Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 134

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In regards to recent edits made to the "List of Engagements" in the infoboxes for United States Armed Forces and Military history of the United States.

• On the US Armed Forces page, an editor (only one I believe, though they seems to have a habit of editing while logged out) made a series of IP edits, starting with this, and ending with this.
• They were reverted by another editor.
• They then promptly reverted their changes back in, with the edit summary comment; reverting because a simple revert back to a disorganized list simply won't cut it.
• I then reverted them with the comment; You've already been reverted. Go to talk page. per WP:BRD.
• They then apparently signed in and immediately reverted again, with the comment; undoing the revert after signing in. My edit is to a superior version, so let's discuss if a change is not liked

• On the Military history of the US page, the same IP editor made a series of edits, beginning with this (comment: altering list to make it less 20th century-centric) and ending with this.
• They were again reverted by another editor, with the comment; Reverted unnecessary additions - keep it simple.
• They immediately reverted their changes back in again, with the comment; added back a few of the wars that are featured prominently in the article, perhaps this is a better compromise.
• I then reverted them with the comment: once reverted, go to talk page per WP:BRD.
• Once again, they suddenly sign into their account and revert their edits back in again with the comment: reverting a second time, as BRD is inapplicable and NOT policy.

Now, there are the same (or similar) "lists of engagements" in the infoboxes on the pages for;

• United States Marine Corps,
• United States Army,
• United States Navy,
• United States Air Force and
• United States Coast Guard.

These are long-standing, well-written and widely accepted pages. There are likely similar lists on countless other related pages, such as for Flag-rank officers, armies, corps, navies, divisions, etc., etc. I happen to agree with the other reverting editor in that these changes to these two pages noted above are unnecessary, they make the lists look somewhat cluttered and crowded with all the dates added. There were also additional engagements/battles/wars added and it may be debatable whether they actually belong.

I also don't care for this editing style of adding in mass edits as an IP, then once they're reverted, suddenly signing in to revert them back, and continually reverting, to ram them in despite any objections, and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page, especially when repeatedly requested to do so. Nor are the "my way is better" and "I don't need to discuss this" comments very collegial.

I would ask that the community review the list of engagements found in the infoboxes of these two pages, both before and after the mass changes, as well as reviewing the lists in all seven articles mentioned for comparison, to see if we can have a consensus as to which version is preferable. If anyone from the community, including any passing admins, would like to offer some advice or guidance to this user in regards to his editing style, that would be good too. Thanks -

05:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not looked at these articles before but I have to say that the IP change is an improvement in presentation, it really needed some <br> added to make sense, I dont have a view on the dates. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think the list of engagements in the

^theWOLFchild

15:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

As a result of this [1] series of edits in March 2015, I think this page needs a copyedit by someone knowledgeable about the subject. I'm not sure about the neutrality of the edits, and the grammar is suspect. 220 of ^Borg 01:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to combine a web source which has several urls rather than duplicating the source each time in the references section? I'm having a dash at Convoy HG 76 here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 and want to combine each U-boat net citation (if possible). I've tried the advice pages with the usual blank. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, you can't combine multiple pages from the same website. I tried playing around with how to do the citations here and had to break down and do individual reference entries. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah well. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible to combine multiple pages from the same website (see List of shipwrecks in 1800, for example). It depends how the website is set up in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What class of patrol vessel is 414? Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a 34 foot Dauntless class belonging to Coastal Riverine Squadron 10 of the Naval Reserve (Navy Times article) Gecko G (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is right name for this, Nirbheek or Ordnance Factories Board Nirbheek. Officially, it called as Nirbheek, not Ordnance Factories Board Nirbheek. --AntanO 10:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears the

^theWOLFchild

10:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. you've done a page move to remove the manufacturer's name from the firearm article title. While a brief glance at the

^theWOLFchild

10:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor just added a section to my FA-class article on HMS Hermes (95), mentioning that the merchantman SS Zealandic (1911) was converted to a decoy for Hermes and detailing how she came to grief. I've replaced the image originally used by the IP editor, but I'm at a bit of a loss for reliable sourcing on the decoy's sinking. Therefore I'm contemplating deleting everything but the fact that a decoy was made for Hermes for sourcing problems as the cites that the IP editor used are from websites that don't meet the RS criteria, IMO. The photo from the IWM confirms the decoy's existence, but says nothing about its fate. The incident that resulted in its loss is not mentioned in my go-to resource for this sort of thing, Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945, and some preliminary poking around hasn't yielded anything that I'd consider RS.

So my first question is it worth keeping the bit about the decoy's fate in the article at all? If so, does anyone know of any useful sources that cover the incident?

It's probably worthwhile to keep it - the Germans thought they had actually sunk Hermes, which is interesting, I think. As for sources, this should work. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think a brief description on the decoy ship in HMS Hermes (95) is enough. The details on the decoy and its fate better fit at SS Zealandic (1911), imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I have opened a request for comment at Talk:Cold War, as to adding an infobox to the article. If you are interested, then please participate. Mitchumch (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A

17:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France Breton redoubt question

Does anyone remember an article in the Battle of France series mentioning the Breton Redoubt and that Spears wrote that he gave the idea to Churchill, who later thought it was his own? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This? -

^theWOLFchild

13:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks babe.Keith-264 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, sweetie. -

^theWOLFchild

15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A new editor changed the first paragraph of the lead of

23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Invasion of Normandy was the invasion of

^theWOLFchild

23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... There's no pride of authorship to defeat. Go for it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Try that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Slight copyedit and correction made. -

^theWOLFchild

14:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Very nice.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't start a sentence with "In addition...." Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I made an attempt at a new lead.

[majestic titan]

08:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see

15:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason the article even needs to exist? If this sub had been ordered or was being constructed, I'd agree with it, but a proposed - and not even ordered - vessel (for which a much more suitable class article exists already), with very little article content, seems unnecessary. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest adding your remarks to that article's talk page under a new section. Meanwhile, if you have anything to add to the naming discussion, please do, as this dispute is affecting other established articles, such as

^theWOLFchild

16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree Steve. Article shouldn't exist. If there's a naming dispute over a ship that hasn't been ordered yet, then delete the page and use both names as redirects. Llammakey (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the table entry at

^theWOLFchild

19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Dunno that we're past discussing the page's existence. Long-standing practice is to wait until the hull is ordered, at very least. How many of the second half-dozen of Darings ever saw the light of day? Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Humour - I believe you all mean the HMS Francis (S125)^[FBDB] ;p Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate to question the validity of keeping the article before getting bogged down in what it should be called. The name of the article is moot if the article should just be deleted. Here seems just as good a place to query that and get some open opinions as anywhere else. That is, of course, exactly the reason you've posted on this page yourself. It's just that the scope has become a bit wider. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"That is, of course, exactly the reason you've posted on this page yourself" - Actually, no... the reason I posted here was to direct people's attention to the issue on that page, in hope they would go to that page and comment there on it. That said, if you think the page should be deleted, then start an AfD on it. Doesn't matter to me either way. Deleting the page is another way to put a stop to the naming nonsense. -

08:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Or we could discuss the matter first. Which is what we're doing. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Gordon Gollob; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Theodore Komnenos Doukas; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

) 10:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done -

^theWOLFchild

15:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again babe. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, again, honey. -

^theWOLFchild

20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WPVG is cleaning up its expert-needed queue and this one is tagged for both our projects but requests someone with military history experience. Could someone please look at Fog of war and either repair the necessary areas or remove the tag?  czar 21:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on an upgrade for the

) 01:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Winkle" Brown

The article on Eric "Winkle" Brown was briefly on the Main Page in the Recent Deaths section but it has been pulled due to referencing issues. Assistance in fixing these is sought please. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There has been a proposal to merge

page as a factor. The proposal is on the latter, but having two articles is also questioned on the former.

• See:
  ^theWOLFchild
  11:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

East Africa 1939-1941

Are there no articles about naval operations or am I looking in the wrong place? Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Red Sea Flotilla has a bit of naval warfare. It also links to Attack on Convoy BN 7. Dead Mary (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've found those, it seems to need an article.Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Be

^theWOLFchild

18:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to finish off the Somme articles before 1 July and I'm procrastinating like mad. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, snap to it then! What are we paying you for? Oh wait... -

^theWOLFchild

11:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What were the South Africans up to during that period? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

They were waiting for me to look at the OH that's online at Hyperwar [2] and get on with it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Action of 8 May 1941 Did it carry Walrus spotter aircraft? Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See Forcyzk, Robert; Palmer, Ian (2010). German Commerce Raider vs British Cruiser: The Atlantic & The Pacific 1941. Osprey. p. 58.

ISBN 978-1846039188. Preview available on Google Books. Nthep (talk

) 14:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Keith-264 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Audie Murphy#Purple_Heart. The comment there is referring to how the Purple Heart and Presidential Unit Citation are listed in the infobox. Article content seems to be OK on this. Can anyone suggest a better way of listing these medals in the infobox? — Maile (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The infobox makes no mention of bravery. That section is titled 'Awards'. I see no issue here for discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Wikimedia DC and the National Archives will be holding a "Women in the Civil War" edit-a-thon next week, and we're looking for help with putting together a list of articles for attendees to edit. If you know of any articles that (a) would fit with the topic and (b) could be improved by a group of not-very-experienced editors, please add them to the list here.

If anyone is in the area and would like to attend the event—or participate online—that would also be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ralph was captain of able charlie company of 2nd rangers. He and his company were first to land on normandy at H hours. His history is depicted notably under Popular film

07:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Before you start an article on him, please check that there are sufficient sources covering his life to meet the relevant notability policy,

WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk

) 08:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i have gone through various notabilty guidelines and found the article on captain Goranson is possible in wikipedia.

1. He has recieved

purple heart recipient [3]

.

2. He has comanded charlie company of 2nd rangers. His company along with other companies of rangers were first to land on Normandy during H-hours. Under his command rangers were able to make to the cliffs. Notability of the events can be searched on google.

3. His heroism is depicted under American film

saving private ryan as captain miller. So we must take a initiative to create this article. Dr meetsingh  Talk 

12:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he meets

WP:SOLDIER. He did not receive the DCS multiple times; his command topped out at company level; "Private Ryan" is a fictional character based loosely on Frederick "Fritz" Niland. If memory serves, Fritz Niland was never separated from his company. The section mentioning Goranson in Saving Private Ryan is flagged as original research. Google results equating Miller and Goranson seem to be mostly blogs/non-edited items.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk

22:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above, I agree. Dr meetsingh, please read

WP:BIO: notability is determined by the availability of independent reliable sources on individuals and the depth of coverage they provide on them. Nick-D (talk

) 07:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur - as far as I can tell, Goranson is mentioned fairly frequently in books on the Normandy invasion, but generally without any other details.

WP:BIO1E seems to apply here. Parsecboy (talk

) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland, 1968–98 a colonial conflict?

See discussion at Template talk:British colonial campaigns. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

May be of interest, from BBC News Magazine an article on Dutch company Nodegoat's Geography of Violence map: The map trying to record every battle ever fought. It uses data from Wikipedia (with some fine-tuning still needed for its algorithm, clearly). The site itself is at http://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

) 09:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Michela Wrong's book on Eritrea I Didn't Do it For You isn't about World War II, but has some good details on the Italian colonial regime and fighting there with a focus on how it affected Eritreans. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There's been a bit of warring over the name of

) 17:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment needed on Draft at AfC

We have a draft at AfC that needs to be interpreted for notability:

) 19:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:MILPEOPLE (specifically points 3 and 6), although the article still needs a bit of work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk

) 23:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the subject is notable, but the article reads a bit like a corporate bio. The editor who created it has disclosed that they're an employee of the firm which now employs Mr Hunzeker. I don't fancy volunteering my time to assist with this paid editor's work promoting their colleague/boss. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think he meets the criteria for notability: esp "Deputy Commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq" 2007-10 -- a highly important operation. from Wiki criteria:

YES: Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer

YES Played an important role in a significant military event; [US war in Iraq]Rjensen (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Now that I know it meets notability, I will do my AfC duty and try to get it into better shape before pushing it out to main space. Yes, assisting paid editors is one of the pains of AfC, and they are legion (in keeping with the military theme). LaMona (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Should the List of X-planes include images? I have started a discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This article has proved to be a challenge and very contentious. Although it originally passed GA review back in October, 2015, it has needed some further work since that time. Part of the problem were the contributions of an editor who is now topic blocked. Much of that was dealt with since that time and further tweaks were being done with the involvement of the GA reviewer. Now, the article for the most part is being "nuked" by several editors. It has also been mentioned on the talk page that the article should be deleted at this point. I would ask that several editors from this section have a look at the article with a critical but objective eye. If kept, the goal being for objective presentation with good RS cites; from a NPOV point-of-view. Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Any talk of deletion is silly. If anything, simply restore it back to the point when it was given GA status. This would wash any and all questionable edits by the now topic-banned editor, and any others, and simply leave behind a Good Article. -

^theWOLFchild

13:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not that easy because the editor in question was topic banned after this article was GA passed; and I don't believe it should go back to that point. The fact is, it needed some further work. If it was going to be "restored" to a point, it should be yesterday; with tweaks being done from that point in time. If kept, the article will need reassessment as to its GA status after the dust has settled. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression that it reached GA, then all the problems came afterward. I guess I should've taken a closer look. -

^theWOLFchild

18:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a discussion ongoing about this at Talk:Ideology of the SS#Problematic content. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been listed at: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Given its currently unstable, it should be de-listed. Kierzek (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why it was listed there, no? Given the way it's going over there, it looks like it well on it's way to being de-listed anytime now. -

^theWOLFchild

04:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just stating my opinion on the matter herein as I did on the linked GA reassessment page. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A "user" has unilaterally moved

) 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to revert. There was no attempt whatsover to discuss such a drastic change

talk

) 03:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They also moved

Luftwaffe (modern). I reverted it, but he moved it right back. Admin intervention is necessary now. - BilCat (talk

) 04:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

These moves are completely inappropriate. Major changes such as this should be proposed on the article talk page beforehand to seek consensus. An admin should restore these immediately, and the "user" should be given some counseling. -

^theWOLFchild

04:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've moved protected the pages for the next month, hopefully the matter will resolve itself amicably now. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is getting strange. The user is now adding unexplained POV and Neutrality headers to the top of the German Air Force article, with no explanation on talk page for what his/her issues are. - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They have had a similar fetish about the German army according to user history. They seem to dispute that the Nazi era Luftwaffe & Heer ended in 1945, they seem to have a thing about 1946 instead. There is a very legalistic grey area that exists between August 45- October 46, but there is no attempt by user to discuss their grievance on relevant T/P either. It's getting silly.

talk

) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Allied Control Council decision was seemingly August 26, 1946. I've yanked the following text from Talk:German Army#Wehrmacht: "There is nothing controversial about the date 1946. For reliable sources, see Large, Germans to the Front (1996); Rolf-Dieter Müller et al., Die Wehrmacht: Mythos und Realität (2012); Diehl, The Thanks of the Fatherland (1993); Lockenour, Soldiers As Citizens (2001); Klein, "The Myth...", Baltic Defence Review (2001); and try [4] for numerous sources, mainly but not only in German." The German Army existed for months after May 8, 1945; a million-man+ organisation does not wink out of existence with a surrender. There should probably be redirects with the (1935-46) brackets, but definitely this should all be discussed on the talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks for retrieving that material for the basis of any discussion that may develop. But that is the problem. The user is templating other user's T/P's etc, with no attempt to discuss this. Also an odd claim of POV is being made. Until the user starts dialogue, nothing really can be done.

talk

) 21:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from whacking him hard after a certain interval (feel free to ask me to consider). I have copied in an earlier discussion at History of the Luftwaffe 33-45 to Talk:Wehrmacht#Actual and legal dissolution of the Wehrmacht as a resource in a more logical place should that be of help. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Considser yourself asked. This guy is outta control and needs a cold bucket of block-water dumped on him. I reverted one of his silly page moves and politely asked him to propose the move on the talk page. For that he actually templated me for "disruptive editing" (level 2). (Someone else already deleted the warning for me.) He should prove that he's read wp:consensus before being permitted to edit further. -

^theWOLFchild

22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Tadeusz Nowak for 48 hours, and left a message at his talkpage inviting him to come here and explain after that period. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

18:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello all parcipitants,

I stumbled upon This WikiProject due to 2 recent RFA's. I want to take the time to commend each and one of you as great contributors of one of Wikipedia's finest section. Even before I joined Wikipedia, I was simply amazed at the depth and breadth the articles have come to be. The effort is superb and outstanding. The knowledge helped me in a few courses back in University, sources i mean. For that, I thank all of you.

Sincerely,

Winterysteppe (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Hidden , QC has died. Seems to me that he is notable enough to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As a High Court Judge and a knight he certainly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a RFC here. Mhhossein (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nafziger, G. (2011). Nafziger Orders of Battle Collection: Finding Aid (online ed.). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combined Arms Research Library (U.S. Army Command and General Staff College).
  OCLC 528648446
  . Retrieved 10 March 2016.

This might come in handy.Keith-264 (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's an excellent resource. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

For the German OB use Mitcham's Hitlers Legions, he cites the the US Army official histories (the Green Books) as well as German sources. Mitcham held a doctorate and was an academic. The German OB on Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up, Mitcham's Hitlers Legions should be the roadmap.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not perfect, I've found one useful entry which turned out to have a different item under the label and some have typos, so I think a certain caution is necessary. Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith-264. Anyway Mitcham cites his sources, the German work of Tessin, Keilig and Muller-Hildebrand is the bible but way to expensive, I have no access to these sources at the NY Public Library. I do own the Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht which is cited by Mitcham--Woogie10w (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Try niehorster.org too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would use Mitcham and cross check with niehorster and Feldgrau. If there are differences then we need to check why they don't agree. Mitcham is real cheap on the internet, there is no excuse not to use him.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at East Africa 1940–1941 so that doesn't really apply to me but I see what you mean. Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been a lot of mobile edits on these pages in the last few days, they aren't our POV-pusher making a come-back are they? Keith-264 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the Commando Supremo website fan Keith? The POV Italian pusher.

talk

) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just noticed that several new editors have been active the last few days and wondered if it fit his modus operandi. I've been busy with other things so haven't had the time to delve further. Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No rewriting of history re: Italian participation noticable. As far as I can see this IP has a thing about flags..Simon

talk

) 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Good, thanks for taking a look. Keith-264 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

[5] Just seen this. Keith-264 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Good spot! The I.P active in the WDC article is beginning 114.. dunno about I.P ranges. As I say, i'm seeing flag - related edits in the present activity. No evident Italian fixation. SPI do you think?

talk

) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI? As it happens me and another editor have been removing the flags from the personalities section as superfluous, considering that there are flags in the box above and the Icons view here. Keith-264 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI. Sock Puppet Investigation. Just to clarify if the flag character is a banned user.

talk

) 02:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[6] Seems like another coincidence?Keith-264 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, folks.

) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this individual notable? czar 10:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think

WP:SOLDIER tells us "yes" because he's a flag officer; having said that, I also think the article's a little thin.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk

21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@

general notability guideline? czar

18:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER is a valid link to a portion of the notability policy page. There are a bunch of pages in Google, including one for his promotion to rear admiral. On a quick look, he may also be notable as a physician.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

All right, thanks. If anyone else has feedback, please {{

ping}} me.  czar

22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon image showing up as solid yellow below a certain size

Is anyone else noticing that any example of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Ribbon turns solid yellow when displayed below a certain size? OR is it just something with my system? I've been noticing it for over a month now. Gecko G (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to fix up the medals in the article on Alan Shepard, based on this picture of him wearing his ribbons. Can someone help me out here? In particular, what is the ribbon on the right in the second row? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

^theWOLFchild

05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on What I'm seeing he has in the picture, I make his awards to be as follows from top to bottom, in order of appearance:

• Distinguished Service Medal, Presidential Unit Citation, Joint Service Commendation Medal
• Asia Pacific Medal w/3? service stars, American Theatre Campaign Medal, American Defense Medal,
• European, Africa, Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal
• National Defense Service Medal, Korea Service Medal, United Nations Medal
• Philippine Defense Medal, Philippine Liberation Medal, ???

Not sure if that helps though, and do take these with a grain of salt - some may be close but not quite. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on the tables at Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces, I can't seem to find another medal that looks like the one you're looking for. The Antarctic one looks like the closest match. But doing a cursory search, I didn't see that Shepard was awarded that one. Does anyone know if he had anything to do with Antarctica during his career? Anyway, the rest of the awards in that photo appear to be as follows;

• Distinguished Service Medal • Distinguished Flying Cross (United States)
• NASA Distinguished Service Medal • Presidential Unit Citation • Antarctica Service Medal (?)
• Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal† (4 stars) • American Campaign Medal† • American Defense Service Medal
  †
• European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal† • World War II Victory Medal† • Navy Occupation Service Medal
• United Nations Korea Medal
  ‡↔
• Navy Rifle Marksmanship Ribbon

notes

• † - obsolete
• ‡ - foreign & int'l
• ↔ - wrong order?
• ♦ - inverted?

Whatever medal that is, it's not currently listed on his page. I've noted the ones that are listed as 'obsolete' or as 'foreign & international'. I'm not sure if his United Nations Korea Medal and Philippine Defense Medal are in the right order and his Philippine Defense Medal seems to be inverted. -

^theWOLFchild

13:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@

^theWOLFchild

17:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There are actually four campaign stars on the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal (Leyte, Luzon, Western Pacific, Ryukyus). On the other hand, I have no idea how the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal was earned. Nor the Presidential Unit Citation; some sources say it was earned on Cogswell, but the Navy records do not indicate that ship earned such a citation. The medal that should be in the second row spot is the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, which records show he was awarded in 1969. There was a long list of awards that year in the wake of the moon landing. (Of course in 2015, with no US space program to speak of and no missions flow, far less awards. (Just kidding.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Per this page, Shepard earned 2 NASA DSMs. I think the image shows that. Doesn't answer the question though. ☺ user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 22:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he received one in 1961, and a second in 1971. I think the star indicates that. As he was promoted to rear admiral in 1971, and the photograph seems to be of that occasion, he would not have yet received it at the time the photograph was taken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@

^theWOLFchild

12:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I can show that Shepard was in VF-193, that VF-193 was onboard the USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31), and that the Richard was awarded a PUC. I can't yet put them all together at one time, and I would think VF-193 would not be entitled to share the award of the Richard, but maybe so. Here is another image of Shepard's awards. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 15:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That is just a

^theWOLFchild

16:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

He was in VF-193, but not on Bon Homme Richard; he served on Oriskany. But that ribbon is definitely the PUC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Found it!!!

I found it on eBay. The mysterious Dark Blue/Blue/Sky-Blue/Light Blue/White/Light Blue/Sky-Blue/Blue/Dark Blue medal is the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. Apparently, only three of these were issued (to Crowley, Shepard and Gus Grissom) before they changed to the new type. [7]. Shepard wore both the old type and the new. Anybody know someone who can create a ribbon image for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice job! -

^theWOLFchild

22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@

^theWOLFchild

05:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Also the American Campaign Medal & American Defense Service Medal are in the wrong order (the ADSM predates the ACM). As for the order of the UN medal vs the Philippine medals, I've never seen where the US Navy ranks their respective precedence, I can only assume it's the same as in the Marine Corps. Gecko G (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure about the precedence, (hence the ? marks), but that Philippine medal is inverted, I'm pretty sure about that. -

^theWOLFchild

00:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Military history to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at

.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this - it's very interesting. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man: Is this a different list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages? If not, then I imagine we'll want to move the list to that title. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@

[majestic titan]

04:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the list over to the old location (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages) and updated the bot's configuration to use that for future updates. Hopefully that didn't break anything; I suppose we'll find out next month. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

On the talk page for "Equipment of the United States Armed Forces", I have posted a question addressing most if not all firearms articles. Specifically, what 'wars' to list and not list in the infobox. Looking for a centralized discussion there. See

12:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This one became a Featured Article in 2008, and the nominator doesn't appear to be around any more. It might well need some attention before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Attack on Convoy AN 14 It's labelled AN 14, BN 14 and BN 7 in the text (could a naval war aficionado take a look please). Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, although I don't think it really required a naval war aficionado to check the sources and correct what (I assume were) typos. However, since I was checking I've amended some of the dubious claims in other parts of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Who but an aficionado would know what were typos and what not? ;o)) Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Gerrynobody and I are having real trouble coming to agreement at Template talk:British colonial campaigns and I would appreciate a third party or two adding their voices to the debate to help Gerry and me sort this out. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

All comments would be highly appreciated here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/archive2. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone familiar with USMC take a look at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture? I don't know enough about it to comment wisely, and even if I did I'm about to log off. I suspect the OP has a point, and suggestions on the caption might be in order. Thanks, --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking for any criticism of a draft I've been working on for Cecil E. Harris, the US Navy's second-highest-scoring ace of WWII.

Thanks, --Finktron (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've attempted some cleanup of this article, which had pictures of U.S. military personnel captioned as Egyptian border guards, disorganised sections (an overview halfway down the page, with huge slabs of history, after the separate history section), and barely coherent text, plus overdetailed descriptions for the top-level article, and have been reverted by enthusiastic but not-brilliantly competent at English editor @

22:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering he's made 625 edits to that page in just the past few months, I'd say there could be a serious

^theWOLFchild

00:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 18:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's actually in your best interest to not restore all that content again (or even threaten to do so), or you may very well find yourself

^theWOLFchild

18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Defence Headquarters, North Eastern Area

In the article for a heritage-listed building

) 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

RAAF North-Eastern Area Headquarters was housed in Sturt St, Townsville, from at least 1949, but the source doesn't give the street number. It could well be the same building, but as far as linking goes I'm not sure that an RAAF area HQ should be considered synonymous with an "Australian Defence" area HQ (though they could've been co-located). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just checked our orbat article for the Australian Army in the Second World War, and there does not appear to be any "Australian Defence Headquarters, NE Area." British Commonwealth armies maintained 'Area Combined Headquarters' with Air Forces and sometimes navies for home defence during World War II, and given the location on Sturt Street, it is my guess that the reference in the civilian government source (which I believe is likely a garbled reference in some way) is to some sort of combined HQ incorporating RAAF HQ NE Area. But it's up to our Australian experts to find a proper corroborating source. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I might be mistaken, but I don't think that the Australian military had combined headquarters during World War 2, with the services each having separate chains of command. I suspect that the building here only housed the RAAF regional HQ, and not a combined "defence" headquarters. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

On a similar note, I've just nominated for deletion Australian Air Defence Areas and would welcome any comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pls observe Operation Jupiter (1944), Operation Charnwood, Battle for Caen etc for refusal to stop reverting and discuss on talk pages. Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This IP 120.16.209.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now passsed 3RR and is edit warring, ignoring requests to take to Talk page of various pages. David J Johnson (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If the user does not stop, then give warning(s) for disruptive editing, such as Template:Uw-disruptive2 or Template:Uw-disruptive3, and the user will probably get a break from editting. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reported for edit warring. David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted, let me know if s/he resumes. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I did attempt to get the editor to at least engage in discussion, which clearly they were not willing to do. If, for some reason, we needed to build consensus on the subject, off my own shelf: Terry Copp uses the term "Anglo-Canadian" in reference to British-Canadian forces and operations, as does Charles Perry Stacey. On the other hand, I do not note Brian Reid doing so in at least No Holding Back. That is all the Canadians, I believe, I have on hand access too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I use it as a synonym and since a lot of my Great War sources are pre-1945 it appears in descriptions of proto-Commonwealth operations too. I thought that as a matter of usage, the editor had a point to discuss but the means chosen were as peremptory as the complaint. Same thing happened when I described the 36th Division troops as Irish. Lloyd George has a lot to answer for.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to look at what contemporary sources use. Terminology in the historiography may change, and, say, 1960-1980s sources may differ from 1990-2010 ones.

I see this a lot with the wiki articles on the Eastern Front: lots of uses of "Russians", "Soviets", "Russian Front", even links such as "Russian tanks", etc. See this and this example, among many. I go by what David Glantz uses: the Read Army, Soviet forces, etc.

So it could be that "Anglo-Canadian" is a bit dated and/or colloquial. May be worth a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Anglo-Canadian" is a very poor term to use, since in Canada, it will be confused for "Anglo Canadian"/"Anglo-Canadian" (anglophone Canadian), an English-speaking Canadian (or groups of Canadian English speakers, such as English speaking military units). -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As opposed to "Francophone-Canadians", or French-Canadians, (mainly from Quebec). You do have a point there, it could lead to confusion. Also, as "Anglo" primarily denotes "England", it could be construed to be exclusive of the Scottish, Irish and Welsh, so there's that as well. Perhaps it would be best to find another, more suitable term. Why not "British-Canadian"...? -

^theWOLFchild

06:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Anglo-Canadian can be used as a term of disparagement in some regions of Quebec (usually just shortened to les Anglos) and usually mixed with some sort of cursing. I would suggest finding alternative usage. Also even though you're referring to a joint British-Canadian force, there were very few pure French units to that point in Canadian military history, so the vast majority of Canadian army units would have had mixed personnel between French and English and referring to Canadian units even haphazardly as just Anglophone is not a road that should be travelled. Llammakey (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's a term, synonym and figure of speech. It's also common usage in RS, which is what really matters. I think we need a little more confidence in the literacy of our readers. Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You've never met a French-Canadian Séparatiste apparently. Though I'd love to have an analysis as to whether it's just a British term or it's used in Canadian RS too. Llammakey (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure our readers would just as easily understand and accept "British-Canadian" as they would "Anglo-Canadian", and it's less controversial and confusing. Does anyone here object to using "British-Canadian" instead? -

^theWOLFchild

01:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/14th Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Could somebody who knows more about these things than me perhaps have a look at this list? Two relatively new editors seem to be fighting here. Related articles are

) 08:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

At Bilcat's insistence I suggest that "When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods" be amended to "When dealing with items related to a time, avoid using anachronistic flags from other times." because, times are particular and time and period mean the same thing. Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Time and period don't mean the same thing. Period has multiple meanings. "15:22" is a time, "the 19th century" is a time period (as distinct from other kinds of period). "Time period" is perfectly valid IMHO, but if it offends your semantic taste, try "era" – although to be picky, "era" has a geological meaning different than "time period". — Stanning (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

how about "period of history" ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pleonasm Time is all that's necessary to refer to time (or times if more than one is being referred to). "Time period" means "time time" and "period of history" means "time". Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Time" alone is ambiguous, which is why I reverted your change, and others here have agreed. I'm fine with some of the other suggestions, or you can propose a less ambiguous wording, and see if it gains support. - BilCat (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It can't be ambiguous, adding redundant words makes it ambiguous. It suggests an unrealistically low opinion of potential readers' literacy, which I think is a mistake, although it is an American usage so perhaps not so jarring to occidental readers.Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not "Avoid using anachronistic flags." Sometimes less is more. (Hohum ^@) 13:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you should get a seegar for that one; succinct is good.Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In clearing up

03:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Just had a look. They certainly are problematic and I'd say tag them for deletion, but don't be surprised if someone claims they're salvageable and can be built up like

^theWOLFchild

03:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend redirecting them to Egyptian Armed Forces or another related article. There isn't enough salvageable content for merging.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 11:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Upon further reflection and some checking for references, I have prod'd

Unit 333. Please take a look, consider, and Prod-2/prod remove as you see fit. Regards Buckshot06 (talk)

10:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No disagreement here. Unit 999 is just as bad, if not worse. However, I found this;

^theWOLFchild

14:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Following up on the SS Ideology article discussion above, I would like to ask for community's input on another GA article: Otto Kittel.

The editing on the article has proven to be contentious (see the multi-part discussion on the Talk page), so I followed up be reaching out to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: Franz Kurowski for a GA Article (also in multiple parts). This is also a long thread; in summary:

• 4 editors deemed Kurowski non
  WP:RS
  (including myself)
• 1 editor deemed it
  WP:BIASED
  , but okay to use for "broad outlines of who was involved and what equipment was used in which battles and where", as potentially an only source available on the subject
• 1 editor (the article's editor) deemed it
  WP:RS
  .

I would welcome your review of the article and the RSN discussion with an objective eye, and rendering your opinion. Suggestions on how to proceed would also be welcome.

Separately, the recent RfA (that caused the fallout in the SS ideology article) also raised issues about the current state of GA/FA articles for me. I've found some of the MilHist GA/FA articles flawed, such as the already mentioned Otto Kittel and Ideology of the SS. The latter is on the way to being delisted; pls see GA reassessment. Other problematic (in my opinion) FA/GA articles are:

• Erich Hartmann – sources include:
  • what appears to be a coffee-table book by Philip Kaplan Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe in World War WWII – 18 citations
  • Insidiously titled^[1] book by Toliver, Raymond F.; Constable, Trevor J. (1986). The Blond Knight of Germany. – 20 citations
• Heinrich Bär – 26 citations to Franz Kurowski
• Horst Wessel – see discussion on the Talk page: PoV Problems

From The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies: The Blond Knight of Germany is a "hallmark of romanization", with its "insidious" title suggesting medieval chivalry that "not only fails to characterize the conduct of the German Army in the East, but, indeed, marks its opposite".

If you are up for a read, I've compiled a list of various instances of myths, legends, POV language and dubious claims. Many of these are unintentionally hilarious, so you may get a laugh:

• Alternate History Department
• Dubious unsourced claims & POV language

As the result of seeing this phenomenon, I rewrote the HIAG article, discussing the post-war lobbying and apologia by former Waffen-SS officers. There's where a lot of my research sources come from, including the Revisionist tradition outside of HIAG.

I would like community's input on how best to deal with these issues, and what can be done at the MILHIST level, if that is possible. Please let me know your input and guidance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In light of the way some articles have managed to slip thru the GA/FA process even they have some very questionable content, this is certainly a worthwhile request. The last thing we need in any Wikipedia article, especially when GA/FA, is Nazi glorification, pushing of a pro-Fascist POV or making light of the Holocaust. If we could have some extra eyes here take a quick look at some of these articles;

• Otto Kittel
• Ideology of the SS
• Erich Hartmann
• Heinrich Bär
• Horst Wessel

Thank you K.E. for bringing this to our attention and thanks in advance to anyone here who helps out. -

^theWOLFchild

10:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This individual, K.e.coffman, has been canvassing several Wikipedia noticeboards in what appears to be a campaign to oust work by Franz Kurowski from Wikipedia. On his home page there is an enormous list he has compiled himself on this subject (not just about Kurowski). He does this without being able to show that any of the information in the article is unreliable. Most of what he says appears to derived from his own opinions and "research", as he calls it, which is contravention of WP:Original Research. I'd encourage other editors to read those threads carefully, as there is no sense repeating it all here.

Moreover, Coffman seems to be trying to tell you that the majority of editors are in opposition to Kurowski's use: in actual fact three have yet to return to give a substantial opinion, and three (including myself) regard him as a reliable enough source for Otto Kittel. Dapi89 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this author nor have I looked into these are articles yet, but in light of your comments here, it still stands as worthwhile to have additional uninvolved editors review these pages, so that the matter can be settled one way or the other. Thanks -

^theWOLFchild

15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, yes. I have asked him repeatedly for sources over the last week, but he has not delivered them. The article is uncontroversial, as is the content. I await further comment from the uninvolved. Dapi89 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am only involved on the Otto Kittel and Erich Hartmann articles because I added to the content. The other three I have not looked at. Dapi89 (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fully supportive of adding sources which help support information in an article, underline conflicting information, or help prove information to be incorrect. Having said this, if the book The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies, which by the way is not free of criticism on Amazon (see Editorial Reviews), helps to improve the article by either verifying or by disproving content, it will find my full support. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not a member of the WikiProject, but I did bother to read the long list of changes that User:K.e.coffman has posted on his/her page. Some of them are non-controversial cleaning of unsourced statements and editing of proper links and language. However, others might need to be discussed. While the user seems concerned about POV, I am not certain, his/her own edits are free of it.:

[....]

I am somewhat concerned that the user is motivated by his/her own POV rather than following sources. I hope that the changes can be compared to what the available sources actually say, to establish if further changes are needed. With cases involving Nazis, one should keep in mind that they have been subject to demonizing for the last 70 years and dispassionate sources can be rare. Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved to subsection "Alternate history department" below. Please find responses there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Separately, here's another problematic GA article: Walther von Brauchitsch. It heavily uses an ancient 1944 source, which was picked by the editor "precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion)". Please see: Brauchitsch – GA reassessment

Kurowski: "Journalism of gray and brown zone"

Summary of the criticism of the source via Franz Kurowski & The Myth of the Eastern Front (reposted from the RSN discussion):

• Kurowski is a guru, i.e. an author, "(who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia"
• In his German wiki article, statements like "historical revisionist tendencies", "right-wing publisher", "far-right", "journalism of gray and brown zone"; "inspired by British Holocaust denier
  WP:RS
  sources.
• "Military historian Jürgen Rohwer began a critical examination of the data published by Nazi Germany on successes (sunken tonnage) of submarine commanders in 1957. Afterwards, Kurowski belonged to the authors who held on to the details of the Nazi propaganda regardless of the research results." (Please see source and exact citation on De Wikipedia article above. So his numbers of "victories" are not to be trusted, IMO.)
• "In his 2001 book Bombs over Dresden Kurowski included a 16 pages long "eyewitness reports" of low-flying aircraft hunting civilians. In fact, that was a made-up account. Lars-Broder Keil and Sven Felix Kellerhoff criticized Kurowski in their book German legends. (I believe in plain English this is called "lies". Please see citation on De.wikipedia.)

The Otto Kittel article is almost exclusively cited to Kurowski.

I had requested a translation of the De article on Kurowski, so that a an article on the English wiki can be created. The article is not finished yet, but you can read the draft translation here: | Draft:Franz Kurowski. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for info, I have made a few minor edits to the draft, most importantly linking Fuller.

talk

) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a translation of the German Wikipedia article on Kurowski[8]. Clearly not an RS source by any stretch of the imagination. An advocate with a clear agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Has this matter and these editors cropped up before? Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Since Kurowski is neither an academic author nor published with an academic publisher, it is up to whomever is using him as a source to provide evidence that he is a reliable source. If K is only used to provide basic facts, the question is, why these can not be found in other, more reliable, sources. If K's opinion is related, it has to be made clear from what POV he is writing. The underlying problem with K, and authors like him, is, that English-language authors are liberally using these authors as sources without questioning their narrative, mostly, because they are unaware of their political affiliations. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP|ÄDA - DÄP VA- You are correct hit the nail on the head. There are so many reliable sources on the Eastern front that I have read and own ie.

David Glantz. Why bother with Kurowski.?--Woogie10w (talk

) 11:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Largely agree, if not for the fact that Kurowski is the only source (to my knowledge) which currently covers Kittel's personal background and family status (documented with family images). According to the Badische Zeitung, his son Manfred Kittel is currently working on a book about his father. This book, if considered reliable in this specific context (Manfred Kittel is not a historian), could supplement Kurowski. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP VA, you've failed to understand this is not an academic article, it does not require Professors or PhD holders to source it - being an uncontroversial article.

The user questioning Kurowski uses a source that calls him a revisionist without proper explanation, and then acknowledges the accuracy of his work on specific personalities and units within the German military.

The burdern of proof is clearly on Coffman. He has complied a short list and a German wikipedia article to support his contention. The first is vague and incomplete (AND contradictory), the second contains sources that cannot be traced by authors whose backgrounds are unknown. Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with MisterBee1966 after I revisted the articles on Wikipedia that use Kurowski as a source. Kurowski was a prolific writer who specialized in WW2 German militaria, the lives and heroic deeds of German servicemen in the war. Some of his works are in the New York Public Library. A lot of good work has been done on Wikipedia using Kurowski as a source, the lives of the Aces, U-Boot crews and tank units. Kurowski is in the same genre as Osprey Publishing in the English speaking world. We need to keep Kurowski as a source but point out in a bio that he ignored the dark side of Nazi Germany and shined the spotlight on the German servicemen in the war. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is also a POV involved in outright rejecting historical revisionism. Our article on the subject points to several cases where the views of revisionists challenged and replaced the previously established consensus views of mainstream historians. Leading to a new consensus or new discussion on the topic, and in some cases challenges from a new generation or revisionists. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is most certainly not an academic article and nobody would be fooled about it. But WP is working according to academic standards, i.e. every statement of fact or opinion needs to be sourced by reliable and verifiable sources. The problem with Kurowski is, that in his prose he was prone to either omit unpleasant aspects or stated as facts certain myths circulating in far-right narratives in Germany. While the former is not a problem, since there are other authors focusing on these aspects, the latter is unacceptable. The problem is how to sort out what is proven fact and what is neo-Nazi propaganda. This is what makes Kurowski an unreliable source. A few examples:

• Kurowski wrote a book published in 2007 about U-48, which fails to elaborate on the sinking of SS City of Benares, for which U-48's CO was put on trial after the war. To Kurowski these post-war trials were merely drummed up charges to smear the memories of wartime heroes.
• In his 1995 book about the Fallschirm-Panzerkorps Hermann Göring Kurowski described the unit's operations against partisans. While he went into great detail of partisan atrocities against German military personnel, he omitted any German reprisals against civilians.
• In 1983 and again in 1995 books by Kurowski were published by Druffel, one of the largest right-wing extremist publishing houses in Germany, which contained the myth about "The Massacre at Elbe Meadows".

Unfortunately this does not make Kurowski an unsuccessful writer, to the contrary. He wrote what people wanted to read and believe - and still do. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It is too risky to use this as a source and requires ample amounts of OR to sort potential wheat from the chaff.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP Kurowski gives us the typical West German working class version of the war. The memoirs of Von Manstein, Guderian and of course Paul Carell et al. are all in the same vain. Here is Kurowski live [9] When I was in Germany 45 years ago I was warned never ever to argue with these guys. Discussion with people like this is futile. During the war they gunned down 40,000 unarmed civilians in Warsaw and then went to Sunday mass. However Kurowski's books may be of value because he covers the lives of individual soldiers and airmen. A few pearls may be laying in the pile of shit--Woogie10w (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem is that if we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty. It is much better for Wikipedia to rely on mainstream historians instead of popularized accounts like these.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lives of Kurowski's Luftwaffe, U-boat and Panzer aces are triva IMO and probably lacks the notability that we require on Wikipedia. Kurowski's books are the sole source for the Wikipedia bios of these Nazi superheros. I wonder if anyone has checked these articles to see if there are copyright violations here on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I went to my bookshelves and consulted the Luftwaffe Databook by Alfred Price published in 1997. The book has an extensive bibliography that does not include Kurowski's books. Listed in this bibliography are Die Ritterkreuzträger der Luftwaffe 1939 - 1945. Band 1: Jagdflieger by Ernst Obermaier, Das waren die deutschen Kampfflieger-Asse 1939-1945 by Georg Brütting and Luftwaffe Fighter Aces by Mike Spick. These books are available on the internet, check for yourself. Why rely on Kurowski and J J Fedorowicz Publishing Inc? --Woogie10w (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if Kurowski's representatives and publishers are using Wikipedia to promote his books.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

By all means use the works of Alfred Price, Ernst Obermaier, Georg Brütting and Mike Spick for the article on Otto Kittel, but I don't think they cover Kittel's personal background and family status like Kurowski does. How exactly is Kurowski's coverage of Kittel's personal details so controversial that we need to write yards of discussion across multiple boards? --Nug (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski is controversial because he was a apologist for the crimes of Hitler Germany. [10] The man was not a professional historian, he cranked out pulp biographies of Nazi superheros. Does Wikipedia really need these articles which use Kurowski as their sole source published by J J Fedorowicz?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion became contentious after I attempted to clean up the non-encyclopedic prose on Otto Kittel, followed by this revert. This was followed by an extended discussion on the Talk page (started prior to the revert) and then at the RSN, with edit summaries such as:

• "uncivil/failed to prove case as can be seen in evasive and irrelevant answers."
• "No Stephan, no. A clear lack of understanding."
• "no way, read the thread. First allegation was of unreliability. Onus is on those MAKING the allegation"
• "weird response. editor doesn't understand burden of proof, and isn't offering any"

As part of the discussion at RSN, the involved editor asked for "Infinitely more" feedback, so I started the thread here where the matter could get more eyes from editors interested in military history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

To Keith-264's question, yes, I have run into opposition before, please see (reposted from my userpage):

• It's "vandalism" to remove sources not used for citations, especially if they are
  WP:RS right-wing publisher Nation Europa
• Again, "vandalism" to remove content uncited from 2012; it must be restored
• The content, uncited from Mar 2015, was apparently "vandalized", then why go in and add citations and sources?
• Also "vandalism" to remove mythology from Franz Kurowski; compare to this diff (see section: Assessment as tank commander)

Special mentions

• "Same unencyclopedic POV push as on
  List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany
  from K.e.coffman." The diff is an article about "the hero of all Nazi fanboys" (per Zaloga), Michael Wittmann.
• Discussion on the Talk page: Talk:Michael_Wittmann#Kurowski
• "Unfounded claim that Kurowski is not
  WP:RS
• Another problematic article
  WP:OWN editor insists on restoring non-notable details and the subject's interpretation of events
• Editor repeatedly removes "unreliable sources" tag, and gives their reasons on the Talk:8th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

Cheers, K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Misterbee1966 was justified in reverting you. There are a load of sources that site this figure for the amount of equipment he (Wittman) was credited with or claimed. There is nothing controversial about this. Wittman's notability is based on his success.

Accusing other editors of WP:OWN won't win you a debate especially when they are asking you, quite reasonably, to support your claims or offer rational explanation for your edits. Dapi89 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the last one of your vandalism list; as noted on the talkpage there, it is not so simple to call that mythology. Numerous sources, falsely, consider Wittmann to be the top scorer of the war. More reliable sources provide lists of the top German tank commanders. In this case, while Kurowski may not be a RS, it was not exactly providing false or mythological information. As noted, George Forty's list attributed to the work of Wolfgang Schneider: 121-138 tank claims, with 132 anti-tank gun claims as well (ranking him fourth, regardless of the lower or higher figure).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I objected not to the revert (these happen and are normal part of the collaborative editing process), but to the edit summary: "vandalsim, adding back cited material" – that was after I initiated the discussion on the Talk page and laid out my rationale. Other edit summaries from the list above include: "Vandalism"; "restore vandalised content"; "restore vandalism", etc.

I had previously expressed to the editor my disagreement with their labeling my contributions as "vandalism" See:

WP:V

) and circular references to other wiki page, containing said uncited content. This was "vandalism" even though the editor went in and added sources to the restored material. Which leads me to believe that there were indeed issues with the material as I encountered it.

I do not find these edits summaries to be in the spirit of WP:Civility. I've never included "vandalism" in my edit summaries, except in a case of blatant IP trolling. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Myth of the Eastern Front

If we are going to debate the merits of the source criticising Kurowski, here are two reviews that I had previously posted to Talk:Otto Kittel:

• Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army, by a professional historian ("The book is a fascinating immersion into a simple but important question: How did the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front during World War Two become hero figures to so many Americans?")
• ...Has a convincing central line of argument but will fail to have any impact on its target, from feldgrau.net, one of the websites of "romances" that the book critiques. Interesting discussion follows.

Cheers, K.e.coffman (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The review by professional historian Kelly McFall is rather positive but points to the limitations of this work. To summarize:

• The authors focus exclusively on the perception of the Eastern Front by the popular culture of the United States. A rather "narrow topic" as the reviewer says. So we are not dealing with a global perspective at all.
• The first section of the book focuses on the prevailing American of Nazi Germany, the Wehrmacht, and the Schutzstaffel in the period during World War II and its immediate aftermath. Their sources involve newspapers, magazines, and other American media of the period.
• The book then covers positive views on the Germans, produced early in the Cold War era. Based on on the changing geopolitical climate, the appearance of German military sources which vindicated their side of the conflict, and support of this effort by the American military. The reviewer finds that "the authors do a thorough job discrediting the claims made by the German officers in their memoirs, which can no longer be viewed as even minimally respectable."
• The problem of this section is that apparently the writers have a rather peculiar understanding of what popular culture is about. The reviewer points that the pro-German sources and memoirs found an audience in "American soldiers and leaders". But the authors do not really establish if the pro-German sources had any effect on the American "public opinion" and popular culture. To quote from the review: "There’s no reference to public opinion polling data, for instance, nor to sales figures nor is there an attempt to do a demographic analysis of readership (admittedly a challenging task). Consequently, it’s more difficult to assess changing perceptions of the German army among ordinary Americans." Basically it is unclear if the average American was even aware these sources existed.
• The third section of the book covers the appearance of a new generation of "devotees of the German army and its campaigns in the east". They included new authors,
  wargaming fans, and historical reenactment
  . The reviewers finds this section provides "insightful and exciting research" and that "Smelser and Davies astutely identify a set of sources historians have rarely tapped and survey it thoroughly." They identify the so-called "gurus" of this generation, influential authors and speakers which present "a heroic, sanitized picture of the German army in the east".
• The problem the reviewers identifies with this section is its limits. The authors examine the "iconography and mechanics of war games" of the 1970s and the 1980s, along with their effects on gamers. But they ignore war games that do not involve or focus on the Eastern Front, do not identify how large this community of fans actually is, and fail to establish whether their views "have spread outside their group". They reviewer points that the section ends in the 1980s and does not cover developments of the 1990s and later, such as the appearance of "vast networks of computer gamers" who are also interested in World War II.
• Among the short-comings of this book that the reviewer points out is that it is an examination of popular culture which manages to mostly ignore the influence of movies and television. The reviewer offers as examples the
  Schindler’s List [1993] and Saving Private Ryan
  .

We currently lack an article on the perceptions of Nazi Germany in popular culture. The closest we have is one on Nazis in fiction, that seems to ignore that they have had appearances in the post-war era. This book might be an excellent source to start an article on the topic. But its narrow focus and omissions may render it inadequate as a source for military history. Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate history department

Here's more info on these edits. The bulleted items in italics are queries from @Dimadick:, the plain items are mine:

• The following change on the Eugen Müller article, the author of the Commissar Order, made the following change: The article stated (sourced to Hans-Adolf Jacobesn) that the Order was unfavorably viewed by a number of German generals who initially refused to carry it out. Several Wehrmacht commanders apparently asked for the order to be softened, and Adolf Hitler himself declined any modification on the offer. The user changed the article to remove mention on one of the commanders who apparently viewed it unfavorably, because he claims that it contradicts another Wikipedia article. Whether the source supports was not addressed.

Manstein's supposed opposition to the Commissar Order was a myth put forth in Manstein’s memoirs. Please see Erich von Manstein#Trial. This invalidates the rest of the citation to Hans-Adolf Jacobsen; he may be an RS source, but I’ve seen enough sources mis- or selectively quoted to have the confidence to remove the citation. For examples, please see Arthur Nebe #1 & 2, Arthur Nebe #3 and SS Div Das Reich: Heaton.

• The following edit removed a claim in the article on Arthur Nebe that Nebe was purposely exaggerating the numbers of people he had killed when reporting to his superiors. This was not sourced in this paragraph, but this claim is discussed and evaluated later in the same article, with sources.

The claim that Nebe “worked to reduce atrocities committed” is a myth put forth in an effort to white wash his war crimes; please see:

: "This began the process of turning Nebe against the Nazis” (in 1933!); "Foreseeing the crimes in which he would be involved, he tried to escape it… ”; "He worked with Henning von Tresckow and Fabian von Schlabrendorff to reduce the atrocities committed…”; "In late 1942 after the Wannsee Conference, Nebe informed his fellow conspirators of the plans for the so-called Final Solution.”

• The following edit in the article on Erich Marcks removed a paragraph (sourced by Beevor) that Marcks favored "Spartan" ways (austere, frugal, characterized by self-denial) by refusing to accept servings of whipped cream and protesting that Nazi Germany was starving. The user does not find this sourced claim notable, but is unclear why.

Not notable, second-hand anecdote from an “admiring subordinate”; just because something can be cited, does not mean that it should be included. In this case, it struck me as POV.

• The following edit on the Otto Weidinger article, which mostly lacks sources, changed a paragraph on the post-war fate of Weidinger. The user kept the fact that Weidinger was held in custody without a trial for several years, until finally receiving one in 1951. But the user removed the reasons of the custody.

The reason for his extended custody was not specified, so I removed it per

Additionally, the article stated, twice: "...were considered to be war criminals by virtue of having served in the Waffen-SS..." and "All were charged with a war crime for being volunteers in the Waffen-SS..."; that sounded POV to me, especially as it was not specified what Weidinger was charged with.

• The following link [11] changed a paragraph on the Hunger Plan which was sourced to Adam Tooze. The paragraph stated that the plan to prioritise the availability of food on the areas held by Nazi Germany so that Germans would be fed and the rest of the population would starve was in part motivated by the low amount of food supplies in German-held areas. The editor removed the rational of the plan, claiming that it was POV to publish Nazi self-justifications.

In the context of death from starvation of millions in the occupied countries in the war of extermination, stating, in Wikipedia’s voice, that “Germany was running short of food” struck me as POV.

• The following edit on the Sepp Dietrich article, which is mostly without sources, is an addition rather than a deletion. In a paragraph stating that Dietrich was denied a pension by West Germany, the user stated that the rationale was that war criminals do not get pensions. The problem is that this rationale is also unsourced.

I'll look for a source or remove.

• The edit on the article about the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich changed a paragraph sourced to Weidinger. The paragraph starts by stating the number of victims in the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. Then the paragraph stated that Sylvester Stadler, commander of the "Der Führer" regiment, started a court martial investigation about the "incident" because the officer involved was acting without orders. The user removed mention of this investigation as "apologia”.

Weidinger’s account is apologia; pls see SS Div Das Reich: Post-war apologia. I replaced the “investigation” with a statement about a supposed court martial, with “citation needed" tag.

• The following edit on the Hans-Ulrich Rudel article removed a paragraph on the escape of Rudel from Soviet-held territory on foot, because the paragraph was sourced to Rudel's autobiography. I am not certain if this was a reliable source, but the user did not start a review of it.

Obvious apocrypha, apparently coming from subject’s memoirs. The article was subsequently edited by another contributor to relay the circumstances of his capture in more neutral language. Please see Rudel: Defeat on the Eastern Front, 1st para.

• The following edit on the Sepp Dietrich changed a source and shortened a paragraph. A section sourced to Tiemann stated that when Dietrich received an order by Adolf Hitler to tell members of the LSSAH to give up their cuff titles, Dietrich chose to disregard the order and decided that the armbands "...would stay on." The user changed the source to Stein and reduced the sentence to simply say that "Dietrich did not relay the order to his troops." Which changes the meaning of the section.

This was a copy-over from another article, more neutrally worded; please see: Operation_Spring_Awakening#Aftermath. Tiemann is a HIAG author, so his account should be considered biased, and potentially unreliable; please see HIAG: Historical revisionism.

• The following edit on the Afrika Korps article completely removed a section of the article speaking of the quality of the German forces in Africa which made them stand out. It was sourced to Toppe and Rommel.

This edit was done by another editor, but I obviously agreed with it; otherwise, I would not have put it on my list. Rommel is

, for example.

• The following edit has nothing to do with World War II. It is the article on the
  Wiederbewaffnung (rearmament) of West Germany in the 1950s by a decision of the United States. The article stated (sourced to David R. Snyder) that the American rationale was to prevent a Soviet invasion of West Germany. It seems to be standard Cold War
  thinking, but the editor removed mention of an invasion.

“Further Soviet invasions” implies that there were more than one; in addition, this statement struck me as POV as the literature that I’ve seen does not describe the Soviet advance into Germany as an “invasion".

• The following edit on the Battle of Slivice article, which is mostly unsourced, changed a paragraph on the suicide of von Pückler-Burghaußl. The rationale of the suicide was the Americans refused to accept his surrender and the man feared what would happen to him if he fell to Soviet hands. The user removed all mention that the man feared the Soviets as "POV”.

The language included: "...attempted to storm the Germans and were decimated. ... The American negotiators refused to take the General, so, fearing revenge from the Russians..." These are typical tropes in the "parallel universe" WWII content: "decimated" (poetic language); "Russians" (alternate ethnography); implied "American perfidy", for refusing to accept the surrender of German forces after the agreed upon May 8 deadline, etc.

• The user removed all mentions of the Russian Winter from a number of articles, claiming that it is a myth. Our article on the subject points that the effect of the Winter on warfare is exaggerated but "it is undeniable that severe winter conditions contributed greatly to their [the invasions of Russian-held territory] subsequent troubles.

The article

).

• "I am somewhat concerned that the user is motivated by his/her own POV rather than following sources. I hope that the changes can be compared to what the available sources actually say, to establish if further changes are needed. With cases involving Nazis, one should keep in mind that they have been subject to demonizing for the last 70 years and dispassionate sources can be rare". Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that you can immediately take action if you come across something that is dubious or POV. I’ve not been challenged on the edits above, which tells me that the other editors agreed with me. But if these look problematic after my comments above, let’s discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary on Kurowski

Here's the summary of statements from non-involved editors, who participated in the discussion on the Otto Kittel talk page, at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or on this Talk page, roughly in chronological order:

Non RS

1. Nick-D: "I agree that this isn't a reliable source. Smelser & Davis' analysis of Kurowski's works is convincing (I've read the book). Moreover, I can't remember ever seeing him used as a reference in high quality books on the war, despite being very prolific."
2. Darkfrog24: "Sounds like it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative; is this indeed non-fiction? [...] There maybe some case in which it is appropriate to cite this source, not in general no."
3. Stephan Schulz: "[Kurowski is] published by fringe publishers and with a widely recognised bias. As far as I know, none of his books are "well-received" as factual histories among academic experts - either they are ignored, or criticised. [...] He is not reliable because there is serious doubt about the quality of his work in general."
4. Coretheapple: "Clearly not an RS source by any stretch of the imagination. An advocate with a clear agenda."
5. ÄDA - DÄP VA: "The problem with Kurowski is, that in his prose he [...] stated as facts certain myths circulating in far-right narratives in Germany, [which] is unacceptable. The problem is how to sort out what is proven fact and what is neo-Nazi propaganda. This is what makes Kurowski an unreliable source."
6. maunus: "It is too risky to use this as a source and requires ample amounts of OR to sort potential wheat from the chaff. [...] If we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty. It is much better for Wikipedia to rely on mainstream historians instead of popularized accounts like these."
7. Woogie: "The lives of Kurowski's Luftwaffe, U-boat and Panzer aces are triva IMO and probably lack the notability that we require on Wikipedia. [...] The man was not a professional historian, he cranked out pulp biographies of Nazi superheros.

RS/Biased

1. Nug: "Kurowski may well indeed be a "Romanciser" of the German military, that does not mean that he is completely unreliable, particularly in regard to operational details and events. So I would treat Kurowski in terms of
   WP:Biased
   , because while being a veteran himself his is obviously biased towards the German army, he also has a "painfully accurate" knowledge of the details, according to his critics."
2. Peacemaker: "I would consider it reliable for non-opinion material (ie places, dates, actions). [...] A very sensible summary [re: Nug's comment above], IMHO."

I hope I correctly summarised the positions of those who rendered an opinion. Please feel free to correct or adjust as needed.

@

^theWOLFchild

08:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Question: does this constitute enough of a consensus to consider Kurowski non WP:RS source for WWII history articles?

Comment: No. This has been an exercise in forum-shopping, and I for one am pretty sick of you banging on about this bloke. You have collected opinions sought at a range of places, then added them all up, rather than making your case comprehensively in one place and attracting editors there from relevant WikiProjects to make comment in a consolidated discussion where everyone interested is following it. This whole process has been dubious. You have now created what is effectively an attack page on Kurowski and been going around linking it to articles where he is used as a source. I don't care for Kurowski as a source, but this is pretty much a crusade. I've seen that before in the areas where I edit, and it usually says more about the campaigner. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, who is the judge of that? The process was initiated when - against common practice - some editors required prove that K was unreliable rather than the other way round, i.e. prove of K's reliability. The result is a lengthy discussion and an almost as long article providing this prove. However, said editors still cling on to the fact, that K got the dates right in his publications, which makes him somewhat reliable in their eyes. Still, the question goes unanswered, how said editors want to sort out the good from the bad, without the use of other sources that provide the exact same facts unspoiled. Because of K's proven record of false information, any of his publications have to be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and have to be excluded from WP. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the article Franz Kurowski is taking shape; more eyes on it would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the Kurowski article I'm more questioning the use of eight non-free images in the article. Is this still within the allowed framework of Wikipedia:Non-free content and do we really need that many images of his book covers? The article is becoming almost promotional in its nature from a visual point of view, also not in the text. The first one added from Der Landser illustrates his work perfectly well from what I can gather, low grade historical fiction. What do the other seven add to the article from an enceclopedic point of view that the the first one doesn't? Calistemon (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Calistemon: Pictures generally make the article more visually interesting & break walls of text; but you are right it's probably an overkill at this point. I will go ahead and comment some out. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on how these should be treated here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I just created this article and would like to see the member's contribution to the article. Mhhossein (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Can Milhistorians please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Loxley? Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As you'll be aware, Globalsecurity.org has been repeatedly questioned, here and at

05:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been lots of discussions of this at

WP:COPYLINK specifies that we should not link to known copyvio websites for any reason, so that might rule this site out. Nick-D (talk

) 09:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

HMS Constance?

Which gunboat was Constance, which was in service on 16 February 1807? HMS Constance states the one candidate was in French hands at the time. Threedecks doesn't help either. Was this a hired armed vessel? Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There were two roughly contemporaneous hired armed vessels but one was out of service in 1801 and the other was wrecked off Galway in 1805. Also, as you mention, HMS Constance that was captured by the French and recovered in November 1806, but condemned as unseaworthy and not at sea thereafter. The reference might be a typo for HMS Constant, a 12-gun gun-brig in service from 1801-1816 and both in the right waters and privateer-hunting in early 1807. Will add a short article. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, good. It will need linking from the List of shipwrecks in 1807 once created. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Article is at HMS Constant (1801) and I've linked it as "probably" the relevant vessel the shipwrecks page. Its midnight here so I'll go through the gazettes tomorrow and see if I can specifically locate Fortune in conjunction with this vessel, beyond the Lloyd's List reference we already have. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Threedecks has a bit more about the ship. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will have a look at adding some of the additional service details. Interesting that her first commander is apparently not

this James Bremer but another person of the same name serving as a RN officer at the same time. -- Euryalus (talk

) 19:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

About the proposal to add

WP:VA/E

I've proposed to add it to the list. Hope that members of this WikiProject participate in this proposal so that it won't be closed for having no votes other than mine.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

These related articles and one AFD do not have any project banners, but thought they might be of interest here.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Weiss (test pilot)
• David Weiss (test pilot)
• To Mars By A-Bomb (film)

— Maile (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to

.

} 22:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Battery"

The usage and primary topic of "

talk:battery (electricity) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk

) 06:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Patton

There's new allegation that George S. Patton was assassinated. It strikes me as another attempt at "fifteen minutes of fame." I think the sourcing needs to be evaluated. As it currently stands, the cite is to a newspaper article about a book; the book is available with previews at Google Books.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

any number of people have confessed to assassinating Patton. One man says he fired a shot that wounded Patton at exactly the moment a truck ran into his jeep. Another says Ike was responsible. Another says Stalin. However the nurse at the US hospital who took care of him says pneumonia was responsible. Rjensen (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk

) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Miramar accounts available

Up to 30 accounts to allow access to Miramar's ship database are available. See Wikipedia:Miramar for details. Nthep (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Who said what, and in which language?

The article Joseph H. Harper contains the following: "Premetz, knowing he had to convey the intent of the message, translated this as - "Du kannst zum Teufel gehen." (You can go to hell.)[1]"

The article Anthony McAuliffe contains the following: "Harper said, "In plain English? Go to hell."".

Who said what, and in which language? Did interpreter Premetz have to convey the intent of the message "NUTS", and did he translate it as "Du kannst zum Teufel gehen.", or did Harper say "Go to hell" and did Premetz only provide the (almost literal) translation (although in German they don't just send you to hell, they send you to the devil himself, but the meaning is the same). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There must be someone somewhere who has a reliable source for this information. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Page 468 of the US Army official history states "The rest of the story has become legend: how General McAuliffe disdainfully answered "Nuts!"; and how Colonel Harper, commander of the 327th, hard pressed to translate the idiom, compromised on "Go to Hell!" ". Presumably he said it in German given he was translating from English to German. You may have luck searching for more detailed sources on Google books. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thank you, very interesting source. I am reading it now. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Stonewall Brigade Band

If any of you knowledgeable about the American Civil War have tips on finding more sources for A. J. Turner, I would be very interested. Cheers. Cake (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on use of flag icons

Hello everyone. I have opened a request for comment at Talk:Manhattan Project regarding the use of flag icons in non-conflict military articles. If you are interested, then please participate. Mitchumch (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:RFC, specifically where it explains use of {{rfc}}. You haven't opened a Request for Comment and I don't think you should, either. Chris Troutman (talk

) 16:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Why do you think I shouldn't open a {{rfc}}? Mitchumch (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:CANVASS). Your argument is wrong and creating an RfC is just going to get you hammered. Better luck next time. Chris Troutman (talk

) 17:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Okaaay... well your opinion on the matter is clear. But that said, there is nothing wrong with starting an RfC. If everyone disagrees with him, as your predict, then the matter will be quickly put to rest. Otherwise, this is exactly how he can find other editors that may agree with him, without canvassing. Cheers -

^theWOLFchild

18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Anniversaries line in Infobox National Military

Many national armed forces have an 'Armed Forces Day' or suchlike, commemorating the establishment of the armed forces or a notable victory. We have a parameter for this in Infobox Military Unit but not in Infobox National Military. Could one of the template experts please add the parameter to Infobox National Military? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 14, 2016

Here's another one where the FAC nominator is long gone. The article might need an extra set of eyes. (I'm working on the TFA text now.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC) ... or tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sealift & Reserve ships

I have just finished a significant update and clean-up at

^theWOLFchild

09:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Expert still needed at fog of war

WPVG is cleaning up its expert-needed queue. The video game part of Fog of war is fine, but an a military history expert is tagged as needed for the unsourced military history section. Would someone spare a few minutes to clean up the section, remove parts as necessary, and scrap the tag? I would really appreciate it.  czar 01:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning categorisation of Indian Air Force officers

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories concerning the categorization of Indian Air Force officer biographies. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Texas medals, authentic or not?

Ran across Sam Houston Award Medal "Awarded by Texas", never heard of it. Looked at Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Texas Military Forces, and there are a number of them I don't know about (which doesn't mean anything). Some links are dead, but I eventually found This. That's not a state website. The home page is in Mesquite, Texas and is a private individual. The Texas Comptroller gives this information: Franchise Tax Account Status. My question is this: are these medals, as listed, OK by Wikipedia standards? Should we just leave them as is? If not, what should be done? — Maile (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I found State Guard Association of the United States and followed the Texas link under "Active associations", which takes me to the Texas Comptroller information above. However, the Texas link under "Link to website" column takes me to This, which gives a redirect for them - but my Firefox tells me it's a risky connection and won't go there. — Maile (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I got the warnings as well, so I checked it on my old back-up pc (for cases like these) and it redirected to https://tmd.texas.gov/ Looks legit to me. As for the original association page, I see no reason not to accept it. It's not the best source, but it is so far the only source. The info doesn't appear suspicious nor contentious, so I would take it for now, but keep looking for something better. Cheers. -

^theWOLFchild

22:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Confederate States Army status

In the Confederate States Army article, Illegitimate Barrister unilaterally changed

Template:Infobox war faction on March 2 without any previous discussion on doing so. The matter is part of an edit war over a field in Infobox war faction dealing with Ideology, which isn't used in Infobox military unit. The discussion is at Talk:Confederate States Army#Union Ideology

.

Per Template:Infobox war faction/doc: "A war faction infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular faction participating in a war; it should not be used for regular military units and formations (which should use {{infobox military unit}} instead)." So, how is this usually decided? Obviously, it has to be according to reliable sources, but just what has to be considered? - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Mine"

The usage and primary topic of Mine is under discussion, see talk:Mine (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wanted: A post-WW2 British Army specialist to assist a new editor

Please see this conversation on my Talk page about a draft at User:CD0060576/sandbox. The draft is about two related but probably separable topics; a section of Fulwood Barracks, and recruitment activities of the Lancastrian Brigade in the Isle of Man. We do not seem to have any articles about Manx involvement in the British Army (or UK Defence Forces as a whole), this might just be the seed to start such an article. The editor is new to WP so will need quite a bit of specific guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Awaken the Dragon

Hi, can I interest anybody here in contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon? Even if you don't want to win up to £200 in Amazon vouchers to buy your next book people are invited to join in on the editathon and just contribute what they can. If there's a few Welsh military history or memorial articles which you might feel like doing in April please do so and add the article to the bottom of the list at the bottom of the page. Even if just a 1 kb new stub on a memorial or 5kb expansion of a Welsh battle or officer or something it will all count and be warmly accepted. If you think you can work on an article or two please add your name in the participants section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Operation Impact

Somebody went and changed the title of the article from Operation Impact, the Canadian name for their participation in the Intervention against ISIL in Iraq and Syria to

Canadian war with ISIL. However, Canada is not at war with ISIL as they do not recognize it as an official government. Even the main page is not called War with ISIL. I was hoping one of the admins could return it to its old name until maybe a more inclusive name could be thought of. Llammakey (talk

) 14:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have returned it back to the original name please use a move request to gain a consensus for any title change, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was hoping to do. The other user did not follow procedure. Llammakey (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Title review of

Missile Turret

I've never seen this term used outside videogames and a fairly comprehensive bit of googling have only yielded one semi use of the term on http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-HQ-7-Crotale.html and then it was in the context of armoured vehicle turrets. The article itself doesn't seem to serve much purpose to be honest, so I'd suggest either deleting it or at least renaming it. Chrthiel (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Launch/-ing turret" seems to be the commonly used term - should probably be merged into rocket launcher. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The only context I've seen it in is in articles written by people who aren't native English speakers or in the context of Armoured Vehicles. But honestly there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the article, so I'd suggest deleting it outright.Chrthiel (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/William_H._Crook

I think it's been a bit since the last MILHIST FPC, so I'll just note it here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge, perhaps?

Please take a look a newly created "

^theWOLFchild

16:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a new unit called the Special Operations Command (Russia) that incorporates Spetsnaz units but is slightly different. This article appears to be talking about that command. I'll keep an eye on it with a view to a rename. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. -

^theWOLFchild

04:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

World History Error

I found some problems across several articles which I described on a talk page of one of the articles (here). This has to do with British/Indian/Pakistani military history (mid 19th century to WWII). I don't have the knowledge to fix it. MB (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Operation Great War Centennial?

Is

YO

😜 21:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

NavWeaps.com reformatting, likely in 2017

Tony DiGiulian emailed me that he will be reformatting NavWeaps.com in a way that will break all current links to it, but likely not for a year. Here's what he sent me:

Right now, there are about 1,600 links from Wiki English to NavWeaps plus more for those Wikis in other languages. The majority of these may all get broken over the next year or so with the exception of any link on Wiki to www.navweaps.com itself which would still work correctly.

The reason for this is that I am considering upgrading the website from being HTML 4 based to being HTML 5 (php/css) based. This means that my webpages will go from having .htm extensions to having .php extensions. This change would obviously break any existing link to my webpages that point to an .htm extension. My first example of a .php extension would be a new main page found here:

http://www.navweaps.com/NavWeaps.php

The “Contact” and “12”/45 Mark 5 and 6” webpages linked from the above webpage are also in php format. These php pages are not “live” yet, as I am still working out the details of the format and haven’t yet settled on the final form.

In addition, the web designer that I am working with is encouraging me to change my directory structures so as to make it more friendly to mobile users. For example, I use “index_tech” as the directory for my Technology pages, he wants me to change this to be more like “Technology/index.php” which is more user-friendly. Again, this would break existing Wiki links.

I just wanted to give you a “heads up” at this point as I don’t want to create unnecessary problems and extra work at your end. If I decide to go down this path, then I’m looking at a timeframe of something of over a year before the website would be completely converted over as I have 1K+ webpages and it will obviously be a considerable effort to change them all over to the new format.

Sincerely yours, Tony DiGiulian http://www.navweaps.com

RobDuch (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Rob. If the only thing that's changing is the extension, I imagine a bot could be developed to make the changes here. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of his traffic, if all that is changing is the redirect, he should probably put in a fix on his side that automatically redirects visitors with HTTP 301- that would help him not just with us, but with Google as well. —Luis (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oz downloads question

[13] World War II Naval Staff Histories Is anyone else having trouble downloading from here? Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I just tried a couple, and both worked fine. The Australian military's webmasters aren't the best with maintaining links, so send them an email if something seems broken. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I got most of what I wanted by using someone else's machine. It's a bit hit-and-miss though. Keith-264 (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dragon contest/editathon

Your project member Sturmvogel 66 is putting in a sterling effort to produce content for

leading the contest and has produced multiple GAs on important battleships cruisers. There's high points for anybody who improves anything listed in the military/history section of Core Articles, plus the chance to win £100 in Amazon vouchers main prize which can go towards buying your next books on military history. Your participation and support in this would be greatly appreciated. It's an opportunity to really get those stale, neglected important articles up to adequate status. It's still not too late to enter and improve content on this and follow Sturmvogel's example.♦ Dr. Blofeld

08:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Mild correction; the battleships are to come.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What does this mean?

X was automatically updated from pending changes reviewer to pending changes reviewer and extended confirmed user ? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Bencherlite^Talk

10:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Why would you expect to be notified of any large changes, or to be able to find out about them? 8-(

It's here: Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. Obviously!

There's a new sort of page protection. If you have 30 days / 500 edits of history, it won't restrict you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Eythenkew! Keith-264 (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFD

Is hand-to-hand combat a good target for the redirect unarmed combat? Is armed combat always a war, or could it be a battle, and how does it differ from an armed conflict? These and other conflict- (or combat-? or war-? or battle?) related redirects are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_5#Armed_conflict and related discussions at that page. You may wish to contribute. Si Trew (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Unwounded survivors"

Hi,

I am working to improve the 61st Infantry Division article. The History of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment states "In June 1944 the invasion task of the 2/7th Battalion was to look after unwounded surviors who were landed back at Dover." (Cunliffe, p. 73)

This is a term I am unfamiliar with. Does anyone have any information that could elaborate on this in order to help expand what the division was doing in 1944?

Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe military members affected by

PTSD), or displaced non-combatants. -Fnlayson (talk

) 23:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Humor of a Country Lawyer seems to suggest those standing after a unit was virtually destroyed.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Survivor is often used for a wreck and many vessels were lost during the invasion. Could this be the processing of those who went through the loss of their assault vessels who, rather than being dumped on the invasion beaches were shipped back to where it would be possible to rest, re-equip and reorganise? Monstrelet (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what I took it to mean. Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that's likely. I read something (I can't remember what, or where) on this topic a while ago noting that the survivors of WW2-era ship losses tended to lose all their personal belongings, papers and equipment and required a lot of help. An organisation which helped to get infantrymen back to their units would have also fitted in with the British Army's manpower shortages. A better source would probably provide a superior explanation, but surprisingly little has been written on the logistics of managing the human side of the Normandy invasion (there's lots on laying pipelines and shipping in trucks, but not much on how the Allied armies made good their casualties for some reason - historians seem to only now be realising that the Allied infantry units suffered comparable losses in Normandy to those on the Western Front in World War I). Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. So, for the moment, the best way to describe this would be survivors of ship losses?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Speculating, as this was an army unit, army personnel whose vessels were lost who would need reorganising and re-equipping before they can rejoin their own units Monstrelet (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Centenary of the Military Medal

I've posted much the same at Talk:Military Medal, for the centenary of the institution of the Military Medal I've taken a look at various of the documents held at The National Archives (United Kingdom) relating to its creation, and published a post here http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/centenary-military-medal/ (I'm leading a workstream within our First World War Centenary programme covering the theme of Bravery and Courage). Our principal military specialist, William Spencer, also checked over the post before publication. I think some of the points could usefully be added to the Military Medal article, but obviously someone else should really make that decision. David Underdown (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between bravery and courage? Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't come up with the name! But, perhaps, there can be courage in taking a stand against something, eg conscientious objection, rather than a single act of bravery. David Underdown (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought that it might be something like valour (in the face of the enemy) and courage which happens anywhere.... like answering back to the landlady of the St John's in Queens Road, Hull. Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Bravery, gallantry, courage and valour all basically mean the same thing. The Victoria Cross (for actions in the face of the enemy) and the George Cross (for actions not in the face of the enemy) are inscribed "For Valour" and "For Gallantry" respectively. Yet we usually talk about "gallantry decorations" (or "bravery decorations") to refer to all medals for courage in or out of action. All the terms are interchangeable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Largely, yes, but some slightly different shades of meaning perhaps. Anyway, any opinions on incorporating anything from the article in to the MM article here? David Underdown (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What is a gunnery range?

When I put it in an article it was a red link. I used the term as it was used in the history of the nature preserve I am writing about, but a search doesn't really give me a redirect target or anything I can use as a piped link.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I thought perhaps

^theWOLFchild

18:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a vague term that could be any one of those three (although proving grounds are rare). Where is it? Gunnery range should probably become a {{set index article}}. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I thought I had included a link to the article. And this is where I got the term, although I am trying to locate more detailed sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Operation Avarice

I'm placing this here for greater visibility. A proposal is made to merge

TPX

21:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Paul von Hindenburg (1914) von Nicola Perscheid.jpg

Those working on WWI/II articles may be interested in my latest restoration. For those preferring to use him without the border, here's the code to do it:
{{CSS image crop |Image = Paul von Hindenburg (1914) von Nicola Perscheid.jpg |bSize = 250 |cWidth = 220 |cHeight = 285 |oTop = 15 |oLeft = 15 |Alt = An old photograph of a man with a moustache in military uniform. |Description = This is what the CSS crop looks like. [Replace with real description] }}
Scale all numbers by the same factor to make it bigger or smaller, e.g. to raise the width after cropping (cWidth) to 250, you'd multiply all figures by 250/220 and round off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 12:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is what the CSS crop looks like. [Replace with real description]

Pinging

[majestic titan]

22:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer review: War of the Antiochene Succession

All comments are highly appreciated here. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for

Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic)

needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for Charles Heaphy needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Charles Heaphy; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Crimea annexation RFC

I've opened an RFC on Talk: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on the question

"Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection Crimean public opinion be moved into the subsection Crimean status referendum?"

As this page is of interest to Wikiproject Military history, I thought I'd put a notice here. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Operation Impact

Problem Solved.

TimothyJosephWood

14:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Is it too early to close this discussion? It's pretty much me and one other user going around in circles. There's no consensus and if the discussion stays open I'm afraid the other user will just unilaterally change the page title again (which started the whole process in the first place). Llammakey (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Really hoping for a mod intervention here. The other user has escalated to personal attacks. Llammakey (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

War

Somehow I've gone this long without visiting

TimothyJosephWood

14:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Navy ship article names

FYI, at

WT:SHIPS there's a discussion about a large number of ship articles being renamed recently -- 06:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.45.100 (talk

)

Any UK aviation folks able to access the National Archives?

It seems I really need a copy of AIR 10/7477, but even asking questions costs money. Does anyone either have a copy of this, or perhaps willing to take up the phone call to find out how much this will cost? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You can get a quote for free, but the prices I've been quoted for digitising similar documents weren't small - couple of hundred for one document. A cheaper way might be to find a Londoner who can get to Kew. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I tend to go up there once every month or so. If you can tell me what you need from this volume I can try to access it in my lunch break, depending on how big it is. However I went only last week, so I can't put a date on my next visit, but it'll probably be in approximately 4 weeks or so. Someone else may go sooner of course... Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@David Underdown: works at TNA - maybe he can help? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't really circumvent the document ordering and copying too much I'm afraid, given I'd like to carry on working there! David Underdown (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Any help would be greatly appreciated! I'm looking for details on the various bombsights, and I'm not sure exactly what is in this tomb. Given the date I suspect it covers the SABS and the post-war version of the Mk. XIV which was used in the Shackleton. Anything on the Mk. XIV would also be useful. Perhaps for a first visit just an overview of what it has? Even that is difficult to find. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Becke, Order of Battle of Divisions, Part 2a & 2b: Territorial & Yeomanry Divisions

Hi,

Does anyone have access to this work? If so, would you be willing to give the article on the 66th (2nd Lancashire) Division the once over to ensure the order of battles are accurate (and sourced) and the GOC section is complete?

Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

See article talk page. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Kanalkampf

Would interested editors mind casting an eye over the article please? It's been substantially revised and expanded but I fear it's a bit top-heavy. Ideas about article structure and sources are also welcome. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Technical

This AfD could use everyone's input. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft in a given role

Hi, I have proposed that we create a default format for tabulated lists of aircraft in a given role. You are invited to join in the discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking for experienced editors

mw:Design Research is looking for experienced editors (hundreds or thousands of edits, probably more than a year old) who haven't used WP:VisualEditor before (or at least not much/not recently). The usual setup is a scheduled video chat via Google Hangout on Air (or maybe Skype?) for 30 to 60 minutes, in English. To run the visual editor, you'll need to have a reasonably modern web browser (>95% of you already do) and to have Javascript turned on.

I think that they're hoping to find about a dozen editors for this. The responses from editors in small studies like these have a significant effect on the product direction. If anyone's interested, please let me know. A note on my talk page or an e-mail message would be great. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

US coastal forts and WWI/WWII task forces

One of my specialties is US coastal forts 1885-1945. I am wondering if their articles belong in the WWI and WWII task forces. Most of these forts served as mobilization centers in both world wars, with numerous temporary buildings to accommodate the influx of troops. Most were manned on some basis for coast defense in both wars. However, this was with a reduced garrison in WWI as most Coast Artillery troops were placed in heavy artillery regiments intended for service in France. And in WWII, many forts were largely disarmed as more modern defenses were completed. Are stateside mobilization centers generally included with these task forces? RobDuch (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@RobDuch: Yes, you can put them in the WWI and WWII task forces if you like. It sounds like they both saw some service in the wars, and that does qualify them for inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ordnance companies

59th Ordnance Brigade was once the largest brigade in the US Army. The article includes a table listing the various battalions and companies that were under the 59th Ord at a particular time that is not noted but appears to be circa 1980. I had added a section on units, expanding some of the units I had a particular interest in. Looking at these and the others in the list, including the battalions, most have a history outside their inclusion in the 59th Ord. None of the units in that list are in the current incarnation of the 59th. The battalions and USA artillery groups (USAAG) are pretty much notable enough for articles, but the companies and detachments are not.

I'm thinking the table could be resolved by adding dates showing when units were added or removed. And the expansion of companies would be better served in a separate article: US Army Ordnance companies and detachments. I can only find one company article:

21lima (talk

) 23:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, dates would be very useful. And an overall article of all of the companies of each type would probably be the most useful way to cover those units as company-sized units generally lack notability.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

21lima (talk

) 18:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And:

• Draft:United States Army Field Artillery detachments
• Draft:3rd Explosive Ordnance Battalion

--

21lima (talk

) 11:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I think in terms of article names the first two should be "List of..." e.g. List of United States Army Field Artillery detachments, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on auto-assessment of articles

See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob^Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Albert O. "Scoop" Vorse, Jr.

Vorse was until recently MIA from the WWII aces page and so far has no page of his own; nor does VF-80, the eponymous "Vorse's Vipers," have a page. Since it took a long time to get even

Wikipedia:MILPEOPLE, is it worthwhile to make a page for "Scoop" Vorse? Finktron (talk

) 13:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Vorse is notable because he retired as a rear admiral per

WP:MILPEOPLE, so it is worth an effort to create a page about him. Kges1901 (talk

) 16:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't even notice that, my bad. I appreciate the response. I'll see about making a draft. Finktron (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Area of Zeitenlik military cemetery

The article Zeitenlik included the sentence

Greece has donated free land for the construction of the complex of 7 000 km²

That's 2,700 square miles, or over 1,700,000 acres, and cannot possibly be right. See

{{Ping}}

me to discuss.

Cross-posting to WikiProjects Serbia and Greece. --Thnidu (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary question

What's the formula for linking to Wiktionary pls? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is just [[wikt:]], for instance wikt:sloth. Did that work? Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It did, thanks. wikt:per is what I want but I'll settle for wikt:contrition. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The same text is duplicated across a lot of articles

• Note: This was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, but is likely to be of interest to the WPMH. — Maile (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up or even if this is problematic, but while disambiguating Freedom of Information Act, I noticed that an unusually high number of articles regarding prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are presenting the exact same content, namely:

When he assumed office in January 2009

President Barack Obama made a number of promises about the future of Guantanamo.^[1][2][3]

He promised the use of torture would cease at the camp. He promised to institute a new review system. That new review system was composed of officials from six departments, where the OARDEC reviews were conducted entirely by the Department of Defense. When it reported back, a year later, the

Joint Review Task Force classified some individuals as too dangerous to be transferred from Guantanamo, even though there was no evidence to justify laying charges against them. On April 9, 2013, that document was made public after a Freedom of Information Act request.^[4]

References

1. ^ Peter Finn (January 22, 2010). "Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. ^ Peter Finn (May 29, 2010). "Most Guantanamo detainees low-level fighters, task force report says". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
3. ^ Andy Worthington (June 11, 2010). "Does Obama Really Know or Care About Who Is at Guantánamo?". Archived from the original on 2010-06-16. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
4. ^ "71 Guantanamo Detainees Determined Eligible to Receive a Periodic Review Board as of April 19, 2013".
   Joint Review Task Force. 2013-04-09. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved 2015-05-18. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help
   )

If you take a look at this search, you'll notice that the foregoing text is repeated, exactly as it is, across dozens of articles. I don't know if this is an issue, but I thought I should say something because I kept stumbling on the same text over and over. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: is our expert on Guantanamo, maybe he can comment. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:OR
  . But I did write the passage in question, and most of what the wikipedia has to say about Guantanamo captives.

As to whether 34 articles should each contain a very similar passage -- please bear in mind how common it is for related articles to do so. Each element in the Periodic Table will contain passages very similar to passages contained in the related articles. Why? Because all chemical elements have electrons, form compounds with other elements. All elements have a toxicity, be it zero to instantly fatal. It would be the same for articles about members of the US Senate, or UK House of Lords. They too are likely to contain passages similar to those found in the related articles.

We don't know the details of the determinations of the

Joint Review Task Force, because they were held in secret, and their minutes, and the documents prepared for them have never been made public. However, the follow-on boards, the Periodic Review Boards, have operated with a greater degree of open-ness. Five documents are prepared for each of these hearings of these boards. All meetings are conducted via videolink. The first stage of the hearings is always made public. Reporters can and do tune in. For many of the captives this is the first time they have been shown, since their capture. However, they can opt out, as some do, mainly for mental health issues. There is press reporting on each hearing. So, for every individual whose article has the repeated passage @Mz7

: noticed, there should be follow-on coverage of those hearings, particularly of the third party coverage of them.

This means that the material that follows the passage Mz7 noticed was similar, across articles, should be very different. Each captive's case was different, they faced different allegations, they had different capabilities. Some captives learned English, in Guantanamo, and even started some college courses. Others were driven barking mad, and had to be confined to the psychiatric wing, where, if they aren't dosed with tranquilizers, they howl incoherently 24x7. Some have family support that others lack. So they have different prospects for re-integration into the mainstream, once repatriated, or sent to a third country for asylum.

Twenty-nine of these individual have had their Periodic Review. When their articles don't have coverage of their hearings it doesn't mean the press coverage of their hearing wasn't significant, or interesting. It means the wikipedia volunteers who follow such developments haven't gotten around to it.

If you are interested in weighing in on this corner of the project I'd be happy to "show you the ropes". Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Colour me unconvinced by your explanation, Geo Swan. The chunk of text is about the management of the detention/review processes at Guantanamo, and pertains to it/them. Whereas it affects detainees, it is not about the detainees. It seems to me well possible to report on their review without repeating this chunk each time. Users more interested in Obama's promises w.r.t. Girmo, or the mutation of the review process ,can surely be linked to an article on which such information is appropsiate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think the first issues should be to check that this text is not a close paraphrase and is accurate to its cited sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• • I'd suggest removing this where it's not needed. There's been way too much "boiler plate" editing on topics involving Guantanamo (often motivated by
    WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) and it's not helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk
    ) 23:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment, the text does seem to have a bit of a political slant to it. I wonder if, in more distantly related articles, the bit about Obama isn't a

TimothyJosephWood

00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a description of the obvious. Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Asim Thahit Abdullah al Khalaqi, you have an entire section that is about this larger political milieu , and a single itty bitty sentence at the end that is about the actual subject of the article. This boiler plate would be perfectly acceptable in an article about gitmo (and there's a lengthy section about it there), and it is absolutely appropriate to include that this guy was recommended for release by the report (because that is information about the subject specifically), but this is the equivalent of including several lines on the FIFA scandal in an article about individual footballers.

It would be

TimothyJosephWood

16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV in the passage(s), but didn't state what they saw as biased, and didn't suggest an alternate wording.

  Well, Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada, an individual who has received a lot of coverage this year, because the hunger strike he has been on for the last decade had reduce his weight to about 60-70 pounds, was released yesterday. I noticed that Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force already uses a different wording. I drafted that passage on June 26, 2015. Mohammed Nazir Bin Lep#Guantanamo Review Task Force, Abdu Ali al Haji Sharqawi#Guantanamo Review Task Force, Saifullah Paracha#Guantanamo Review Task Force, the first three articles the search Mz7 recommends, had their passages added on May 19, 2015. I went back to May 19th, 2015, my contribution history for that day

  shows that, over an hour and a half, I added that passage to about three dozen articles.

• I am not an SPA. More than two thirds of the articles I have started have nothing to do with terrorism. In 2005 I started the articles on the US Coast Guard's
  Bollinger shipyards
  started to deliver new cutters, every three months, about four years ago, and I started articles on the new cutters, as RS covered their launches, or commissionings.

Those articles, obviously, are going to contain similar passages, as the vessels were built in the same yard, to the same design. They differed, because they were written months apart.

What we don't want is for related articles, to contradict one another, merely because they were written at different times.

One of the interesting characters I came across as I researched the Sentinel class cutters was

Chip Bowen

, who was the Coast Guard's senior NCO in 2010. He took the initiative to have the vessels in the new class to be named after Coast Guard heroes -- enlisted Coast Guard heroes. When I had written the articles each of them had a paragraph that briefly described the vessel's namesake. But the first articles didn't link to or mention Bowen's role in their naming. I started updating the earlier articles on the individual cutters, to include a sentence with information on Bowen's role.

Mz7 asked, above, whether it was a problem for related articles to contain very similar passages. My answer would be brief similar passages are not a problem. Long identical or similar passages are problematic for several reasons. The details should be covered in only one place, the article where those details are most central. When the details are covered in multiple articles they can grow out of synch, and contradict on another. But we do surround some links to related content with brief exposition to set the context of the link.

@Tagishsimon: wrote: "It seems to me well possible to report on their review without repeating this chunk each time." We could rewrite the wikipedia so what were currently subsections of articles were all turned into standalone articles, and assert that we hadn't altered the wikipedia's actual intellectual content. Alternately we could roll the articles on Astronomy, Quantum Mechanics, Optics, etc, into the main articles on Physics, make them merely subsections of the main article on Physics. We could make that change, and assert that we hadn't altered the wikipedia's actual intellectual content. The really determined reader would still eventually be able to find the content they were looking for, at least in theory. However, neither of those changes would practical. Really, neither of those changes would serve our readers.

Links need context. Not all links, but most links. Sometimes the required context is only a clause. Barack Obama is the current President of the United States, George W Bush is a former President. Most English speaking people know this, today. But we should write for future readers, who may no longer remember who former Presidents were, and we should write for people for whom English is a second language. So, if I include the first reference to Bush, or Obama, in an article, I add their title to provide context. I thought the Joint Review Task Force required a longer context setting.

I've seen articles where there had been a subsection about a related topic, that had a paragraph of context setting, followed by a {{

seealso}} or {{main}} template. If this is what Tagishsimon was suggesting I have to say this can look ugly. It never looks like it was done to serve readers. Geo Swan (talk

) 16:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC re: duplicated text

Seems to only be a couple of strongly held positions here, certainly not enough to definitively keep or change this boiler plate. Probably a good place to get some outside opinions.

TimothyJosephWood

23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Content in question. I'm inclined to agree with
  WP:SOAPBOXing than encyclopedic content. Just delete it... NickCT (talk
  ) 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - the issues raised above with this text are compelling, and seems to be part of the wider issues with our coverage in this area (including the non-notability of many of the articles themselves, which as far as I can tell were mostly written to make some sort of point). Anotherclown (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete I was being polite above: this problematic text is part of the long-term POV pushing on this topic by GeoSwan, for which he or she has been repeatedly criticised and sanctioned for in the past. It needs to go. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think Nick-D has mis-spoke. Yes, my efforts have been criticized. I think most people accept that my efforts have been in good faith. I have never been blocked, or had a topic-ban, so I think it is mis-leading to assert I have been "repeatedly sanctioned". More-over, not everyone agrees with Nick-D that my efforts were ill-advised, or, at least, that they were generally ill-advised.

    In his comments here Nick-D has made comments about what he or she thinks my motives are. In my opinion these kinds of comments don't comply with the recommendations that discussions should be about editorial issues, not the personalities of the contributors involved in the discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, or serious rewrites that would be nearly an effective deletion, as can probably be gleaned from my above comments.
  TimothyJosephWood
  12:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment In analogous situations, I usually try to vary the boilerplate a little, as a matter of style. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree

1. If the passage is biased, a version, or versions, should be prepared, that isn't biased. I notice no one has been specific as to how it is biased. In my experience, when someone reports bias, but can't or won't be specific about the nature of the bias, it is important to bear in mind the possibility that the bias is within the observer, not in the passage they think is biased.
2. Has anyone who suggests deletion given any thought as to how to explain to reader why these individuals continued to be detained, without covering their review by the Guantanamo Review Task Force?
3. These individuals who have spent more than a decade in Guantanamo have gone through several different reviews: (1) OARDEC reviews, by the OARDEC agency -- a separate agency from JTF-GTMO; (2) habeas reviews; (3) formerly secret OARDEC reviews; (4) Joint Review Task Force reviews; and, those who were designated innocent, yet dangerous, Periodic Review Board reviews. How can coverage of these individuals possibly be improved by censoring that the Joint Review Task Force reviews even happened? Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

My concern is not primarily regarding

TimothyJosephWood

13:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Since I was the one who originally brought this to the project's attention, I should say that my original concern, as Geo Swan mentioned above, was the similarity of the texts, not their neutrality. However, I did notice the subtle use of
  WP:COAT, the relevant question is: is all of this information about Obama's promises essential to each of the Guantanamo prisoners' articles, or would it better to instead cut it down and provide a link to an article that would explain the context it more detail? Mz7 (talk
  ) 16:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary

The consensus seems to be to delete, or alter the usage of this boiler plate. Barring further comment, I think I'm willing to call the matter and give the go for anyone who wants to spend an afternoon on this. I would like to this weekend, but I don't know if I'll have time. Maybe I can get to it next week sometime.

TimothyJosephWood

21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood

13:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Specifically, above, I pointed out that, a month or so after I repeated the wording that triggered @Mz7:'s initial concern I had drafted an alternate wording, at Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force. Comments above agree we should consider alternate wordings -- but no-one has commented on the specific alternate wording from June 26, 2015, at Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force. Geo Swan (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate text proposal

We wanna get concrete? I like it. Let's do it. Looking at the article for Jabran al-Qahtani:

• Remove the first three sentences entirely per
  WP:COAT
  .
• Remove the Worthington source as it appears to be essentially this guy's blog.
• Remove "even though there was no evidence to justify laying charges against them" because that's not at all what the sources say, and probably
  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
  .

• What the first WaPo source says is "unprosecutable because officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and because detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion."
• What the second WaPo source says is that they "expressly stated or otherwise exhibited an intent to reengage in extremist activity upon release."

• Remove "too innocent to charge, but too dangerous to release" because the sources don't say anything even close to that, and because
  WP:RGW
  again.
• Include something like this, which actually says each individual was recommended for indefinite detention, because the current sources don't mention any names. Unfortunately, this source lists every detainee in detention as the time, and not the 48 recommended. A better source is still needed.

So we're left with something similar to this:

In 2010, the

Joint Review Task Force recommended Jabran al Qahtani as one of 48 individuals to be indefinitely detained as he was at a high risk to reengage in extremist activity, for fear that a trial could compromise intelligence-gathering, and the risk of challenging "evidence obtained through coercion."^[1][2][3] In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Department of Defense confirmed that Jabran al-Qahtani was one of 71 detainees eligible for a Periodic Review Board.^[4]

References

1. ^ Peter Finn (January 22, 2010). "Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. ^ Peter Finn (May 29, 2010). "Most Guantanamo detainees low-level fighters, task force report says". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
3. ^ "List Of Guantanamo Detainees". Real Independent News and Film. 01 October 2004. Retrieved 25 April 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Joint Review Task Force. 2013-04-09. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved 2015-05-18. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help
   )

We have two sentences, but importantly, we have two sentences about the subject of the article, and which don't go beyond what the sources say (with the exception of the needed source fingering him as one of the 48).

TimothyJosephWood

22:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Book request

Does anyone have a copy of For gallantry, the George Cross by Kenneth Hare-Scott? I'm after a scan of the page(s) relating to Dorothy Louise Thomas. TIA Nthep (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have not already, you may want to place a request on the following page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Regards,EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nthep: Wikimedia UK has grants which cover buying books. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base

In the process of editing a related article, I discovered this was a red link. I used to have access to a lot of information that could be used to produce a reasonable article on the topic, but I may still be able to come up with a lot of information. However, I don't really know how to write about the military. I just know that for many years my family went on vacation where we could hear their jets take off frequently. And the closing of this base was sad news. I still keep up daily with what is going on in the community through its newspaper and visit the resort every year.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want me to drop a copy of a high-grade airbase article in some sort of userpage or talkpage Vchimpanzee? You could use it then as a sort of a sandbox. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Andrews Field, the name for the previous Andrews Air Force Base, is a pretty high-grade article, apart from a couple of confusing sections and one section without references. That's a good guideline, and feel free to ask me any questions. Buckshot06 (talk)

00:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk

) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 4, 2016

This is a FAC from 2009, and the nominator has recently been indefinitely blocked. Some eyes on the article, Battle of the Coral Sea, would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I put it on my watchlist,

[majestic titan]

19:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm appalled. The 75th anniversary of the battle will be next year. There will be celebrations. And we want to run it a year early? Is there no way to stop this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Southern Air Command"

The usage and topic of Southern Air Command is under discussion, see talk:Southern Air Command (India) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"South Western Air Command"

The usage and topic of

Talk:South Western Air Command (India) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk

) 08:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wales contest finale

The contest/editathon is ending on Monday, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Finale has commenced. Over the course of the month we've seen a great number of improvements to Welsh castles and ships. The military history project has really benefited from this. If anybody feels like doing a few Welsh military/history articles over the weekend and Monday, even if minor cleanup/improvement of existing articles, or new entries, please add your articles to the bottom of the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. You don't need to compete or be involved in that to contribute, and we really need numbers on this closing weekend!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for Metallurgical Laboratory needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Metallurgical Laboratory; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Date formats

User:Jojhutton, who I don't think is a member of this project, has been altering date formats on pages about military personnel (mostly in the Band of Brothers crowd) from DMY to MDY. Contributions may be seen at Special:Contributions/Jojhutton. They were using one of the editing tools and I don't think he was reading the articles. If I'm wrong, someone say so; if I'm right, I don't want to get into a long-term editing war with this editor. So far, I've reverted Ronald Speirs, whose rank Jojhutton also deleted from the lead, and Winfield Scott Edgerly.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DMY format is US military format and applies to military members per

MOS:DATETIES, imo. -Fnlayson (talk

) 20:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DATETIES does not allow apply to biographies. Only military units and related articles. JOJ ^Hutton 22:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Based on what? There is nothing about restrictions on the MOS:DATETIES section. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on the fact that biographies are articles about a persons entire life. Doesn't need a restriction, because biographies are not military articles. Just because someone served in the military does not mean that the article is a military article. JOJ ^Hutton 22:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• And what if their military service is the only reason the person is notable?
  TimothyJosephWood
  23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Timothy, you took the words right out of my mouth. I understand Jo's point of view where a person's military service is incidental and unremarkable, but if it's their reason for notability (why the WP article exists) I see no reason the military format should not be used, as it has in several US military bios that have gone all the way to FA. If they're notable for military and other reasons (Grant and Eisenhower are obvious examples, though even then it was their military careers that led to their political careers) then I'd say there's a case for leaving it to the main editors' preferences. So as a rule I would not be arbitrarily changing date formats in all MilHist-tagged US bios. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• This may be a good opportunity to reach consensus and clarify this in
  TimothyJosephWood
  23:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Army CMH Style Guide 2011.pdf. Section 6.1 — Maile (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This is why I love the military. Someone, somewhere has an officially recognized opinion on compound adjectives.

TimothyJosephWood

23:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Many organisations have style guides. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but few have style guides and nuclear weapons.

TimothyJosephWood

12:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Request: Those familiar with non-US militaries, are there other examples with date formats?

TimothyJosephWood

11:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted, that in fact en:wikipedia.org is not "US Wikipedia", and besides of all, DMY is a worldwide standard in real life, not MDY. --Matrek (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Retaining the existing variety" is another element of the Style Guide. But essentially, if something becomes contentious, then changing without a consensus is a poor way to go about it. GraemeLeggett (talk

) 11:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Date formats

Per

MOS:DATETIES

, articles on subjects primarily related to militaries or military history should use the standard military date format, DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY). This includes spaces and excludes hyphens or commas. For example, "1 January 1900", is acceptable. Formats such as "1-January-1900"; "1 January, 1900"; "1January1900" or "1, January 1900", are not. In cases where the day is a single digit, a leading 0 should be omitted. For example: "1 January 1900", and not "01 January 1900."

The abbreviated format, DD Mmm YYYY (or D Mmm YYYY), is acceptable in cases where brevity is important, such as complex tables, or in cases where a date is repeated multiple times. However, in prose, the first mention of a date should include the full date format as outlined above. Subsequent uses of the same date may then be abbreviated.

Abbreviations should follow the same format as full dates above, regarding spaces, commas, hyphens, and leading zeros. In addition, three letter abbreviations should have only the first letter capitalized. For example, January should be abbreviated "Jan" and not "JAN".

In cases where the context is exceedingly clear, and brevity important, dates may be further abbreviated to the DD Mmm YY format. For example, "1 Jan 55". All previous guidance applies. This format should be avoided in any case where it may cause confusion, such as events that take place across century turns.

Biographies

Existing biographies related to military history should follow

WP:NOTABILITY

of the individual.

For example, an article on an individual, such as a Medal of Honor recipient, who is notable only for their military service, should most likely follow this format. An article on an individual, such as

George W Bush

, who would be notable had they never served in the military, most likely should not.

Biographies of civilians, such as

MOS:DATEFORMAT

.

All articles, regardless of topic or consensus, should follow

MOS:DATEUNIFY

, and should not mix date formats.

Again, just a draft to generate ideas. I realize its pretty US-centric and that should probably be addressed. I have no idea how uniformed non-armed services (e.g.,

TimothyJosephWood

14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Re "US-centric", the United States is one of the few that would even need this guideline. Other countries follow DMY as their standard style. Are there countries other than the US that uses MDY in civilian life? — Maile (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, all of Europe (UK possibly excepted) is on DMY.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

UK is DMY although MDY isn't disallowed - just less common. Nthep (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even the King used MDY (scroll down this page to his handwritten document, where he dates a document "April 15th 1942"), which Wikipedia of course converts to DMY in its references to that action. See

Kablammo (talk

) 15:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Canada can use either format. Llammakey (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent

20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

MDY is seen frequently in sufficiently old UK newspapers and such, though. It's occasionally annoying, because, logically, you should give the dates in the reference as used in the reference - but everyone wants to change them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Specific questions for those commenting:

• Do you support the idea of a MilHist MOS amendment regarding dates?
• If so, do you disagree with any of the standards I've given in the example and how? (e.g., Abbreviations should not be allowed. The use of hyphens should be permitted.)
• Are there any standards you would add to the example?

TimothyJosephWood

20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Like the proposal. Llammakey (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. I'm fine what what you're proposing. The current

WP:MILMOS only covers date ranges, so what you're proposing is really needed in the MOS. — Maile (talk

) 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Request What are some non-US equivalents of the examples used? Right now we have the Medal of Honor, Bush II, and Ash Carter. The VC seems like the obvious parallel to the MoH. Who can we use for the other two examples, someone for whom service is incidental to their notability, and a civilian related to military service, who has not served in uniform themselves?

TimothyJosephWood

21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Although I'm not at all opposed to the concepts articulated in the proposal (and would say that it mostly reflects the style I prefer to use), I do wonder if it is necessary to codify it when it probably is only a minor issue and would (I imagine) mostly only effect a small sub-set of our articles (i.e. US-related topics). Is there really a problem that requires a prescriptive "fix" or is this something that can just be worked out by editors on a case by case basis by discussion and the application of extant policy (such as

MOS:DATEUNIFY etc.)? I guess I can see editors from outside the project being concerned about us attempting to apply "our" style to articles which rightly fall under a number of projects, and expect some inevitable "push back" as a result. As an aside I'm not a fan of abbreviating dates at all (except in the case of tables or where brevity really does require it). For instance I couldn't see any reason to abbreviate a repeated date at subsequent use just for the sake of it. All the best. Anotherclown (talk

) 05:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Like Anotherclown, I also don't see the problem this well-intentioned proposal is trying to solve.

MOS:DATEVAR provides useful relevant guidance, and it's not really the case that there is such a thing as a "standard military date format". Even if the world's militaries did have a common approach on the topic, it wouldn't really matter because Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and uses general writing styles. Nick-D (talk

) 05:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D, Anotherclown, I agree 100% that it is pedantic, but that's kindof what an MOS is supposed to be. "Standard military date format" is probably incorrect language. But it is more or less the format used by NATO and in turn WikiProject NATO. NATO is about as strong as it's going to get for agreement on English conventions. Regardless, I agree that the "standard mil form" should be removed.

The abbreviation part can probably be completely removed. This is the kind of opinion I was hoping to solicit when I was puking out as many ideas as I could think of. It really doesn't even quite follow US standards, which would be full month=full year, abrv month = two digit year.

As to the possibility of MOS over application, it might improve the MOS to have a standoffish addition to the standard disclaimer re:

"Many articles may deal extensively, but not exclusively with military subjects, and this MOS may or may not be appropriate. The purpose of this MOS is to provide guidance, and help standardize the coverage of military topics, not to provide a basis for

WP:MOS

.

Admittedly, I have run into the occasional instance where editors want to over apply MEDMOS, but it's never been seriously disruptive.

Overall, I just wanted to explore the possibility of using this as an opportunity to improve the MOS, not necessarily to respond to an immediate or impending crisis. The intention wasn't so much to right a wrong, but to fill in a gap in our MOS identified by a disruptive editor. The MOS already has a date standard, so it's apparently within its scope, but it seems odd to address date ranges specifically, when you haven't addressed dates generally.

TimothyJosephWood

13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support I thought this was the way it already was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. It would be nice if this was in the MH MOS, because it repeatedly comes up at MOS Dates and Numbers. Examples 1, 2, 3. For a while, it was a recurring debate on Audie Murphy's article, but has died down a little bit for the time being. Not a must-have in the MH MOS, but it would be a nice back up. For whatever reason, this is just one of those topics that gets heated in debates. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I removed the guidance on abbreviations per comments above. I have combined the existing guidance on date ranges, and tweaked for consistency, to make a stand-alone date section. I have also added a reference and language to anchor this format as the standard format of the UN, as justification for its usage.

Dates

Existing articles related to military history should follow

MOS:DATERET

as a default, and extensive efforts should not be undertaken to comply with this guidance for it's own sake, unless there is strong consensus for the change.

Per

MOS:DATETIES, articles on subjects predominately related to militaries or military history should use the standard format adopted by the UN ^[1]

, DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY). This includes spaces and excludes hyphens or commas. In cases where the day is a single digit, a leading 0 should be omitted. For example:

• 1 January 1900 and not 1-January-1900; 1 January, 1900; 1January1900 or 1, January 1900
• 1 January 1900 and not 01 January 1900

All articles should follow

MOS:DATEUNIFY

, and should not mix date formats.

Date ranges

Military events often require the expression of a date range; this presents opportunities for clear, attractive formatting.

En dashes

The

Manual of Style

specifies that an en dash rather than a hyphen should be used. Where there are internal spaces within one or both items, the en dash should be spaced on both sides. Examples:

• 1968–70, not the hyphenated 1968-70
• May–August 1944
• 3 June – 15 August 1914; not 3 June - 15 August 1914
• 12–14 September 1943

Minimal repetition

Consider expressing date ranges without repetition; thus:

• January–March 1968, not January 1968 – March 1968
• 3–4 November 1951 not 3 November 1951 – 4 November 1951; nor even 3 November – 4 November 1951

Closing item

The closing item in a year range may be two digits rather than four, at editorial choice:

• The second phase (2004–06), rather than The second phase (2004–2006)

References

1. ^ "Numbers, dates and time". United Nations Editorial Manual Online. 2014. Retrieved 17 March 2016.

I've excised this portion of the previous draft, and propose it be added as the first section of the MOS, to preempt any attempts at using the MOS disruptively, as concerns have been expressed about this. It also doesn't really belong in a date section, as it deals with usage of the MOS generally, and not dates specifically. I also added non-US examples to help better globalize it. The reference to Marise Payne may be a weak one as I admittedly just googled "Australian defense minister". Elvis is American, but honestly I don't know any non-American examples to use.

Application

Many articles may deal extensively, but not exclusively with military related topics. When in doubt, or when there is no clear consensus, defer to

WP:MOS

. As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles.

Biographies

Consensus to follow this guidance on biographies of living or deceased persons should be based primarily on the prominence of military service in the

George W Bush or Elvis Presley, who would be notable had they never served in the military, most likely should not. Biographies of civilians, such as Marise Payne or Ash Carter

, who are notable in large part for military related reasons, but who themselves did not serve in uniform, should generally not follow this guidance.

Comments are welcome, especially from

TimothyJosephWood

14:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that

MOS:DATE specifies that for year to year ranges, the range's end year is usually abbreviated to two digits. So for your example above, the format would be 1968–70. Mojoworker (talk

) 19:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Fixed.

TimothyJosephWood

19:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so this has seen daylight for about a week and there's been no objection. The previous proposal seemed to have general support, and I've tried to address the concerns of two commenters, whom I pinged to this second proposal, with no resultant concerns raised. I'm going to go ahead and incorporate this into the MOS. If anyone has concerns feel free to revert and continue the discussion here.

TimothyJosephWood

13:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much,I was just about to post something about this myself. Yes, editors please stop by the review; I am aiming to try and get this article on the front page (as a FAarticle) by 7 July to coincide with the division's 100th anniversary of being launched upon the Somme. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

FA nomination needing more reviews

My FA nomination of the Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II article has now been open for just over a month, and would benefit from additional reviews. Any and all comments - including negative ones - at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II/archive1 would be gratefully received. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, scratch this - the article has just been (somewhat unexpectedly, but happily) promoted. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Operation Totalize

Does anyone know why footnote a) has a "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)."? I thought I'd cured it yesterday but alas not. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about using EFN tags, but through experimentation, I found that the issue was caused by a bare External Link. I looked at the other EFNs in the article, and there links were within ref tags, so I added one to the link. From looking at the documentation on Template:Efn, "Including external link markup will result in an error." - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that the warning meant that there was a loose <ref>, even though there weren't any. I'll remember the tip next time. Keith-264 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought that at first too, but when I removed the note, the warning went away, and the other EFNs weren't in notes eithet. That's when I noticed that some of the other notes had ref tags inside them, and that your note had the bare EL. Sometimes it just takes fresh eyes, and a dose of dumb luck! - BilCat (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hans-Ulrich Rudel needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Hans-Ulrich Rudel; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Action of 8 May 1941

Does anyone know how I managed to bungle the Cape Gardafui map? I can't find anything wrong yet it is. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this fixed? I looked but all seems okay, whereas I did see a glitch on a prior revision. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, thanks for checking.Keith-264 (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Frontier Wire (Libya)

Does anyone know if the coordinates (for both ends of the frontier wire) can be linked or combined or is it pointless? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

They can both be displayed without fighting by removing the 'title' parameter, which I've done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I'm part of Rumanian Wikipedia....

[14] I don't suppose anyone knows why? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@

[majestic titan]

07:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

My fame speads....;O))Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Same for me - Rumanian and French Wikipedias. Curiously not on Germany's, although I have been reading some of their pages (with Google Translate) recently... Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@

[majestic titan]

18:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I just got a two year old notification from the Chinese Wikipedia. went there, it was (no surprise) in Chinese script. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Trời đất hỡi, I'm part of Vietnamese Wikipedia. Had to translate the welcome, though. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Role-based lists of aircraft

There is a new discussion on whether to include the number of aircraft in role-based lists of aircraft here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some fresh voices in this discussion. It concerns several lists of military aircraft types. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

List of military rockets and List of missiles

Greetings from

Wikiproject Spaceflight

!

I see you guys are a little more active than we are. I was wondering if anyone could weigh in on a possible merger of lists. The parent list is Lists of rockets.

I think it would be logical to move List of missiles into List of military rockets, and then have a guided section (formerly List of missiles), and an unguided section (formerly List of military rockets). Every missile is a rocket, but not every rocket is a missile, so I think that would be a logical way to organize the two lists. I think it is a little confusing for folks that aren't familiar with the terminology, and I think the two lists logically are related. The difference between a missile and a rocket could then be explained at the top of the List of military rockets page.

What are your thoughts on this? Kees08 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme centenary

I've been plodding on with the article writing and re-writing but doubt that I'm going to get the rest done before 1 July. Pozieres is the last of the 12 big battle articles to be revamped and I've started on Gommecourt, which leaves Longueval, Beaumont Hamel and Mouquet Farm of the Other engagements to do. Perhaps anyone at a loose end could scan the articles that have been finished for improvements due to having new/better sources, typos to blam, inconsistencies of layout between articles etc, in anticipation of the surge of interest by the public? Better maps would be good too. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)