Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 23 December 2012

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The January newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates GL Mk. I radar • George Washington • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service • Battle of Köse Dağ • Marching Through Georgia • Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War) Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Project Pluto • SMS Berlin • AN/APS-20 • USS Varuna (1861) • Battle of Meligalas • Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) • Henry de Hinuber Peer reviews Urien • War of the Antiochene Succession • 4th Army (France) • List of foreign-born samurai in Japan • Hiroshima Maidens • German Jewish military personnel of World War II • Outline of George Washington • Central Powers • Ben Roberts-Smith • Bertrand Clauzel • Japanese occupation of West Sumatra Good article nominees Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Alt Llobregat insurrection • SMS Scorpion (1860) • 1991 Andover tornado • Henry O'Neill (soldier) • Statue of John Barry • Richard Haking • Battle of Chunj • USS Gyatt • Zhao Chongguo • Michael Mantenuto • SMS Bremse (1884) • Fritz Strassmann • Lord Clyde-class ironclad • Dédée Bazile • Middlesex Regiment alien labour units • Scaliger War • George Palaiologos • Gustavus Guydickens • First Anglo–Ashanti War • Siege of Khujand • First Jewish–Roman War Good article reassessments Mikhail Gorbachev • Henry VIII • Wings (1927 film) • Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho • John Henry Turpin Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (150,009) • only work on referencing and citation (43,214) • work on coverage and accuracy (125,345) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,949) • work on structure (32,196) • only work on structure (346) • work on grammar (8,208) • only work on grammar (47) • work on supporting materials (32,852) • only work on supporting materials (447) • assessment (4) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (11) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (2) • task forces added (13) • attention to task force coverage (651)

Military history WikiProject Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy Core work areas Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives Special projects Majestic Titan talk Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1519 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 41 Featured pictures 548 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 683 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,595 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships edit · changes Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012. This project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: David Stahel (18 July 2018). "The Battle for Misplaced Pages: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Retrieved 1 April 2019. Noam Cohen (September 8, 2021). "One Woman's Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Misplaced Pages". Wired (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. "The Depths of Wikipedians". Asterisk Magazine. November 1, 2024. Retrieved December 11, 2024. Shortcut WT:MILHIST

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Hi. I want to bring Juan Manuel de Rosas to Featured Article. However, there is an editor called Cambalachero who has been in a personal crusade to whitewash Argentine history. He won't allow anyone but him to touch the Article. Thus, I would need the full support from other editors. ---Lecen (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Both now and some months ago, as discussed in Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Something that must be told, you wanted to change the lead image for mere aesthetic reasons. Both times I kept the iconic portrait that is used everywhere to represent Rosas. That can hardly count as "not allowing anyone to touch the article".

Besides, your desire to bring the article to featured is just a recent development. Although it is correct that I left the work half-done when I worked with this article, I'm the main editor with 97 more edits than the second one, 103 more than Lecen, and with a clear improvement over the article as I first find it (see here, it was little more than a start-class article). Of course, I do not own the article, I'm simply pointing that the article is not abandoned and that big changes (such as the lead image) should be discussed in the talk page if needed. Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe instead of fighting over a simple image, to bring Rosas to FA, the article must be referenced better. I went to have a glance at it and I saw many paragraphs without citations. Surely that wouldn't even reach GA at its present state. I can help, even if I'm not that familiar in Argentine history. Arius1998 (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - only 30 footnotes in the entire article, and ten of those are for a single fact in the lead. This article has a long way to go to reach FA. If I were you, I'd set your sights on GA first and see how things work out. Ranger Steve 13:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as I said it is a half-done work, and it still has many things to work with before even thinking about any nominations. I guess I should complete the work I began a pair of years ago. I have several books about the topic I have not used yet. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't an image. Rosas was a ruthless dictator. Cambalachero has been attempting to whitewash Argentine history for a couple of years now. The article about Rosas is one big joke. He has done the same with Perón's article where goes as far as to try to excuse Perón's antisemitism and links to nazis. I will write the article alone. What I need are editors interested in the subject, willing to read about it and to help me out with any unnecessary meddling. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You won't get permission to write that or any article alone and exempted from finding consensus in the case of disagreements, if that is what you are requesting. If you want to do that, Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. See Misplaced Pages:Five pillars, specially the 3º and 4º. And, for the sake of civility, I will ignore your attempts to take things to a personal level. Cambalachero (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a neutrality policy. Lecen, if you want to make Rosas even reach GA, then you must follow this policy. If Cambalachero "whitewashed" Rosas's history as you claim, maybe you should focus working on adding, not replacing, on it the other side of his story. Arius1998 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's Lecen who wants to "blackwash" the article. Contrary to what he says, modern historiography does not consider Rosas a "ruthless dictator". Neither a romantic hero. Only a historical man, like all the others from that time period, and whose actions were not motivated by good or evil but by historical contexts. At least, that's the modern historiography of Argentina, the country that (not surprisingly) made the deepest studies of Rosas and his time period. If I read an article about the American Civil War, I would also expect it to represent the modern view of the historiography of the United States about that conflict. And if a foreign book insisted in mentioning as a clear truth some misconstruction that the American historiography has long discarded, I would expect that reference to be avoided. As for Rosas' public perception, check the "legacy" section. Currency, monuments, holidays, those are all traits of national heroes, not despised dictators (and of course, note that both Rosas and his party have died more than a century ago, modern politicians have no specific link with him).

Compare, for example, the article Oliver Cromwell. What would you think if an Irish nationalist complained that the article is "whitewashed" for not describing him as a ruthless dictator and passing negative judgements over his actions? Cambalachero (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning: for anyone willing to engage in the discussion, I opened a thread at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Here is the link for the discussion. --Lecen (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking for book reviews for the December edition of the Bugle

If anyone is interested in providing a book review for the upcoming edition of the Bugle, please post it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/News/December 2012/Book reviews. I'll be reviewing a book, but more reviews would be great :) Reviews can be of any military-related book (non-fiction or fiction) and can be of any length or style. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any kind of time restriction for this (only books within the last X number of years)? Wild Wolf (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope Nick will forgive me for replying on his part, but my understanding is that there is no restriction. I recently reviewed a book that had been published in 1986. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed you post Wild Wolf. As AustralianRupert notes, the books reviewed don't have to be at all recent - I can close to reviewing an almost 60 year old book earlier in the year :) Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2012 now open!

Military historian of the year 2012

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• : ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Anotherclown: for his tireless contributions at Milhist A-Class Reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7: for his prolific article writing and consistent contributions as a reviewer, particularly at B class level. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ian Rose: for his continued involvement as a co-ord, FAC delegate and (high quality) content writer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nick-D: for managing to balance the demands of being an admin and a co-ord and still contribute high quality articles at FAC (and other levels). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67: for his significant contributions to Balkans-related articles and recent work as a GAN reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert: for his tireless reviewing, project coordination, and article work. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the nomination, Ian, but I would like to respectfully decline this time. As a previous recipient, I would like to follow Sturm's lead on this one and bow out. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria: for her valuable contributions to reviews, FAR delegation, and Canadian military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Dank: for his exemplary work as a reviewer, copyeditor, and project coordinator. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Constantine: for his skill and dedication in Byzantine and Muslim military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Cliftonian: for his skill and dedication in Rhodesian military and diplomatic history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Sturmvogel66: for prodigious work getting ship articles to FA, A Class and GA, and tireless reviewing, especially at GAN (getting close to 300 reviews now). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for thinking of me, but as a previous winner, I feel that I must decline. There are plenty of others who deserve the accolade.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Buckshot06: for his mentoring skills and encouragement to other members of the project as well as his numerous contributions to reviewing others work. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Parsecboy for another prolific year of warship articles. —Ed! 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• The_ed17 for his great work behind the scenes. —Ed! 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wild Wolf - for his work on the various ACW (and occasional non-ACW) orders of battle, along with orgainizing and categorizing ACW articles, especially the huge stubs category. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keith-264: for all his work on articles related to World War I, including but not limited to Battle of Messines (1917), Battle of Thiepval Ridge, Battle of Passchendaele, and Battle of Poelcappelle. With the 100th anniversary of the start of the war coming next year, Keith's body of work is greatly contributing to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage ahead of a significant milestone. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Grandiose: for continuing to improve the standards of the project's ACR process by consistently asking the hard questions in relation to image licencing, and making sure that Milhist A-class articles are fully prepared for FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion and questions

What is the qualification for nomination? I joined this project only by March of this year so this is my first time to see this kind of award. Arius1998 (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell its our MVP of the year award, so the nomination qualification (no ryhme intended) is anyone of particular note who edited and helped the project in a large capacity over the last twelve months. Historically a good many of the veteran editors and coordinators are nominated, along with a handful of outside the project who while not nessicarily under our particular umbrella have gone that extra mile for us. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2012 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2012

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

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• : ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Peacemaker67 - works in a controversial area with success. Remarkable edit count this year, although strictly became active thirteen months ago. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Zawed - began editing in 2010 but really came to the fore in the last year or so with a great many solid B-Class articles that focussed on the somewhat neglected field of New Zealand military history, especially biography. Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Cliftonian - 3 excellent FAs and multiple A class and GA level articles in his first full year focused on military history topics, and an all-round pleasant person to interact with. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Arius1998: began editing in September 2011, but has only recently joined the project. He has made numerous contributions to Filipino topics, such as Antonio Luna, Miguel Malvar and various battles of the Philippine–American War. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

partof section of military conflict infobox

Jim Sweeney has recently cut links to to the larger conflicts the following battles were part of -

• 1st, 2nd 3rd Transjordan
• Sharon
• Nazareth
• Afulah and Beisan
• Nablus
• Romani
• Rafa
• 1st, 2nd Gaza
• Beersheba
• Mughar Ridge
• Jerusalem
• Nebi Samwil
• Tell 'Asur
• 1st Amman
• Occupation of the Jordan Valley
• Tulkarm
• Tabsor
• Arara
• Jenin
• Haifa
• Tiberias
• Damascus
• Irbid
• Jisr Benat Yakub
• Kaukab
• Kiswe
• Khan Ayash
• Pursuit to Haritan
• Battle of Aleppo
• Charge at Haritan
• Samakh
• Magdhaba

The guidelines read: "part of - optional - the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre (e.g. "the Eastern Front of World War II"). For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars). It may be necessary to insert "the" before the name of the war for proper grammar."

Now the Battle of Mughar Ridge is part of the First World War, while the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) which immediately followed, is part of the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. The First Battle of Amman is shown as part of the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I while the Second Battle of Amman is shown to be part of the Third Transjordan attack, Battle of Nablus, Battle of Megiddo (1918), Sinai and Palestine Campaign World War I.

These cuts have resulted in the links between smaller battles and the larger ones they formed part of, as well as the campaign, no longer being shown in the infobox.

Do these cuts by Jim Sweeney represent the correct interpretation of the guidelines for the use of the "part of" section? --Rskp (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusing Jim of "vandalism" () is just about the worst response you could have made to these edits, and pretty much torpedoed your chances of resolving this through polite discussion. Why did you go down the path of burning your bridges with Jim over this matter and then bringing the matter here? I know that there's a history here, but responses like this just makes it worse. I'm not seeing any 'cuts', just 'changes' BTW. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Rskp. I have restored Nick's cmt above. Why ask for opinions in this forum if you are going to delete other editor's responses? Hardly seems constructive or collaborative. Criticism of your actions does not constitute a personal attack and I see nothing of the sort here. If you want to discuss something contentious be prepared for opinions that are contrary to your own. I have previously pointed out that you shouldn't edit other people's cmts and I again remind you of the provisions of WP:TALKO. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D and Anotherclown re: bridges and editing other people's comments. Be careful other editors don't perceive there are some WP:OWN issues creeping in here. I know you have done a huge amount of work on these articles, and that is appreciated, but this is a collaborative project and Jim has lots to offer. However, I consider this "optional" infobox field is important in providing context for what is a pretty complicated arrangement of battles within battles, and I consider them useful "signposts" for the reader. Jim even removed "the" from in front of the link which is explicitly accommodated by the guidelines and that is an indication of a less than nuanced approach on his part. He has also used the edit summary "to comply with template documentation" which is a matter of opinion at the very least. I would like to see proper discussion of the pro's and con's on the talk pages rather than essentially unexplained changes with unclear edit summaries. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question. There was no attack on anyone. I did not accuse anyone of vandalism Yet you all agree with Nick-D's rant. A simple yes, or no was what I was looking for not personal attacks. --Rskp (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I seem to have warned you before, several times, that not agreeing with you is not a) vandalism or b) a personal attack. You may need to reread WP:NPA, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:EW/WP:3RR for good measure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Crisco, Nick-D accused ME of vandalism!! --Rskp (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Rather than an extended discussion over all 35 talk pages, wouldn't it be better to decide here? Just keep unfair accusations out of it. --Rskp (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question, clearly directed to Jim ("You have cut recognition in the inforboxes of the engagements in this campaign. Why is this not vandalism?") was obviously not rhetorical. You placed the onus on Jim to explain how his edit was not vandalism, therefore it was clearly your view that it was vandalism, unless he provided an alternate explanation. He was hardly going to say "oh yeah, it was vandalism, you got me!" was he? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief Peacemaker67 I asked Jim Sweeney a question on HIS TALK PAGE. Here the question is "Jim Sweeney has recently cut links". Well there are 35 articles under discussion here. --Rskp (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Out. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I understand your consensus regarding my post on Jim Sweeney's talk page. Attack being the best form of defence. Why so defensive? (Yes, a rhetoric question) Anyway, what's your consensus on the infobox question? --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to your own actions as "Attack being the best form of defence"?, as that's a pretty apt description of your standard response to stuff like this. I can't speak for the other editors, but I'm pretty tired of these issues blowing up when they could be resolved through polite conversation among the editors involved. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It would have been nice, Nick-D if you kept to the subject of infoboxes and started off your response to my polite question by responding politely. Do you have an opinion regarding the infobox issue? If so, could you please say what it is? --Rskp (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To bring this back to the subject the template documentation seems clear that this field is for the war or theatre in larger conflicts. So in this case it would be Middle Eastern theatre of World War I or World War I/First World War. If battle X was part of battle Z this should be covered in the article body, some of these article had upto four links Yes I trimmed them down leaving what was the largest conflcit name in place. So if it had WWI or the theatre or campaign already listed, thats what I left it at. Agree there should be some consistancy. In this case would suggest using Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And that is in no way a strict rule, Jim. This is a fairly convoluted case of battles within battles within a campaign, and there is no bright line that I can detect in the documentation. A little flexibility is probably in order to place the articles in context. And please don't delete "the" before the link if it is needed to make the "part of" grammatically correct, that is clearly within the scope of the infobox documentation. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone does not know what template we are discussing its here Template:Infobox military conflict. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And to be more specific, what Rskp is talking about is this field:

• "partof – optional – the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre (e.g. "the Eastern Front of World War II"). For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars). It may be necessary to insert "the" before the name of the war for proper grammar."

I'd say it was a toss-up between "Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I" and "Middle Eastern theatre of World War I" both are effective and descriptive links to give context and link to a relevant higher article. Though there is a navbox linking to the Sinai and Palestine campaign immediately below the infobox in the articles which might make the former redundant. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So, if I can clarify, what both Jim and Graeme are saying is that the template documentation requires that this field on these battle articles should only contain either "the war during which the event takes place" ie World War I or, given the size of that war, "a theatre" ie Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Obviously, there is a need for a preceding "the" in many cases. And that consequently, these 'battles within battles' should not include any other information in this field. Any clarifying information should be in the lead. Graeme's point about the Sinai and Palestine Campaign navbox is well made IMO. Are there any diverging views? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The guidelines seem to imply it can either be a battle or a campaigns along with the theatre or war e.g. Battle of Megiddo (1918) in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and WW1. Another e.g. could be First Transjordan attack on Amman followed by Sinai and Palestine Campaign and WW1. While the S & P campaign does form the major part of the middle Eastern theatre, along with the fighting in Mesopotamia, its important to remember that the S & P campaign is virtually unknown to most people interested in ww1, and some latitude may need to be extended to ensure that the infobox clearly reflects the article's context. --Rskp (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the point Graeme was making is that there is a navbox already there for the S & P campaign so it is not needed in the infobox. I'm not sure where you are getting the implication that "it can either be a battle or a campaigns along with the theatre or war". It explicitly states "this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre". Which appears to limit it to a theatre and a war ie Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. It doesn't say "must" but "should" is pretty firm guidance. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with your point about the S & P navbox but the Middle East theatre is British-centric, POV and rather obscure. I was looking at the guidelines which state "part of - optional - the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre (e.g. "the Eastern Front of World War II"). For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars). It may be necessary to insert "the" before the name of the war for proper grammar." Doesn't it rather defeat the purpose of the infobox if it doesn't contain relevant info. --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I would like to see more info in this field, but the current guidelines really seem to restrict it to "war" or "theatre and war" (for big wars). There is a campaign navbox on these articles, so all you are missing is the "nested" battles, and the lead should cover that. The infobox is there to provide proper context, it doesn't need to have every article in the cascading sequence. I'm getting the feeling that the consensus developing here (Jim, Graeme and I so far) is that we limit this field to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I in this case. As an aside, if you think the S&P campaign is obscure, try Balkans WWII articles, we have the same issue there. However, if you think the infobox guidance should be changed, you should propose it on the infobox talk page using good examples from a range of conflicts demonstrating why the current guidance isn't good enough in your view. I'm sure there will be strong views either way, but that's the only way to change these things, consensus. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• So does your consensus override the infobox documentation regarding "battles or campaigns"? --Rskp (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you mean. I've explained my understanding of the documentation, that I consider it limits it to a theatre and a war. You haven't explained in what way you consider the documentation implies "it can either be a battle or a campaigns along with the theatre or war". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• • The documentation seems to point to some flexibility where wars are concerned "For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars)." Does this not imply that battles and theatres could also be acceptable? e.g. Battle of Megiddo Middle Eastern theatre? --Rskp (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not by my reading of it. "For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre" allows for a war, and in the case of WWI, a theatre (because it was a "particularly large war"). The sentence "For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars" seems to me to only relate to a war which is part of a series of wars ie Balkan Wars etc, not battles or campaigns within a single war, such as this situation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• So you don't see any flexibility here? Sadly it will result in infoboxes not giving much context for the engagements. --Rskp (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, not given the (albeit limited) consensus against it here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. --Rskp (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Happy to (help). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

fighter wing renames

FYI, several fighter wings are up for renaming, see Talk:9th Fighter Wing (World War II) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Project tag problems

G'day all, when I get a few minutes I've been trying to fix project tags per "Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging" on the open tasks list. Most of the ones I haven't been able to fix with some straightforward re-ordering of the fields and fixing of syntax appear to have some problem associated with the field "old-peer-review=yes". This field isn't listed on "Template:WikiProject Military history". Is it ok to delete it, or should it be dealt with in another way? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also been having trouble with articles that have the portal populated. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point to some specific examples? Without looking at a particular case, it's going to be a bit difficult to determine what the issue might be. Kirill  05:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, sorry. Here are a few Talk:Battle of Messines (1917), Talk:SMS Moltke and Talk:List of Commando raids on the Atlantic Wall for the old peer review field.

and Talk:First Crusade: March down the Mediterranean coast, Talk:Angus McDonald (United States Army major) and Talk:John Thornton Augustine Washington for the ones with the portal field. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the category gets added when a peer-review or a-class review doesn't exist in the page where the template assumes them to be. The template needs another field such as old-peer-review-link or something similar. Inkbug (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The old-peer-review parameter (and associated check) is a holdover from the time when we had an internal peer review process within the project, and is no longer needed now that the process has been retired; I've removed the check from the template, so the category should no longer be generated in those cases.

As far the portal tags are concerned, the template requires that both portal#-name and portal#-link be set, and will generate an error if the combination of the two doesn't point to a real subpage. Kirill  15:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. Your fix has removed about 30 articles, I'll see what I can do about the portal ones. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've got it down to 5, but just can't work out what is wrong with the last few . Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A few more appeared to have old-peer-review. They didn't remove themselves immediately from the category, but I'm hoping that's a caching thing and we might be down to two: Lee Speed and Air raids on Japan. The former was promoted to A-class at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lee-Enfield/archive1 - not expected by the parameter, I think (create a redirect?). The latter I have no idea. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All now fixed. Kirill  11:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. They were really giving me the shits... Happy now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G)

I am kindly seeking more reviewers for feedback. The article has been sitting there for two months now. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Monthly contest points table

G'day all, Can someone point me to the correct points for each result ie GA to A = ?, A to FA = ? etc? It seems different editors are using different scores for the same result... It might be useful to include it on the page (which also has a weird formatting issue near the top). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not noticing a formatting issue on the page? Most scores entered in the current table looked OK to me and in accordance with the small points allocation table at the top of the page, except for one entry which had scored 1 point for getting the class from C to B. It is 3 points (as per the points allocation table), and I have corrected it. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks, the page with the scoring table was what I was after. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Middle East Theatre of World War II

Hi,

I believe for the moment that this is the best place to take up this matter. Recently I discovered the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II and Middle East Theatre of World War II articles. The latter clearly duplicates most of the former, as such I made this edit (]). After being reverted, on the grounds I should look at the talk page which should show there is no consensus for such a redirect, I found only an inconclusive argument which it would appear User:PBS did not conclude. I read the talkpage and found it contained nothing stating the article should remain, and that it mostly contained an inconclusive squabble. After making a similar edit to the 'Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II' article, I was made aware that a discussion was made several years ago. These discussions, on this project talkpage, appear to provide the consensus for the Middle East Theatre article being a redirect. See link. With all this mind, I made the following BOLD edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Theatre_of_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=528243302) and was issued with the following threat by PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tempaccount040812&diff=prev&oldid=528276458). I may not have made that many edits to this wiki, but all that I have made such far have been in good faith and have been no disruptive. To have my account threatened by someone who has apparently not read the basic principles of Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles is somewhat shocking.

I am therefore asking for the wider history community to look into this matter. It seems clear to me that the article should be made a redirect due to its duplicating nature.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The histories of Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II and Middle East Theatre of World War II reveal that Tempaccount040812 has made one bold move (which was reverted by user:Nick-D) and has made a bold edit converting an article into a redirect, which after it was reverted by me, was repeated by Tempaccount040812 without any discussion. No threat was made instead a warning was issued that not following the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would lead to a block.

The best place to discuss the move for the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II is on the talk page of that article and the best place to discuss the edit to the Middle East Theatre of World War II -- which amounts to a deletion is on the talk page of that article. -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A warning was issued? You disagree with an edit made by a new user and you inform them to expect their account to be blocked if they edit the wiki not to your liking ... that was more of a threat than a warning. Where was the good faith? Where was the attempt to discuss the situation? You issued a threat. Would you also like to drag up every edit I have made and discuss them too, since I do not see the relevance for you going through my edit history. If we go through your own, we see that you have reverted several bot edits that have also redirected other pages to Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II article. You did them without any discussion too.

From what I can see, the situation has been discussed to death over the last few years and consensus was already established for the edit I made. There are two articles that duplicate one another. Tempaccount040812 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that there was also a discussion of these articles on this board at the time, though it was quite a while ago. I undid Tempaccount040812's commendably bold move of the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II article to Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatre of World War II largely as (from memory!) the consensus from the previous discussion was that these were multiple but inter-related theatres of the war, and the move would benefit from being discussed. I'm personally not terribly happy with the structure of these articles - Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II seems too broad given that the fighting in East Africa, Iraq and Persia was pretty much distinct from that in the Med (even if they shared an overall British commander for at least some of the war). From memory, I was in the minority when this was discussed last time though ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II is trying to cover too much, imo. Two articles for these theaters seem OK, but they should be split more evenly. Maybe keep Mediterranean and North Africa parts in one article and put Middle East and rest of Africa in the other. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, although it should be done very carefully. The fighting that took place around the Med and ME was extremely interconnected. The fighting in East Africa impacted the fighting to the north, (and while it has been a while since I have read much on the subject) iirc the Italians wanted to use their northern and eastern African colonies as bases to attack Egypt. So the Italian viewpoint cannot be overlooked. Likewise (iirc), the fighting that took place in Iraq and the French colonies, in the Middle East, was due to Axis intervention and attempts to encircle Egypt/divert British attention. So again, the Axis point of view cannot be overlooked. Who was in command of who, imo, is irrelevant.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns and a way to detect them

Hey everyone! So, I have recently begun to re-dabble in Air Force Base articles in the Northeastern United States these past few weeks. This is not unusual, but I have also encountered instances of some pretty blatent plagiarism from over five years ago. This site has compiled a pretty detailed history about anything related to Strategic Air Command, and it has the potential to be a great source for the articles here. Unfortunately, anonymous editors also copyed text from the pages onto the articles here, and it has become so interwoven into the article that it needs to be removed. Recently, I cleared most of the Plattsburgh Air Force Base page of a lot of copyrighted text with the goal of re-adding everything, but I was wondering if there is a way that we could run a bot or something to check all of those pages, as they all are easily spottable, but it takes a lot of time. If anyone has any ideas that could act as a kind of easy duplication detector, let me know, because I would love to make sure that this isn't as big as I fear. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is User:CorenSearchBot, which searches for copyright violations, so it certainly seems possible, and then there's the duplication detector if you have a specific website in mind. I want to say there used to be some tool that let you type in just an article name, and it would check the internet for copyright violations, but that it's no longer available after the API (Yahoo maybe?) changed, but my memory is a little sketchy on that. - SudoGhost 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also the Earwig tool which I think does what you are talking about. Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the tools that professors use to scan for plaigirism in essays by students? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are three tools that can help (The third one will help you check if the same author who has breached copyright has done so on other pages) if you think this is a problem then you should take it to Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations:

• Misplaced Pages:WikiBlame is an online browser-based tool for searching the revision history of a MediaWiki based wiki for a text string to identify the author of a particular change to the page.
• the Duplicate Detector
• Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions#Contribution surveyor, tool

However I have not looked in detail at the example you have given, but please be aware that many web sites copy US government sources verbatim without necessarily making it clear that the text originates from a US government source (much as some sites mirror Misplaced Pages without making it clear the text comes from Misplaced Pages) --see for example Talk:XX Bomber Command#Copyright problem?. The simplest way to find out is to ask the editor who added the text from whence it came. If they are no longer active than it can be a chore finding out (just as it can be a chore finding out if text originated on Misplaced Pages or in a book that copied Misplaced Pages see for example Special Forces (United States Army)#Copyright problems)!

The text from the US government is often public domain so providing the appropriate attribution is given (see WP:PLAGIARISM) -- there are templates to help see Category:United States government attribution templates -- then the text can be displayed on Misplaced Pages pages. So it is not enough just to check that it is on another website, it is also necessary to look at the attribution templates at the bottom of the article to see if the text may have originated from a US government source. If it has and the text is not adequately footnoted to make that clear then please add the appropriate ref tag pairs and footnote the text. -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the lack of attribution in both the Misplaced Pages page and the source. The lack of citation to reliable sources would by itself justify User:Ktr101's actions per WP:MOS, but IMHO would be unduly harsh. I believe this problem (as with Griffiss AFB and Plattsburgh AFB) can be repaired by paraphrase, proper citation, and use of alternate sources (Mueller, Robert (1989). Air Force Bases, Vol. I, Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-53-6. comes to mind here). However, that would take quite a bit of time, and unless that is done. I couldn't oppose the deletions, even though I'd rather see it fixed than deleted.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, we're mostly working with IP editors who added the text many years ago. In terms of using a tool, I was wondering if there was a bot that could do the work for you, but similar to the duplication detector that Derrick created. I know that the articles that I am talking about are not government websites, as they would have come up in Google results when I searched direct quotations right off of the Misplaced Pages articles. I am planning on expanding the Plattsburgh one over break, and Griffiss shouldn't be too hard to tackle, but I am very fearful that these aren't the only two examples out there, and many of the articles out there might contain issues similar to this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion D-Day carrier pigeon cipher

I nomiated an article in your project for deletion. Any comments are welcome. Fireice (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I've added it to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

US military units categories

I ran across this category: Category:United States militia in the American Revolution and was wondering if the categories needed renaming. Most of the categories are simply titled (state) militia, while others are (state) militia in the ARW. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has an opinion on the matter, I guess you can do whatever you think best. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Communist Romania

This is to notify members that there is currently a WP:REQUESTED MOVE discussion taking place at Talk:Communist Romania#Requested move. Input would be appreciated. Regards -- Director (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"landing craft, tank"

Is "landing craft, tank" and "landing craft tank" a real term? I just got blocked on Wiktionary for adding that as an entry. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Managed to get unblocked, but as for what Wiktionary accepts as terms, it's very foggy. It seems like adding things there will just end up being deleted and having a block applied. If it appears in a military dictionary, that's not enough to avoid being blocked. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

whether Wiktionary accepts it or not, it is a real term. LCT is well known . Per LCM (Landing Craft, Medium) etc etc. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My argument that got me unblocked was that it was a well known term. The administrator who blocked/unblocked me took my evidence and said that it looked like it was a barely used term, just barely acceptable. His own search for the term apparently resulted in no acceptable results. It got restored wikt:landing craft, tank, but I don't think I'll add anything else from a military dictionary to Wiktionary, unless it's an abbreviation. Getting a 2-week block for adding a military term sucks. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Argh, Wiktionary is frustrating, now a different administrator has said that it should be wikt:landing craft tank (the opposite of the last adminsitrator) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell talks in Outliers about how hierarchical cultures inhibit communication, sometimes with disastrous results. (He talks for instance about a Colombian passenger jet that crashed because the co-pilot felt uncomfortable telling his superiors that the plane was out of fuel.) The same top-down, don't-give-me-any-backtalk culture that sometimes produces bone-headed battle plans also sometimes produces semi-literate English, and it doesn't get corrected because people don't feel comfortable reminding their superiors of basic English grammar ... for instance, that everyone will think a "landing craft tank" will be a kind of tank, just as everyone knows that a "film theatre" is a kind of theatre and not a kind of film. How to deal with "exceptional" English is a very hard problem when you're writing for a military readership, but it's dead simple on Misplaced Pages, which is written for a wide readership: keep the proper nouns if they're established proper nouns, but avoid stupid grammar. The usual solution to this particular problem, even for a military readership, is to stick with the acronym, LCT ... but we have to define the acronym at least once on Misplaced Pages, so go with "landing craft for tanks (LCT)" at first occurrence, and stick with "LCT" after that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Btw, sorry about your Wiktionary problem ... I can't speak to that, different culture over there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what was called a "proprietorial attitude" also played a part in the worst airline disaster to date. Britmax (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Several of the smaller Wikimedia projects have a reputation for problems which spring from their limited pool of regular personnel and unclear inclusion/exclusion criteria. This appears to be an example of that. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we set up a WikiProject at Wiktionary for military terminology? (I note that several WikiPoject children have appeared at WikiCommons) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be time to set up a subproject at Wikidata, I'll investigate. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As a reminder to all project editors

As we head down the home stretch of the year here we are also counting of the days until many of articles at both the Bounty Board and the Reward Board close. Anyone interested in collecting a bounty or earning an award for the pages on the afformentioned boards have about two weeks left to move to claim thier just reward before many of them expire. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Allied leaders of World War I

This article seems incomplete to me. For example, it does not cover Japan or Portugal. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd try to promote it to C- or B-class. Arius1998 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

This category has a serious backlog of articles needing a completed checklist. Since over 20,000 articles is a bit much for a single editor to go through, it might be better for some kind of "special project" similar to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/March 2011 backlog reduction drive. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to participate. Inkbug (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been some discussion of this already here ]. There is an issue around the proposed introduction of a B6 criteria that is preliminary to a drive getting off the ground. But feel free to nominate yourselves there, the more the merrier. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre FAC

User:Neil916 has suggested I post a notice here about the Natchez Massacre article and its Featured Article nomination, in case anyone wanted to weigh in on the article and/or make some changes. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a reasonable argument that this article is a little thinner than some of our other FACs; the question is whether there are sources that give you anything substantial that you can use. For future military history articles, if you go through A-class first, and if no one suggests anything you should add at A-class, then you can use that fact if you face opposition at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

USCGC Winona (WHEC-65)

Help!! Someone with a little more experience than I needs to go to this article and figure out where the code in the infobox is screwed up and either fix it and let me know what I did wrong or give me a clue as to how to fix it. I can not seem to find the glitch and get it corrected. Thank you. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It took me approximately 1/2 hour to fix what turned out to be a minor problem that was preventing the infobox from displaying properly. Thankfully it's done now. The problem was here knots. You had unwittingly deleted one of the closing brackets ] in one of your earlier edits. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I knew it was something small and hard to spot. I hate that when it happens. Thank you for the good deed... Cuprum17 (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Imperial German invasion of the United States

I am wondering what should be the name of the article which is currently in place at Operational Plan Three, referring to the German language military study called Operationsplan III of 1903. I think the article should also be about the precursor plans I and II, from 1898 and 1899 respectively. I think some expansion is in order. After expansion, should the article be moved to a new name or is the current name the best one?

• Operational Plan Three
• Imperial German invasion of the United States
• German plans for invasion of the United States
• ...other possible names.

Also, the article is orphaned. Once the name is settled, it should be mentioned here and there in appropriate articles. For instance, it can be mentioned in the following biographies: Kaiser Wilhelm II, Alfred von Tirpitz, Alfred von Schlieffen, Eberhard von Mantey, Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz, Wilhelm Büchsel, and Charles J. Train. Those redlinked men were closely linked to this set of plans but their later careers were greater. German Misplaced Pages has articles on them. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States, and it should cover all three OpsPlans, not just the third one, especially since the third is an iteration on the second. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be handled the same way as Operation Sea Lion. --Bomzibar (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it to Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States as suggested. The article can still use a Legacy section discussing its very poor chance of success, and discussing the historiography of the plans, being hidden for nearly a century then found in Freiburg's archives, and finally how the world reacted to learning of the plans. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Castle towns...?

There's an amicable conversation occurring at Talk:Castle town about what the article should be called and cover (All towns by castles? Just the jōkamachi? Or should we go for urban castles instead?) Further comments welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid

I created this article when I found a locomotive image at the LAC. It took me a while to find out why we sent 100s of them to India and I noticed that wp didn't have any info on it. I am wondering if the Ram tanks and Valentine tanks we built were part of this deal. Should tags be put at the top of the talk page to include it in this project? I don't have a decent library close so the limited info I collected is from the net. There must be more information somewhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added tags; this project doesn't have to be limited to the battlefield itself - it looks like the "gift" was a major contribution to the war effort. Surely there's some potential to expand the article? There must be sources out there... bobrayner (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I will put a notice in Canadian the history project as well. I tried to get a count of what we built from other articles and the numbers are way off. The count of tanks may be lumped into cars and trucks in the C. D. Howe article and is far lower than the 800,000 trucks mentioned in Military history of Canada during World War II. The plane counts are way off as well with 14,000 in one article and only 1,100 in another. No mention of locomotives, etc. at all in both articles that I could see. I remember seeing 100-150 locomotives sent to India alone somewhere on the net.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal:European military history featured portal nomination

Portal:European military history was nominated for featured portal status back in mid-November, but has received few reviews. The nomination is at Misplaced Pages:Featured portal candidates/Portal:European military history. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland, image

I've started work on an SVG version of File:Jutland1916.jpg (these things take time). I just wanted to know, since the image has three sequentially more zoomed-in panels, whether it would be preferable to have three separate images, three, the same as now, or whether there is demand for both (not much extra work).

Also I'm planning to drop the grid references, which I think are arbitrary, unless there's a reason to keep them? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest both; that way it's a relatively future proof design (the size of image you necessarily want in a an article in a few years time will vary according to the future size of handheld devices etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting for military historian of the year for 2012 now open!

Military historian of the year 2012

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

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

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to keep their votes to a total of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 28 December 2012.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

• Anotherclown: for his tireless contributions at Milhist A-Class Reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support: has been a big part of keeping Milhist's ACR vibrant and has done great work on the Battle of Long Tan article. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Buckshot06: for his mentoring skills and encouragement to other members of the project as well as his numerous contributions to reviewing others work. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Cuprum17 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Hamish59 (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cliftonian: for his skill and dedication in Rhodesian military and diplomatic history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Constantine: for his skill and dedication in Byzantine and Muslim military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support -- definitely an under-covered area of Misplaced Pages getting great coverage thanks to this user. —Ed! 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - some great articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dank: for his exemplary work as a reviewer, copyeditor, and project coordinator. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support—MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support His dedication is truly remarkable. —Ed! 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Constantine ✍ 22:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Gavbadger (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Zawed (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Grandiose: for continuing to improve the standards of the project's ACR process by consistently asking the hard questions in relation to image licencing, and making sure that Milhist A-class articles are fully prepared for FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ed  02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7: for his prolific article writing and consistent contributions as a reviewer, particularly at B class level. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Cuprum17 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support His work on MacArthur and the Manhattan project are some of MILHIST's best accomplishments on the year, I think. —Ed! 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support: has authored a very broad range of high quality articles this year. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Constantine ✍ 22:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Gavbadger (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ian Rose: for his continued involvement as a co-ord, FAC delegate and (high quality) content writer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support—MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Gavbadger (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keith-264: for all his work on articles related to World War I, including but not limited to Battle of Messines (1917), Battle of Thiepval Ridge, Battle of Passchendaele, and Battle of Poelcappelle. With the 100th anniversary of the start of the war coming next year, Keith's body of work is greatly contributing to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage ahead of a significant milestone. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ed  02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nick-D: for managing to balance the demands of being an admin and a co-ord and still contribute high quality articles at FAC (and other levels). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Constantine ✍ 22:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Zawed (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria: for her valuable contributions to reviews, FAR delegation, and Canadian military history. Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support, as per Ian's nomination. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Parsecboy: for another prolific year of warship articles. —Ed! 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support—MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Cuprum17 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67: for his significant contributions to Balkans-related articles and recent work as a GAN reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support: per nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Zawed (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• The ed17: for his great work behind the scenes. —Ed! 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wild Wolf: for his work on the various ACW (and occasional non-ACW) orders of battle, along with orgainizing and categorizing ACW articles, especially the huge stubs category. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ed  02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Ma®©usBritish 02:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

I can't recall from last year (and perhaps missed it in an earlier discussion above), but are we voting with a simple approval system like the coord elections, or should we vote for only one candidate? Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Parsecboy, editors are asked to limit their votes this year to up to three candidates only. I had tried to articulate this in the instructions above, but I fear I may not have made it clear enough. Do you think it needs to be reworded? The discussion about this was on the co-ord talk page here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I'm just daft. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Having worked with you, I know that's not true. ;-) Anyway have a good one. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting for military history newcomer of the year for 2012 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2012

Nominations for this year's Military History Newcomer of the Year award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour.

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

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to only vote for only one candidate. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 28 December 2012. The top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

• Arius1998: began editing in September 2011, but has only recently joined the project. He has made numerous contributions to Filipino topics, such as Antonio Luna, Miguel Malvar and various battles of the Philippine–American War. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Ma®©usBritish 02:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cliftonian: 3 excellent FAs and multiple A class and GA level articles in his first full year focused on military history topics, and an all-round pleasant person to interact with. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I've seen a lot of his excellent work. —Ed! 19:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. All of the candidates have strong claims to the award. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67: works in a controversial area with success. Remarkable edit count this year, although strictly became active thirteen months ago. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support—MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. All these guys stand out, but Peacemaker does a good job in an exceptionally difficult area, Balkans military history. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. What Dank said; tireless work in a very tiring area. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Hamish59 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Great work, which counters systemic bias and provides a reliable coverage on Yugoslavian topics? Count me in... Constantine ✍ 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Support Hchc2009 (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Support per Dank and Constantine. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Zawed: began editing in 2010 but really came to the fore in the last year or so with a great many solid B-Class articles that focused on the somewhat neglected field of New Zealand military history, especially biography. Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Some excellent contributions this year. Anotherclown (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Ed  02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

AfC request? Perhaps someone here can take a look

Hi there. It'd be great if someone from this project could take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Eric Anthony Gondek. Upon first read, he doesn't meet notability for winning a bronze medal, and of course it's lacking sources. It'd be great if someone from here could take a look though - I have a hard time judging based on notability (i.e. "playing a significant role" in a major military event..). Thanks so much! (Should only take a project member about 2 minutes :) ) SarahStierch (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The only source it gives doesn't resolve (I'm getting error messages from the page). Seems a brave marine, but a quick search isn't showing him to be necessarily notable. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Polish-Swedish wars article pointless?

Just been reading the Polish-Swedish wars article, and wondered if anyone with more experience than myself would care to take a look at whether this article should be deleted. Personally I don't see the point of it. It seems to be a long list of synopses of (often unconnected) wars that are dealt with by other articles (i.e. every section has a main tag). It is written in pretty poor English, seems somewhat POV (IMHO), and is only half finished yet hasn't been worked on since mid 2008. Cheers.1812ahill (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the page, re-titled "Polish-Swedish war," would make a good disambiguation page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that. Great idea!1812ahill (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think that the history of the wars between Poland and Sweden could be a feasible article. Not one that would be high up the preference lists, granted, but {the military history of Sweden} and {the military history of Poland} are each big enough to possibly justify the page. The lead would have to be more prose, however. Something a bit like French Revolutionary Wars. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Need some opinions/help

I am in a conversation on the Battle of Jamrud, where another editor is taking certain conditions(ie. "...the immediate military objective of the Afghans was to retake Jamrud fort. They failed to retake it.") as reasoning to place Sikh victory(as opposed to Afghan victory or stalemate/indecisive) in the result part of the template. Is this customary in the military history section of wikipedia??

My other question is, doesn't the template result have to be supported by a reference stating Sikh victory, Afghan victory or Indecisive and not simply an editor's formulated opinion as to objectives gained/lost?

Each "result"; Sikh victory, Afghan victory and Indecisive are supported by university source(s). I am for listing each result in the templage with corresponding sources.

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press