - but it would be debatable if this would have enabled a successful Op. Sealion. You probably wouldn't be able to satisfy everyone, and it could turn into an problematic article with editors squabbling over the unprovable.

My own "2 cent" would be that RAF attacks on German bases would have been a waste of resources - precious fighter pilots would have been lost that were needed for defence. I suppose even if they bailed out they would be lost - perhaps experienced leaders like Bader and Tuck would have been lost at a crucial time unlike the relatively "safe" period of 1941-42.

I tend to believe that even with total German air-superiority it would have been close run. Much has been said about the lack of anti-shipping experiences and training in the Luftwaffe, but it effectiveness over Scandinavia, and Dunkerque proved its potential. Ships did not have to be sunk to be removed from the battle. A relatively small operational area would have benefited the Germans interception rate against R.N forces.

Having said all that, I suppose I could conjure up some good references of prominent aviation historians view points on this subject. I think I can find some material on Overy, Macksey, Price and I think Bungay's opinions on this. This will avoid too much heated debate in such an article. Would this help? Dapi89 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military science task force#Strategy & tactics. Kirill 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A member of the project, Roger Davies, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Roger Davies's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Kirill 17:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should check and see if he can walk on his hands, and recite Shakespeare backwards before making a decision.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, that is unfair to Roger Davies...this is the Military History project. He should have to walk on his hands in full combat gear and recite the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or its foreign equivalent, backwards...Cromdog (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Done --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Nah.... even thats not needed. As long as he knows the lyrics to "Blood on the Risers", that should be enough. Sniperz11^talk|edits 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Doing... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Has he done the full combat induction course with the 4th Mazervian Shock Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Done --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

A new administrator is to ??? as is a second lieutenant with a map? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would be satisfied if he can jump over a chair and recite the Lord's Prayer. The Land (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you accept falling down stairs and recitating The Charge of the Light Brigade backwards in Esperanto instead? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I may accept "reciting" Woody (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the South Atlantic Medal article for a peer review (I've done some big edits to it), you can contribute to it here if you like :) Ryan4314 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm dangling dangerously close to 3RR on USS Forrestal (CV-59). An IP is removing mention of an operation with a corresponding article, claiming that they were onboard at the time and the event did not happen. I've asked them to provide a proper citation to prove their assertions, but I don't want to revert again. Can someone help? -MBK₀₀₄ 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's generally up to the person wanting a statement to stay in an article to provide sources, rather than the person wanting a statement removed. The whole thing is so inadequately cited that I'm not sure where the claim might come from, originally; we need to get a citation either way. Kirill 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now it is cited. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put it on my watchlist and have commented on the talkpage. Now it is cited to two sources, the IP needs to provide sources to refute the claim. Woody (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor is back with a different IP. This may get dicey, he just deleted the whole paragraph with the sources. The Edit summary said he didn't care what the source said. Another admin will need to make the block if it comes to that because I'm involved. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, just one thing. Globalsecurity.org mirrors virtually anything it finds on the web and almost certainly just mirrored the other special forces site that is cited here. I believe the burden of proof might be on the Operation Pokeweed claim. Just think - that special forces site might be reflecting some journalist's book who got the aircraft carrier's name wrong. It's quite possible that Pokeweed involved a CV, but someone should really pull USS Forrestal's log/sailing records for the year in question - anyone know how? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In theory that would be done via DANFS, since its log book entry material the navy uses to put togather its ship histories. If that fails try looking at the sources used on the Iowa class battleshp pages; almost all of those battleships are featured, so their source may provide a place to start. I will take closer look when I get the chance and see what can be done. In the interm I recommend readding the material in question to the talk page and working with the ISP editer(s) to find some sort of middle ground. Key to this is our policy of verifiability, not truth, so make sure that or annon knows that even if the article in question has material he knows to be false the burden of proof is on him to prove that. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A curosy glance would suggest that the root of the problem is this alleged operation itself: a google search turns up roughly ten sites with info on the op, and nearly all of those fail to meet my standards for reliability. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to delay taking action on this until more info becomes available on pokeweed. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DANFS has a pretty good timeline for Forrestal. I don't see a point in 1990 when Forrestal could have went to Panama to conduct this operation. I made a fairly detailed attempt to find where this came from, but news databases have nothing. I don't have access to Lexis anymore, but ProQuest and Newspaperarchive come up with nothing on this operation and certainly nothing on Forrestal's involvement. On top of this we also have a disgruntled anon who asserts basically what DANFS says, that the ship was on a Med cruise until April than undergoing repairs at Mayport and Norfolk the rest of the year. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I wonder I perhaps they mean a Forestal-class carrier? That could be the case, but I still say that we need more info on pokeweed before reaching that conclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good research work guys. Unless anyone objects, I will, after another 24-36 hours have elapsed, reduce Pokeweed to a lengthy footnote in the Forrestal article, explaining the whole story including the research that DualFreq has done, and probably change the main text in the Pokeweed article to 'an aircraft carrier' with the same lengthy footnote. Objections? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I would make one extra recommendation: add a hidden note the section with the pokeweed edits asking contributers to bring up changes to the info on the talk page 1st so as to aviod editting waring. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

These changes also need to be carried through on articles such as USS Forrestal (CV-59), List of United States military history events, etc. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the zombie "Battles in..." categorization has returned, in the form of Category:Battles in Pennsylvania—despite the rather lengthy and prominent explanation of why this is a bad idea at WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. (Many of the articles in that category aren't actually battles, but that's another issue.)

Anyone have suggestions for how best to deal with this? I'm tempted to simply nominate the thing for deletion or merging up to Category:Military history of Pennsylvania—the overall concept of such categories is something that took several years and multiple (very painful) mass renamings to dispose of—but does anyone have other ideas or preferences? Kirill 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One option, incidentally, might be to rename it to something like Category:Battlefields in Pennsylvania, which would make it a pure geographic location category, eliminating the question of where the actual battle itself took place; but I'm not sure that's a can of worms worth opening either. Kirill 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Battles in Pennsylvania show be removed because it is pretty much redundant. Almost all the battles are already included in "Pennsylvania in the ARW" and "Pennsylvania in the Civil War". If desired, another category could be created "Pennsylvania in the French and Indian War" and that would include I think all battles. BradMajors (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, any other opinions on this specific category? If it's redundant, should we just nominate it for deletion? Or does anyone want it to be renamed to something? Kirill 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? ;-) Kirill 16:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I could, barely, be qualified as an "anyone" (Certainly not as a "someone", though.) I think deleting might be the best alternative. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein I would like to ask for a modification to the Style Guide.

• It seems to me that the authors and editors should be encouraged to make greater use of the English vocabulary and use more then one or two words to describe an event such as a "battle" where the "Battle of..." is not the common name. This is particularly true of the many 20th century 'battles' which were often either fully fledged large scale operations, or mere skirmishes.
• Also, it seems that where a common name is not available, the name should probably include a geographic location, and the nature of the event (i.e. advance, retreat, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What you're asking for is us to create designations that do not exist. This is not standard English usage - and on the English wikipedia, we should be mirroring current usage, not trying to create wiki-isms (like the late, unlamented 'Battle of Romania,' but in a slightly different way). English uses operation names (Operation Battleaxe or Baltic Offensive both do just fine), 'campaign'(eg Normandy Campaign), battle in the sense of a short engagement, a rather stretched version of battle (ie Battle of Britain or Second Battle of the Atlantic, but not 'Struggle' or 'Advance'. I strongly believe that you should not be changing titles to these types of descriptions without English-language sources describing such things with these names. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true to an extent; but I think we need to have some way of dealing with events that are unknown or virtually unknown in English-language historiography. The unprecedented scope of our coverage means that we're going to be including lots of events for which the bulk of the sources is not (natively) in English; the relevant task forces should probably serve to collect some translation advice for those cases. Kirill 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"What you're asking for is us to create designations that do not exist." Well, actually that is untrue. Operation Battleaxe is an operation security designation and not a description of the actual event as a military action. It was in fact a two day battle! Had you ever hear of Operation Battlespear? There may have been one that was a security name of an operation to provide field laundry facilities to Allied troops, but it was not noteworthy in terms of military history. Funnily enough in the article it is described in three phases as an 'advance', a "push up", and a 'capture'. All three are just wrong. I can guarantee that neither Wavell nor any of his Staff used these words. In fact the phases would have been referred to as an offensive, an attack and the occupation of the objectives. A "push-up" is what the sergeant gets the private to do to teach him a lesson in military protocol. An advance is a movement which in not expected to be opposed. A capture is the act of opposed attack on the objective. Given that on day three "The British narrowly escape encirclement", it seems that the objective was opposed. Maybe the MilHist needs a vocabulary dictionary/guide included?

Who named the "Battle of Britain"? It was Churchill for the benefit of the Parliament and public morale. Was there a "battle" of Britain? There was not. There were a series of tactical air engagements as part of Air Group operations in an RAF campaigns to retain air superiority of the airspace over several sectors of UK airspace that included separate air superiority operations against German fighters and operations to intercept German bomber groups. Far from "the few" being the fighter pilots, even fewer were the early radar operators that made the interceptions possible, but who's existence was kept in secret at the time. And yet the code name for the operation of the radar network is not known. It was "The CH (Chain Home) radar was the first to be organized into a complete defence system, and the first to be used in wartime operations." [1] In many ways the "Battle of Britain" was "Operation Chain Home" with the later addition of "Operation Big Ben" to counter the V weapons. The fighter operations were a part of the early radar directed interception operations that are now routine. "Battle of Britain" was therefore a battle of new technology vs German strategy derived of Italian theory of air operations created before radars had been used for the purpose.

To what "2nd" Battle of Atlantic does the article refer to? A six year struggle to protect Allied shipping from German surface and submarine forces from the coast of Greenland to South Africa?! "Struggle" is exactly how my former employer, and the then 17 year old seaman, described it. It was conducted in different time zones, by units and formations so dispersed that most operated under different commands, included different objectives (the case of shipping to UK vs convoys to USSR in North Atlantic) and methods (anti-submarine air campaigns vs troopships from USA and Canada). The title of the article may be sourced, but it is nonsensical in the encyclopaedic sense in that it completely fails to represent the subject! This is why the article is long and confused. The authors and editors are set the task of describing in an encyclopaedic article what is usually dealt with in book form. Encyclopaedia articles are not restricted to catchy published work all-encompassing titles. BTW, which part of the "1st" battle was the 2nd battle similar to?

The subject of event naming is not just stylistic or pedantic, but also has to do with data management. In absence of full-time category and article care-taking individuals it is very important that data structures are set up to guide new authors and editors in their adding to the encyclopaedia. There is a need for hierarchy and precision in naming. If the "sourced" titles are used for article names, they will inevitably lead to attempts to rewrite the sources in the 'global view' articles such as Battle of Britain. Only when one looks in The Blitz does one realise there were distinct phases of the Luftwaffe bombing offensive, including using the unguided V weapons (actually called an offensive; the first missile offensive?). Only later does the reader learns that there was a "main assault" which was "The main attack upon the RAF's defences was code-named Adlerangriff ("Eagle Attack")." What this means is that the "Battle of Britain" was far from the simple version presented by Churchill as the "battle of the few", but a fairly sophisticated and lengthy campaign by the Luftwaffe, but presented from the defender's POV!

While this is an English language encyclopaedia, it is supposed to present information objectively, and explore the subjects fully. To do so, the article naming convention has to reflect this and not seek to capture names adopted for public consumption and ulterior motives, whether by politicians, or less informed authors. That can be left to the article references and notes.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to use the common English name if possible (current guideline) and translations for the description of the event(operation, battle,...) and a native name of the event if necessary, otherwise also an English translation. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia official policy: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.".

If you don't like "Battleaxe" or "Battle of Britain", you're going to have to argue that a proposed alternative is more easily recognizable, less ambigious and, to a lesser extent, easier to link. "Battle of the Britain" is how it was introduced to the world, and what thousands of English books / documentaries etc. refer to it as. Oberiko (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all,

Looking for advice and opinions here, there are currently 3 articles which deal with the Western Allied invasion of Northern France in June 1944.

Battle of Normandy, Normandy Campaign and Operation Neptune

All of which appear to be treading on each others toes in places, covering the same information: i.e. preparation and plans, the initial invasion etc etc

I guess the question is, should all this be cleared up into more appropriately headed articles or leave it the way it was.

I.E: Operation Neptune, Normandy Landings, Overlord Landings etc etc to cover the initial landings, preparations, the Atlantic wall etc, explanation on what Overlord and Neptune was and with either a link to a new article or also including the current information on the armada.

Battle of Normandy, Normandy campaign etc etc to cover the following fighting (June 7th onwards?) up to the Seine and Paris (in brief, linking off to the other articles such as Battle of Caen etc)

There has been some discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Normandy#Article_Name about the issue but only some.

Looking for advice --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#Operation Overlord. Kirill 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for South Atlantic Medal is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay A. DeLoach. Thanks Corpx (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. Leithp 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to incorporate a proper cite into brevity code, but I haven't been able to find out how to cite FMs. Especially considering FM 101-5-1 appears to be an interservice document, I'd appreciate it if anyone knowledgeable could help me out. Thanks! Bartleby (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First thing I'd think would be to make sure you put the full title of the FM, the proponent office/command (which equates to the publisher) and year of issue. Be a good first start. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the document by David Glantz, 'The Soviet-German War: Myths and Realities - A Preliminary Survey,' as this would be really helpful with expanding the East Front articles on wikipedia. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you were looking for? - it's by Glantz and has that title (8 Mb download) or are you interested in this very recent lecture, which isn't yet online? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Got it now. Thanks also for your comments at the 51st Army A-class assessment; gone over and incorporated most of them. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The A-Class review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be added to the military related list of deletions by someone who knows how...Cromdog (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if WikiProject Military history is interested in having SatyrBot run its' To Do List function for the project? A basic summary is that the bot reviews all articles that have the MILHIST banner and compiles lists of those that "Need Cleanup", "Need Expert Attention", "Need Wikification", "Possibly up for Deletion", and four other categories. It creates the full lists, but also pulls a random assortment and creates a daily selection. Let me know on the bot's project page? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it work off the {{WPMILHIST}} tags, or off a raw category list? If it's the latter, I can't see it being very useful for us; our category tree is filled with false positives. Kirill 13:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It works off the project's banner. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems feasible, then; is there any interest in having such a list available? Kirill 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it, it may give or contributers who are bored something to do. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked Satyr to create the lists. Once they're up, we'll see about adding them to the announcement template and so forth. Kirill 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I ran the bot today as a trial run and created: To-do list and Small to-do list. FYI, the bot takes just under 12 minutes to run for this project. It's scheduled to do it weekly, but I can change that to run daily if you'd prefer. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks very nice; I'll see how we can transclude this neatly. As far as the update speed goes, I can't see a real need for daily updates at this point; does anyone else have a preference? Kirill 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a link to the full list in {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} and {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}, and transcluded the short list in {{WPMILHIST Announcements/Full}}. Hopefully that'll be enough for people to get to it. Kirill 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the "short" list is updated each time with random entries. The "deleted" items is the only reason I suggest running more frequently than once a week - it reports on articles that have a "prod" or "adf" tag on them. The full list of articles with deletion issues is reported on the short list, though the rest are a random sample. The "long" list isn't updated, since it's just a transclusion of the sections. I recommend watchlisting the short list, just to be alerted when it gets run.

I'll try to check back in a few weeks, but if anyone has any suggestions or if the bot makes any mistakes, please contact me either on my talk page or on the bot's page. If everything goes well, I'm going to suggest making this function available to all WikiProjects, so y'all are a sort-of test run. :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Le Paradis massacre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any disagreement with me changing the style guide to follow what appears to be common practice now (as discussed above) - that it should follow the country's convention? That is, the British Eighth Army but the Soviet 18th Army. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a draft wording? Kirill 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That proposal makes perfect sense to me, and seems to be in line with WP:NAME. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at modifying the style guide, so advice/changes are welcome. This is a current lift from the style guide:

'In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be pre-emptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit. If this is done, the un-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version).

For bases, the optional disambiguator should be the region, province, state, or territory in which the base or fortress is located; for example, "Fort Lyon (Virginia)" and "Fort Lyon (Colorado)". The disambiguator is not necessary in cases where the name is unique to a single fortress or base.'

My proposed change might put, above or below the first paragraph as people wish: '...To aid in conveying national character, units and formations should have their names written as close to official period documentation usage as possible. For example, while US and British usage is to spell out Army level formations and given Roman numerals to corps, editors writing about a specific country should seek to follow that country's official usage. This would give, for example 3. Panzer Armee -> english article title 3rd Panzer Army, and 18-ya Armiya -> English usage 18th Army. '

Comments and changes welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd put this right after the second paragraph in the section, to avoid having it lost in the disambiguation points; it's more related to the translation advice, anyways. Slightly condensed from your text:

An article about a unit, formation, or base should be... the most common name used in historical literature.

A name originally in a language other than English....

Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army".

Does that work? Kirill 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just fine. Kirill, I suggest you go ahead and make the insert and make any other minor changes needed to my draft text at the same time. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll go ahead and add this to the guide. Kirill 03:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As there haven't been any objections, I've added the above text to the style guide. Further comments are, as always, entirely welcome. Kirill 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Military of East Timor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who voted and commented on this article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Treaty of Tripoli page has gone through some major revisions as of late. Could people weigh in on the issue if the controversy section should be expanded (I say no, because it will just create feuding about "POV balance") and re-examine the page. Also, if there is anything that can be added in regards to Military history and its Jefferson's willingness to attack another country to defend America's interests abroad, that would help. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a disambiguation page. It has a box and reference. However, it links to four Turkish-Portuguese War articles, most of them short and need cleanup and references. Perhaps they should be merged together. -- Nudve (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

hi, Firstly Iam a new EDITOR here,

And i've been authoring an article and its almost complete. I want to add it to the Military history project. Presently Its in my userspace User:Everdawn/Sandboxes/Chola_navy, i want to know if i can add it in the mil-hist proj after releasing it in article space or now itself.

And, any pointers to improve the article will be highly appreciated.

Thanks Swraj (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That looks great. I spot a few tiny stylistic things which don't mesh with how things are normally done on Wikipedia - such as putting "Chola Navy" by itself at the beginning, and then starting with "The term Chola Navy..."; instead, get rid of that first bolded "Chola Navy" and start with "The Chola Navy was..." - but other than that, it looks fantastic. Once the article gets moved into article space, we can add categories, and the project banner. Welcome to the Project, and to Wikipedia! LordAmeth (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

hi LordAmerth, Thanks for the review and helpful suggestion. I'll work on it along with some other polishing too. Thanks, Swraj (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for List of Indian Air Force Bases is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A single user has been adding information which seems to other users of doubtful relevance to the Indian Navy, about how the Indus Valley people appear to have had docks, and ships of Varuna mentioned in the Rig Veda. My attention was drawn to these, and I concurred at some length, but the patriot is still reverting. Could we have a third opinion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Le Paradis massacre; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 03:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone point me to some guidelines on the what's supposed to go in the "Results" field in the War infobox? My impression relevant information for this field is:

1) Who won.
2) Any treaties after the war.

In War in Abkhazia some users seem intent on putting information about ethnic cleansing in the results field. What are your thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, the most common item in that field is (1)—treaties are rarely mentioned separately—but there's no guideline prohibiting mention of other items if having them is important; the specific usage of most template fields is intentionally left to the discretion of each article's editors. The question to ask is whether having something unusual there will substantially improve reader understanding of the topic, or merely confuse it. Kirill 13:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. What is generally expected is who won or lost or whether it was a stalemate or a return to the status quo ante – to wit, the battlefield outcome. However, there is nothing formulaic about what goes into this field, and the best thing would be to come to a consensus on the talk page. However, having edited that article in the past, I can appreciate your concern about whether it poses POV-pushing, which makes me leery of encouraging the general use of a loaded term like "ethnic cleansing" in the infobox. In this case, as long as the article makes clear that both sides are accused of ethnic cleansing, it probably doesn't matter. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so easy to do. There are a small but very dedicated group of editors (actually one extremely dedicated editor and some others who seem to tag team to help him whenever he runs into problems) that will revert anything that is even remotely critical of Georgia and also will revert anything that shows Abkhazia or South Ossetia as victims of aggression and will revert anything that shows Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be anything other than what they call a "Russian-backed" state. They rarely offer anything substantial in talk and quite often make no substantial comment in the edit summary. Dispute resolution doesn't seem to work unless perhaps it went all the way to arbcom. I tried an RFC in another article that I had a content dispute 2007 Georgian demonstrations but they did there best to disrupt it by posting meaningless garbage in the RFC about how I submitted an RFCU on two of them, then when an editor responded to the RFC in my favour they completely disregarded it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always a matter of how much you want to fight the trollish behavior. The fact remains, though, that it's a WP:MILHIST infobox, so the folks here are the final arbiters for consensus. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya has started a discussion about Bharat Rakshak, a military discussion and information website (site) and its reliability as a source (WP:RS) at Noticeboard for India-related topics. I request interested editors to contribute, since a majority of Indian Defence related articles use Bharat Rakshak as a primary source of information. ^T/_@Sniperz11 _edits^sign 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is writen by enthusiats and clearly echoes a very positive opinion. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Auxiliaries (Roman military) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol 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.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@band(pan+6a31708))

Is this a copyright image? Its owned by the Library of Congress.

If not, its going to be part of the 108th Cavalry Regiment (United States) article. Leobold1 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything made by the US, regardless of the branch, is automatically in the PD, so go for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Leobold1 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered an issue concerning the Lists of ship commissionings lists and am asking Mil Hist editors with an interest to weigh in here. More info in the dispute can be found there.Cromdog (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

bruce (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This, I'm afraid, is a bit out of date, with special reference to the definitions being far more a matter of function than of pure hierarchical level. In US doctrine, there are indeed a number of definitions that correspond to grand strategy: the extension of national politics by means, at the very least, including military, diplomatic, economic, special operations and law enforcement. Under the National Security Act of 1947 (as amended), the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and others, the JCS is not a line organization, but staff to to the National Command Authority, where grand strategy, or national security policy, resides. The National Security Council certainly involves overt diplomacy, information operations, and covert action.

Informally, strategy goes from NCA to theater/regional command level, with side branches into mobilization and manufacturing. Strategy will include the relative resources given to each major operational area. It defines the campaigns within a theater, or perhaps crossing theater boundaries. "Strategic resources" also include special operations forces, global air strike, nuclear weapons, etc.

If operational art involves selecting the place and means of battle, there are reasonable arguments that this may drop to the level of an Army Brigade Combat Team or Marine Expeditionary Unit. It is unlikely that the world will ever see a WWII-style Army Group (as opposed to the names of convenience used in NATO).

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One very small side-note: *formerly* used in NATO. The NATO 'Army groups,' NORTHAG and CENTAG (each four corps, roughly an Army, went away in 1992. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)