I've just created the above and had a quick question. If he is declared missing in 1943 but presumed dead by 1946, are all the death dates, death cats and infobox set for 1946 or 1943? I've set them all to 1946 but happy to be corrected. --S.G.(GH)ping!10:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The main question is why is this individual notable at all? His rank, post and decorations do not make him inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've found some sources that state he has a street named for him in Pearl Harbour, and part of a base in the Philippines also, which should help him get through GNG. S.G.(GH)ping!11:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Are there any in-depth sources independent of the US Navy about this person? I imagine that the USN routinely names things after captains who are killed in action (a tradition which many services around the world share, for obvious reasons), so that's not really evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The book source calls him "a pioneering captain" but doesn't elaborate. I'm still a-hunting for some explanation of such a moniker. --S.G.(GH)ping!11:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead and put merger notices on the articles and make the usual notifications to contributers to the article? It would seem that the same thing goes for Faßberg Air Base and RAF Fassberg. Since this is the English Wiki, I'd use "ss" in a merged Fassberg article instead of "ß". Fassberg Air Base already exists as a redirect. I'd agree with merging both articles.
Hi, in relation to the issue outline here, I was wondering if Wikipedia has any policy concerning Warfare articles naming or its just per WP:RS?--PLNR (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. The official history of the USAAF in the war is also PD and is available in PDF format here (note that the file sizes are rather large, and the server is slow). The official history of the US Navy in the war isn't PD though due to the unusual way it was commissioned and published. The US Government bookshop sells a DVD with the full set of the Army series for only $US 11 which I'd recommend as a useful resource: [1]. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I'll also note the excellent Hyperwar website, which hosts the PD US official histories as well as some of the British and Australian volumes which are no longer copyright protected. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Last month I nominated the article about Elizabeth of Bosnia for FA status, but it has not attracted enough reviewers yet. Elizabeth was involved in civil wars in two different countries, and the article (rated GA) is thus within the scope of WikiProject Military history. I would be very grateful if a member of this WikiProject commented on the nomination. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The Race to the Sea article has a reference to the First Battle of Artois (27 September – 10 October) which is linked to this First Battle of Artois which is actually December 1914–January 1915. Does anyone know if there's a name for operations 27 September – 10 October 1914 (Arras perhaps?) ? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I found that the French OH casualty count Pertes des Armees Francaises refers to La course a la mer, l'bataille d'Artois and l'Yser whih I assume are equivalent to the RttS and Yser. Not much help though.Keith-264 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Sources I have seen online do not seem to have a name for this apart from Artois, which is indeed ambiguous and confusing as you point out.
Identifying some (Indian Army?) campaigns, WWI and interwar
Writing an article at the moment for Henry Lowrie Davies, who's Who's Who entry records:
Joined 18th Royal Garhwal Rifles in India, 1916; served European War (Mesopotamia, Army of Black Sea); on NWF of India in Waziristan operations, 1922–23; in Mohmand operations NWF of India, 1933;
What is the current fate of the 12 Naval Infantry Brigade of the Yugoslav navy? In the article there is no direct indication that it disbanded. 90.189.106.180 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Word usage
I'm about to start a conversation over at WT:FAC on putting together a word usage guide based on some subset of Wikipedia articles. I know there's interest at FAC ... I don't know if there's interest anywhere else, but I hope there is, and I don't have any preconceptions that the guide has to be based just on word usage in Featured Articles. Please join us. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Battle of the Somme Would someone mind looking at the lead, where a recent edit had interpolated material about Harold Macmillan, which I think has given undue weight to an individual and makes no sense in the lead? I reverted it but the reasons I gave have not impressed the editor. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I know opinion is very much divided on how useful portals actually are for most of our users, but whatever everyone thinks, it's a fair assumption that the Portal:World War I will be used much more frequently in the coming year or two. The portal itself, however, is in serious need of some TLC. There are unaddressed suggestions for content which date from as far back as 2010; the current articles selected also do not reflect the most important topics (or even the best content...) related to the area on WP. In short, it would be great if some of the dedicated WWI editors who work here might take a look at it and perhaps rehabilitate it a bit! Brigade Piron (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There have been a fair number of notes here over the past few weeks relating to WWI. There was a suggestion at the co-ordinators page to resurrect some of the talk pages for some of the task forces. Would that help or should discussion be at the portal talk page? There are a number of dedicated WWI editors around, but I'm not sure how much co-ordination is going on. One of the ideas I thought worth floating was a newsletter to highlight some of the WWI work going on (once you start looking, there is a lot of it, maybe more than people realise). That might also give more of an idea of what areas need attention. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I certainly think that's a good idea, and in a way, I think that the coordination problem you highlight is one of the main failings of Wikipedia. Is anyone else in favour of the idea? In the meantime, as an admin, can you promote some of the longest-standing suggested articles? Brigade Piron (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I can try. Though you may want someone more familiar with portals and how this promotion process works. Are there any admins around here willing to help out? I'll try and get to this if not, but anyone else should feel free to jump in. About co-ordination, there is a backlog drive mentioned below, though I've only just noticed as I didn't pay enough attention to this month's (last month's?) Bugle issue... I will mention the WWI task force talk page thing on the co-ordinators' talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Use of citation templates on the Erich Hartmann article
I would like some guidance on the use of the {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}} templates, especially in context of the Erich Hartmann article. In all of my most recent articles that went to A-class, FA-class or FL-class I was encouraged to make use of these templates to uniformly cite information. Bzuk (talk·contribs) chose to revert this work here and here without adding any valuable content to the article as such. He also informed me on my talk page that "There is no, repeat NO requirement to use citation templates, on any article, regardless of what editors claim, especially not the awful ones that were chosen." I am not especially keen on getting into an edit war over this issue. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi MB, I've worked with Bzuk on some articles and I know his citation style. I believe he's correct that templates are not required. OTOH, my understanding is that a citation style that's already in place and consistent within an article should not be altered simply because one editor prefers a different style. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I expect that Bzuk will seek consensus prior to changing the citation style, until then, the templates stay! I will accept either or. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no particular opinion on any of this and I tend not to care about how external links are arranged.
I have to say, what bothers me more is the bibliography layout which may look nice but it horrid and laborious to put together. I sincerely hope that does not become the standard marker for this aspect of article writing.
Since Misterbee is a main author, it only seems fair that these sorts of arrangements become his prerogative. Moreover, if there is no particular/official requirement, which I'm inferring from Bzuk's edit summary comment, then I am wondering why it was challenged in the first place. Dapi89 (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
At an earlier stage in article development, the bibliography entries were formatted without templates. Personally, I find the template form easier to use than remembering whether a comma or period is needed between author and title, or if the date should be in brackets. No matter how it's formatting if there's enough information for me to find the source, I'm happy. However, I believe Bzuk has extensive experience in the various real world citation formatting styles (MLA, APA etc) - none of which the template form quite lines up with - and is quite passionate about correct use of them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
British Army officer ( WWI) dates of military service
Nothing in Who Was Who (his entry basically says "Eton" and an address), and officers' records aren't online. If there's nothing in the Gazette, I think you might be more or less out of luck. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you I've expanded the paragraph significantly, based on the above but placed into chronological order. I had to adjust one or two dates to match what was stated in the LG (e.g. transfer to the Berkshire (Hungerford) Yeomanry was 1 April 1908, not 1 June as shown above). All that's missing is the date of his promotion from 2nd Lt. to Lieutenant. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, there wasn't really any "transfer" between the two - the Berkshire IY just seamlessly morphed into the Berkshire Yeomanry. I'm not quite sure where the (Hungerford) comes in, but I suspect it simply denotes which local squadron he was associated with. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, L.G. 28171 p. 6224 states "TERRITORIAL FORCE. YEOMANRY. ... Berkshire (Hungerford); the undermentioned officers, from the Berks Imperial Yeomanry, are appointed to the regiment, with rank and precedence as in the Imperial Yeomanry. Dated 1st April, 1908: ... Second Lieutenant Eric Brand Henderson." --Redrose64 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, everyone! Gavbadger, GraemeLeggett, and myself have been working on an update to Template:Infobox military installation (found here), including merging a few templates, adding in airport template information, and making it overall a bit more user friendly. One major change that everyone might notice is that you no longer need to add "[[File:" before the image and "]]" after it, as well as specifying the image size. There are also now three image parameters in the infobox, including one for the main image, a secondary one right below it for a major command, and a third one at the bottom of the image. Due to this update, I have requested that a bot remove these extra parameters here, but due to the length of time that it takes to set a bot up, I will likely update the infobox within the next twelve hours, and fix the image parameters later on once the bot is set up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Good addition :) I've generated a sample article in my sandbox User:Bwmoll3/sandbox, however it's not showing many of the parameters. Perhaps one of the authors can have a look and see where I missed something ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You were directly pulling from the main template, but I have re-routed it to the sandbox. The only thing we need to fix is the image issue that is apparent there, but otherwise it is almost ready to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you might have to purge the page. I kept running into that example on the testcases page earlier (and incidentally that is why I had the issues with those templates). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
While I may have helped in the early stages, I haven't contributed much since then and in fairness the credit for getting the template working and into a usable form is really down to the others. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
One rather extreme example of what can be done with this has been posted on the template's main page, but so far, we haven't found any issues worth reporting. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
SNCF and WWII -- assistance please
Hello again to the members of this Wikipedia project. As I have introduced myself previously, my name is Jerry Ray and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. My focus in past messages here has been to ask for help of independent editors to discuss inaccuracies in the information about WWII in the SNCF article, and I am here again on this basis today. A recent edit has added information to the section that I understand to be cherry-picked from the source, presenting an inaccurate and biased view of SNCF's operations during the WWII period.
In particular, the new material provides an inaccurate interpretation of a report on historical records of SNCF's activities in occupied France that appears designed to present the SNCF as culpable for deportations. This is a very sensitive topic and one that needs careful review of sources and understanding of context, which I believe members of this project will be able to assist with.
Gday all. Just a reminder that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/February 2014 backlog reduction drive has now commenced. The drive started at 00:01 UTC on 1 February 2014 and runs until 23:59 UTC on 15 March 2014. Pls head over and sign up if you are interested in helping out. Focus this time around is on improving our World War I articles to coincide with the 100th anniversary of that conflict this year, but there are many other areas to contribute also. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A Modest Proposal for the next drive: The incomplete B class backlog has had an incredible reduction in the past year or so, from over 20,000 to under 1,000. The Structure, Grammar, and Supporting Materials backlogs are now much larger because of the concentration on incomplete checklists, so perhaps working on one of them would be appropriate next time. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The URL had a '§ion=1' bit on the end. I removed that with this edit. There is a way to provide a link that starts a new section: you append '§ion=new' to the URL. Whether you can combine that with automagically providing the required sections for each worklist, I don't know. On the topic of the backlog drive, am I right in thinking that the idea is to take articles currently below B-class, to improve them as much as possible, then re-submit for B-class assessment and then claim any points that result from that assessment? I think that is the aim, but the array of B-class criteria to claim points for is a bit confusing. Carcharoth (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Anotherclown, I have a couple of questions about the backlog drive and about co-ordination of WWI editing in general. I was hoping that the edit I made here might have got a response, but nothing yet. Would the talk page of the backlog drive be the best place to ask questions, or is here better? What I have is plans to expand existing stubs and improve some current articles from below B-class to B-class and then submit for assessment, but I'm not clear what the 'stubs' backlog is and how it is cleared (by expanding stubs - is a reassessment needed?). If you (or anyone else) can answer these questions, that would be great. The last time I took part in anything like this was the Henry Allingham contest back in late 2009 and early 2010! :-) I kind of wish there was a way to measure the change in Wikipedia's WWI articles in the 4 years since - is it possible to do stats on that to see if the numbers of WWI article at various rating levels has increased (and indeed how much the overall number of WWI articles has gone up by)? Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been doing a bit of research on this item and have run across differing sources. Some say Operation Z others say Z Plan. However, if you look at the original translated cover from the picture from this article: http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/fall/z-plan-1.html you will see the word Operation, and even within that same article it states operation; however that same article predominantly uses the word Plan. I, inadvertently, created the article Operation Z (1944). I feel that the article should be one or the other; however, I am not sure which is the best location for said article. If it was up to me, I would, as I have already done, name the article Operation Z... as this seems to be what the item was referred to during the war. The Project word seems to have come from the author of the piece in Prologue. I will await a discussion before any further action. There is a second problem in that the Prologue piece states different facts regarding Fukudome's arrival in the Philippines, in particular the portion regarding the briefcase/box. My main source was John Toland's The Rising Sun ISBN978-0394443119. It states vastly different facts. Should both versions be stated with a caveat?speednat (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I ran through the linked document quickly, searching for "z" and it seems to me that the Japanese term was "Z Plan" while the Allied trsanslation was "Operation Z." I'd call the page Z Plan with Operation Z as a redirect.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk20:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm done. There are still a few links to Allies (and redirects thereto) - they are mostly non-WWI/WWII-related uses of the words "ally" or "allies", or cases where it wasn't clear which World War's "Allies" were being referenced, or where it was a reference to the Allies of both World Wars. Also, I didn't update links from talk pages or user pages. DH85868993 (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
We had a recent WP:CFDclosure that resulted in a manual merge for several categories of "Muslim" (military personnel) of various sorts. The only one remaining to clear out is Muslim generals. I'm requesting assistance from project members her to find better categories for all of the entries. If a given entry is already sufficiently categorized (e.g. in the army they served in), then the category can simply be removed. Once the category is emptied, it will be deleted. Drop a note on my talk page if you'd be willing to help - thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Archived a few threads
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Warning about using as a source books by Frank Joseph
I just came across The Axis Air Forces:Flying in Support of the German Luftwaffe by Frank Joseph. ABC-CLIO describes him[2] as "professor of world archaeology with Japan's Savant Institute, and recipient of the Midwest Epigraphic Society's Victor Moseley Award. His published works include more than 20 books in as many foreign editions, such as Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45." Impressive, right? At face value, certainly sounds like a reliable source if you don't question it. But leaving aside the fact that the Savant Institute only seems to be mentioned on the web in connection with Joseph, we know Joseph better as Frank Collin, ex-Nazi and writer of New Age and fringe archaeology material. Descriptions of him by the publisher of his other two books, Helion, are equally or even more misleading.
Quick check- his Air Forces book is used in several articles:[3] (reviewed here[4], "Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa" used even more widely:[5], "Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45"is used in [6]. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You need to be very careful about using these sorts of authors, but they can still be useful. I've read a lot of Landwehr and some of his material looks to be perfectly fine. You just have to filter out the pro-Nazi puffery and bias. I'd be very uncomfortable in removing every reference to his work as you're probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater as he's sometimes the only source that I've seen in English for some info on obscure SS units. So I'd recommend caution in removing material relating to any author wholesale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand your viewpoint, of course, but I'm not sure that fits well with WP:RS. It's OK to say that bits are useful, but bits of unpublished blogs are also correct and useful but are not permitted. As far as I'm concerned, Landwehr is a self-published source (his political views, rather than quality of research being the reason for publication) and therefore is not acceptable. Plus, I'm not sure it's possible to draw the line, once he is included, about how far his "reasonable" content stretches. I would be very wary about it. Brigade Piron (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, there's a couple of interesting posts from a historian on how to handle Joseph/Collin here and here. Note that the discussion of both Mussolini's War and Axis Air Forces suggest they're problematic; this whole thing smells a bit Irving-like to me. If you know you can't trust half of it, it doesn't say much for the rest... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree: these kind of authors often deliberately exclude mentions of atrocities and the like (for instance, briefly noting that they're not going to cover war crimes committed by the German military units covered as the book is a military history...) and include rubbish-quality analysis. The firms who publish these kind of authors tend to exercise little to no apparent quality control over the books, which also diminishes their changes of qualifying as RS. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
A slightly tangential point which I'd be interested in hearing you opinions on - would primary sources but ones with distinct political stances, such as those written by Léon Degrelle, be acceptable for sourcing an article? He is currently the only source cited in the article about the Walloon SS in a modern edition, published by a neo-Nazi/white supremacist publisher. Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The Hungarian Air Force article seems to have a continual stream of edits, mainly from IP editors, altering or removing cited information, and giving no discussion or sources. More eyes (and possibly some sort of protection) are needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, it does say "thus far", perhaps another will come out of the woodwork with all the coverage of the next four years. But even if they did, does a list of two (or even three names) warrant a standalone article rather than putting it all together in a (eg) military history of Fiji during World War I article? Personally, I think not and I'd not stand in your way if you Prod-ded either list. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I suppose my question would be why we have lists for countries that did not exist - Estonia (and a host of others - Latvia, Georgia, Lithuania, Slovakia etc.) in this case. The only entry on the list flew for the Russian Empire (and indeed he was dead before Estonia declared independence in 1918). And Brewster-Joske flew for the RFC, not any Fijian unit. The problem with these lists is that they suggest there was some Fijian Air Force or an Estonian Air Force that predated 1918. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Documents I would like to share
I have a folder on my computer full of .pdf and Microsoft word files that I've collected over the past few years, all are from the Air Force Historical Research Agency. I would like to make them available to the community so they can be used as reference documents. I'm unsure, however, which of the various Wikipedia projects to upload them to. Assistance please? Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. Anyone who knows, please tell me - I've got one or two I'd like to upload in time!! Bwmoll3, you can of course scan them and place them at Commons, but it's not quite the anticipated use of that. Buckshot06(talk)10:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That was my understanding as well. As long as the documents are public domain (which AFHRA materials should be, if I'm not mistaken), they should be suitable for WikiSource.
Having said that, Buckshot06 is correct in the sense that WikiSource is intended for text contributions rather than files; in order to put the material there, you'd need to copy it out of the PDF and DOC files and upload just the raw text itself. Kirill[talk]11:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The reason I scored out what I said was that WikiSource said that contributions had to have been previously published. I thought it was the perfect place, but none of the materials Bwmoll3 is talking about have been previously published (or the African national defence laws that I was considering). Do others share my reading of the rules? I would love to have a place to put scarce documents online... Buckshot06(talk)08:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
We don't use unpublished documents as sources, and I feel pretty strongly that only documents on their originating site or another related official site should be used. That's our general policy/guideline so far as I know. Otherwise we don't know that the document hasn't been tampered with. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Many of them are .doc files from emails I've sent to the AFHRA asking for unit histories. Others are .pdf files which come from the AFHRA or Army sources of reports or pamphlets. I'm willing to index the pdfs as I have a copy of acrobat; however many of them aren't really suitable for conversion to text files as they contain inbedded photographs, tables and other that don't translate well to plain text. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Problem with Infobox template...
I've noticed that, fairly recently, the infoboxes at articles such as Warwick Castle and Berkhamsted Castle aren't displaying their maps. This seems to be fairly widespread across similar MilHist articles, but I can't see what might be causing it... I'm wondering if this is linked to the recent changes to the Template:Infobox military installation. Any ideas? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Gavbadger seems to have corrected the issues, but I am wondering if anyone knows how to add in the acceptance of the old parameter for the time being, or at least run a bot that will correct these simple issues. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gav. There are an awful lot of these affected (I'm just thinking of all those castles alone...) Following on from Kev's point, can't we make the template retro-compatible, or use a bot? I don't mean to sound ungrateful to the team that's upgraded the infobox, but I don't really want to be made to plough through all those article by hand because of a minor parameter change to a template... Hchc2009 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
{{nowrap|1,234 curries}} per day there's a disagreement about nowrapping numbers in the Cambrai 1917 page. I was under the impression that numbers should be, to prevent future edits linebreaking inside the number. Is this right? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This officer commanded one of the first attack helicopter companies in the U.S. armed forces in combat, commanded an aviation battalion, and later commanded an infantry brigade (though as a colonel, not a brigadier). Sources are a mix of media articles and books. It is my judgment that he is notable, though page numbering needs to be added for Prochnau, Booth, and Tregaskis. Once that's done it can be mainspaced. Buckshot06(talk)20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The former certainly is impressive. It would easily survive an AfD, so it should be mainspaced. It does need page numbers and some tidying, but neither detracts from the subject's notability. As to the latter, I'd bet a fiver that's been copied verbatim from somewhere, probably an official US Army site or a fansite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The first one may be impressive in terms of length, but I'd say it's got some prose issues and may be overstating its claim regarding Slavich being the commander of the "first armed helicopter unit." Not saying he's not notable, but if he is it's likely not for some of the reasons claimed. Intothatdarkness20:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
We badly need third opinions and extra eyes-on at Somali Civil War. The main editor of this article up to a few days ago is seemingly a Somali, well-experienced wikipedian, cites his material, but in my view suffers from a bias that makes things difficult. He continually tries to water down the brutality of the civil war, increase the perceived power/authority of the transitional central governments, and reduce their atrocities. He's been blocked for edit-warring three times before. I am attempting to expand the article's coverage of events since 1995, but am continually finding my edits reverted and events which I describe distorted. Take a look, please; better still, add it to your watchlist for a while. Regards Buckshot06(talk)02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. I've heard of this practice of some police departments re-purposing military awards for police use simply for logistical convenience, but I would oppose Wikipedia doing the same. My request is for a new ribbon alternative for the existing barnstar. I'm advertising my request to reach interested contributors especially to ensure that the ribbon design well-represents contributions to both world wars' subject material. Chris Troutman (talk)20:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I presume this is an oversight, but the open tasks page doesn't include any featured picture candidates listed at Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, and I don't think it includes any other non-article content, like featured portal candidates, either.
Now, the thing is, Template:WPMILHIST Announcements isn't actually linked from the main page that I can tell - not in any way that would indicate it as the go-to place for all non-article assessments, certainly - so hiding content from it on the page that is really obscures such content. I had wondered why you never see educated MILHIST people coming over to FPC to give advice on their subject of expertise.
It looks like the open tasks page was never updated when we introduced a separate FPC list in the announcements template; the FPCs were originally listed in the "other featured content" parameter, and that's the only one that was displayed on the open task page. I've now added the FPC listing to the page explicitly, so that should no longer be an issue. Kirill[talk]20:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Where can I request help with an article I've written on the above subject? Currently still in my User:Pn4Ls/sandbox, this is the first article I have written for Wikipedia and I especially request help with wordiness, NPOV, photo uploading, and I can't seem to separate my references and notes. I have recently had the article returned to me from the NOK of this soldier and have made the corrections they recommended and think its nearly ready to publish. Pn4Ls (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
While it is nice to see another editor working in NZ military biography, I have to agree with Brigade Piron RE the subject's notability. Unfortunately, being awarded the DCM does not automatically make a person notable. Check out the Milhist notability guide. Zawed (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree earned a unique collection of 13 medals would seem to quaify but I can only count 12 medals in the list, some being campaign medals. Also at first glance, without digging too deep, received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Signpost's featured content section
Hello everyone, would anyone have an interest in writing for the Signpost's featured content section. It's not (necessarily) too time-consuming; while I'd like to see original content, the summaries can be copy/pasted from the articles in the interests of saving time. Anyone willing to take the leap? Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Cliftonian, this week's edition needs 37 FP descriptions. That's far more than normal, and I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to take on such a ridiculous amount, but if you'd like to take on the beat for future weeks, I'd be grateful! I'm looking for more people to help reduce everyone's workload, too. Ed[talk][majestic titan]10:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Merchant ship struck by missile during Korean War?
Does anyone have any information re the British merchant ship SS Dunkery Beacon being struck by a missile in 1950 during the Korean War, with the loss of at least one crew member. Only info I've got comes from a non-RS. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
A guided missile seems very likely, but it could have been a rocket as the Soviets used those in WW2. When and where? I'd be surprised that any Allied merchant shipping was close to Korea after June 1950.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there any sourcing for the ship serving in the Korean campaign? That article has vast detail on WWII convoy movements, but nothing post-war. At the very least, it ought to be possible to add Korea service to the article (or maybe it didn't go and it was just a different ship). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Not a troopship but a general cargo ship. I've not put in the claim re KW because the source is a blog. I did search The Times but came up with a blank. If reliable info cannot be sourced, it is best left out. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Book: Thames Valley Airfields in the Second World War
Hi Gavbadger, if you don't manage to find anyone with a copy, you could possibly ask Wikimedia UK for a grant; they're usually quite happy to stump up the sort off money needed it looks like this one goes for ~£25 on Amazon) for a book if it's for use in a Wikipedia article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, but it will be okay thanks, I wanted it because a website that is used as a reference says the information came from the book but doesn't say what page. I would of preferred to actually have the page number instead of the website address, but the website address will suffice. Gavbadger (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Since there was no consensus (1 vote for Plan Z and 1 for Operation Z), and since I was the only vote for Operation Z, I will combine the articles under Z Plan. It may not occur immediately, but will go on my to do list. speednat (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Oncenawhile (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Translating technical terms - policy?
I've been getting back into editing wikipedia and doing some work around military organization and command in WWI and WWII. One little issue that's cropping up is whether or not to translate technical terms, and if so whether to go with literal translations or to try and use equivilant terms. All three options crop up in sources. Any guidance would be appreciated. RaiderAspect (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Nine times out of ten I would say no. Many terms like Panzerfaust are used in the English-language literature so translating wouldn't really be helpful. I guess dependent on the situation it would be useful to add some English-language description like German shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon. I've always gone by the terms my sourcing was using. I think your use of the term quartiermeister is appropriate. You've explained what it meant and the word has deeper meaning then deputy chief of staff or some-such. Chris Troutman (talk)07:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting for an answer, this project has a lot of members, so please could somebody let me know. Thanks, C67915:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question 100%, but I'll give a try at an answer... I would say it's not as simple as just finding the location of the town (or equivalent) in the title. I'd add that if you're not certain that the coordinates are actually on the battlefield, then you shouldn't fill them in. I generally choose a location that's near the center of the battlefield. In the case of US Civil War battlefields that are part of the US National Park system, it seems the coordinates used are often those of the Visitor's Center for the park. If you can find the battlefield location in Google maps satellite view, then just right click on the spot and select "What's here?", it will show you the latitude and longitude of that location. Mojoworker (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The war on error continues, and Battle of Winchester is the last military history disambiguation page on the February 2014 list of most-linked disambiguation pages. Expert help in knocking this one out would be greatly appreciated! bd2412T14:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently, there is an article at Indian auxiliaries about "Auxiliary Indians" (indios auxiliares) about the time of the Conquistadors and the Spanish Empire. It occurs to me that such a generic title should be a disambiguation page, linking to all forms/units of Native America auxiliaries, and South Asian auxiliaries... What do you guys think? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
One problem is that auxiliaries is a rather broad term, varying in meaning according to time and context. Were the South Asian auxiliaries to which you refer the same as the tribal irregulars employed by the Spanish in the Americas, and if so which foreign power were they allied with? The various colonial powers of the 17th-20th centuries often employed local levies which might termed auxiliaries but they could vary from casually employed "friendlies" under their own leadership through to organized and trained units such as the French goumiers. Buistr (talk)
I actually wouldn't think it deserves a separate page, unless I've been missing something and forgotten that these bikes have mounted weapons or waht not. Right now, all I see are camo-colored motorbikes. Buggie111 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
There's certainly material to justify an article. I've got about three books on the shelf here on "military motorcycles", without even looking at single model histories. Many models, and even whole makers, have been developed to make motorcycles meeting the specific needs of the military. They're not just green bikes. There are even the weirdos like the French anti-tank scooter, the US hydraulic four(sic)-wheel drive, the Italian halftrack trike and of course the Kettenkrad. There's also a significant crossover into diesel motorcycle, where the non-petrol armies of today have been able to eradicate the petrol engine from everything except motorcycles and chainsaws. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks. I'm going to start on a project to try to get topics related to Ford Island to featured topic status. A lot of these articles are related to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Would anyone be interested in working on these with me? We could even get Attack on Pearl Harbor to GA or FA and overlap another featured topic. Sources should be plenty, there is a lot of history here. My main interest is in Ford Island itself, but this is a great project for anyone with interest in the attacks as well.--v/r - TP03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello from WikiProject Bibliographies
Hello everyone!! I am from Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies and would like to invite people here to help our readers to find links to bibliographies at one central location (Wikipedia:List of bibliographies). The page will be reinvigorated over the next few months. You are the first project I have approached about helping populate this. I asking for help because I am assuming this project would have a preferences in how and what should be added and thus could set a format for presentation of the bibliographies covered by this Military history project. -- Moxy (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed there are some (quite a few) issues with both, but not a bad start. Bit of work has already been done by a few editors but quite a bit more required. Hopefully some other editors might be interested in assisting. Anotherclown (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Gónada, my Spanish-English dictionary isn't too helpful with translating this as it translates literally as genitals. I'm presuming from the es.wikipedia article [9] that they're a longer barreled cannon than a Carronade, possibly the equivalent of a bow gun or a swivel as they're quite small. Any help, the context is translating [10]. Wee Curry Monstertalk17:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... My advice would be to italicise them and call them by their Spanish name, I'm having trouble finding a better alternative. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
But the article lacks in-line citations for verification and hold opinions that may not be verifiable, so the article needs copy editing to bring it in line with Wikipedia norms. I am placing the information here so that those with an interest in this project are aware it exists. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The article appears to use Wikia as a source, instead of as a history attribution. The attribution template is located under references, instead of the talk page, where it should sit, with similar templates, like {{copied}} or {{translated}}. Wikia is not a WP:RS and should not appear in the references section. I tried to fix this error, but was reverted. The color and being a box is a direct indication that the wikia attribution template is not for use on article pages. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
To meet both the licence requirements of Wikia and Wikipedia's plagiarism guideline requirements on copyleft, attribution must be placed in article space, as specified in plagiarism guideline. I have altered the template so that it checks on whether it is in a talk space or some other space so that the template alters its display for a specific name space. -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Request for help on HMS Clio (1807)
Does anyone have a copy of British warships of the age of sail, 1793-1817 by Rif Winfield who can confirm the information cribbed from this source on HMS Clio (1807). I am looking to confirm the information I have to hand on the complement and armament of HMS Clio. Thanks in advance. Wee Curry Monstertalk22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Generations of Main Battle Tanks to help avoid an edit war
Hey folks,
I've been recommended here by a mod of the wikipedia support IRC to hopefully get a little help with an article that is being consistently abused by people trying to use casual thoughts and opinions over sources.
As has been cited on the page, there are 3 known generations of MBT. However the editor 'Rasseru' has consistently "undone" the efforts to keep it correct and trying to imply there is a "4th" generation populated solely by the Japanese Type 10 tank that they really seem to love personally (as evidenced by their posts in the talk page) and via using a misinterpreted article that states it as the "4th generation of Japanese tanks", but that doesn't mean it's "4th gen" in the terms of the article. (It simply means that it's the 4th MBT they've made, when you check the article) Some of the other "cites" they use to say "4th generation" are simply hobby sites or general internet descriptions, not genuine sources and certainly not listed by the generational specifics that define the article from its highest sources. I have corrected it, been undone and then brought it to the talk page of the article, only for him to remove everything I ever said on there, something which a wikipedia mod has put a mention of proper process of on his talk page. As such, it's clear they didn't want to discuss it with me and were just trying to remove everything I'd done to keep the article accurate to sources. However, I was recommended to come here and seek help from other editors for this issue on how to correct it all and keep them from consistently edit warring this page on tank history.
Thanks for any help folks, I stand ready to aid however needed.
This is a somewhat muddled issue. Sources of debatable reliability do speak of a "fourth generation", while other sources of equally debatable reliability call the same tank "third generation". Expert attention would be highly welcome. Huon (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thats fully understood. However the page thus far has been defined by the 1983 Rolf Hilmes source at the top. Thats the one that it's all been laid out according to already. If we're to rechange it all, then all the definitions of it needs to be changed around as currently it's been made to change because of "which tank is better" as opposed to by defined traits or dates which should be stated clearly. Each one is defined by some sort of technology currently, but the "4th gen" ones suggested by Rasseru don't bring anything new to the table to change that in a historical sense. I just worry that the page will turn into arguements over "which tank is best and should be countered as 'good enough' to be in any table, as opposed to that of historical and documented definitions regardless of individual ability. As can be seen, Rasseru's comments started with "I think" which says enough to me that if it becomes about individual "power" and "what wins over what" it would create a massive can of worms in future of 'tank arguements', that's my primary concern to keep using the traditional generational definitions instead of 'power levels'. --User:TheFuzzyOne (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
TheFuzzyOne didn't fully read the source about advanced 3rd generation and fourth generation. Clearly in many new sources stated that "using a new generation of technology" and using fourth generation armor same as fighting wheeled units. Plus in the fact the design and advancement that was put into a tank that is rarely seen by other nations and not a upgraded version. I maybe be one of the people who suggested and the future angle the article... I talk this out in the talk before. Before I made any changes and waited for a while, did some research on the subject and found sources. TheFuzzyOne just came and undone everything without talking about it at first. I have another concern of users who do not have their profile or user wiki setup. I seen these users not trusted with their sources and who don't state their background or allow comment on wiki user page for future talk. As I added more source after the first undone. I felt TheFuzzyOne comments were very harassing on the topic and not open minded at all. Didn't give me a chance to state my debatable views of the topic. If TheFuzzyOne clearly wanted to talk about this issue? He would talk in a better tone than he is doing now. Also he is failing take in recent events and developments. This source of "1983 Rolf Hilmes" is from another era and things have changed in 30 years from tanks at that time. I am willing to give up on "fourth generation" idea because clearly someone else will bring up this topic again and again. But I won't give advanced 3rd generation that clearly be seen now and a lot more people are using this term in wiki and in the public. I am willing to stop posting to "Generations of Main Battle Tanks" if TheFuzzyOne is not allow to post on that article as well. We would just harass each other on who is right. Because TheFuzzyOne clearly over reacts on my talk comment "I think" as individual stating the fact. This word is misplace out of context and I do not think my word is law. That why I may of moved the talk that is maybe a bad move and the talks were very one sided to TheFuzzyOne. I do not know why power is being bring up to this arguments? Someone really thinks that this is about power? Lastly, if this topic is about Asian against Western powers? No Asian nation should be looked down on their military advancements and the technology they could make. A lot of info was lost with the undo from other users from removing advanced third generation and fourth generation. Rasseru (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I like to point out that the naming and assigning of the generations is not done by the military. The "generations concept" comes from the media and the public to tell others "that this tank is better because....". Also if you put this in a book or a film you have to use "generations concept" for the viewer to better understand. Since the Military now just explain things by technologically which people are now smarter to understand. Less need to class tanks by a "generation" to get people to understand. Also "generations" is use for historians that really don't study current technologies that much of the time. Based on the current list generations, technologies of nations, and development that 10 to 20 years. We should be in a theory of Generation 4, but now a lot of people are reporting that these are "Advanced 3rd Generation". Basically saying these tanks are better than the ones in the 80s and 90s. Which they are and the common person only see them looked different with some parts that are the same. A lot of the Advanced 3rd Generation's technologies are just well hidden/secret, used as upgrades for past generations, more concept, and hardly used in combat with a matching generation. The major different of a 3rd Generation and a Advanced is that the technologies were built and design into the tank than being a add-on. Rasseru (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Then where is this recognised sourcing of various different elements? Tank power is a subjective element and as you say, we cannot know which is better than which to clarify which ones go into "advanced" or not, especially when there is no defined element to class these back and forth. It is entirely just a sourceless division for the sake of "my country's tank is better" rather than a factual element. The page is not about which is "better" than the others in its generation. It's about grouping tanks as they are by the layout of the page for clarity of information, not about making up buzzwords. Media say "advanced" because it is advanced, but thats not meaning it's a new generation unto itself before of colourful adjectives used in the media. It's like with fighter jets, 4th broke into "4.5th" because of changing times and it became a globally recogised term. There is no such thing yet for tanks. It's not underselling Asian tanks, it's not bias against them, it's just how they're listed. Wikipedia isn't about being "represented better", it's about factual information alone. If you have a source that clearly, from a well known and globally accepted tank authority states very clearly that there are more than 3 generations then please post it. But "media" is not one of them. Historians, governmental definitions, these are the types of sources needed here, not marketing material to attract hits on media sites. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
TheFuzzyOne, totally missed the point of concepts, reality, media's view, and understanding theories to a subject. We are not looking for "tank power" alone in how something classified. Also, I never said we are look for "better". There many different factors your not taking in account and looping on yourself off topic to other issues. A "Neutral point of view" must be giving on generations. The media is listed as a reliable resource for wiki articles. Rasseru (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the point entirely. You're trying to combine two different generational elements. Aside from the fact that the media site isn't meaning "tank generations" and it just meaning it's Japan's 4th main battle tank, where does it specify what constitutes a 1st gen? What constitutes a 2nd gen? A 3rd gen? Nothing you have posted when editing this article from its original state has given any detail on this at all. The entire article needs to be consistent to one thing and currently the only one that permits those descriptives is the one from Rolf Hilmes. You can't just change the rules of one descriptive to fit another's description. It all has to sing from the same songsheet or it's muddling concepts entirely for individual benefit. There is no single source anywhere online that has the individual descriptives on 4 generations of tanks up to the modern day, so for the sake of wikipedia to avoid opening a can of worms from a thousand different sources where anyone can say anything (TankNutDave for example is just a hobby site). There is no insult or issue to any of these tanks being listed as 3rd gen, they have all the required elements and it keeps the entire page more informative and streamlined to view from based upon a defined state of generational requirements. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This issues has be mostly solve because sources been found and added to a new section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation . That states there is a "Advanced" and "Next Generation". But, argumentative between nations in it's concepts of technologies and the purpose to keep it neutral. Please review section before opinions are consistently abused by all parties. Thank you. Rasseru (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up
If anyone's working on an article, and has an image that needs a bit of restoration to make it more usable - it need not be FP quality, though that's always nice, as it gets the article on the main page - please let me know. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does that one look like it's a scan from a print on non-photographic paper? There are lines which look like paper grain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
LoL. Adam, do you want to take File:Photograph of the Battleship USS Michigan - NARA - 19-N-13573.jpg or should I? Don't have much to do today so I wouldn't mind editing that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I did a bit, but I've got some work on my plate right now, so if you have time in the next couple days go right ahead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Found a better-quality image of Soupir. Maps are next, though mapmaking/vectorizing is a different skill than I have, so it'll mainly be checking if larger copies can be found. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
help please. using images from "copyright expired" to commons
http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/091633/
Hello. I want to use an image in a like article. I was thinking that the image is downloaded, uploaded to commons and tag added. Is there a more appropriate method and what copyright tag would be used for images in the Australian War Memorial (link above as an example). Thanks for your help.
Phenss (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Be warned though, per Commons:COM:URAA, Commons no longer recognises non-US PD unless they're also US PD (i.e. broadly pre-1923). Massive bulk deletions are going on of UK PD material, I'm not aware how much Aus material is going too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Post-1945 AWM images which are free of copyright in Australia are also OK under URAA as the AWM has been explicitly tagging the images as being free of copyright and in the public domain in its database. As the AWM is/was (depending on how you look at things) the owner of almost all the images it publishes on its database, this tag avoids any issues with potential US copyright. See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 15#File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There *shouldn't* be any issues with that image as it was taken in 1945 so PD-US-1996 would seem to apply but I'm no expert. Regardless, the mass deletions by Commons under the banner of URAA seems to have been challenged as misaplied policy and the images *may* be restored. That said I try not to follow such trivialities - generally I have found image policy to be the domain of pedants that are little better than vandals. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
But as your example shows, Stefan2 (oh, what a surprise) will still contend that. As removal and deletion of contested files isn't subject to 3RR, it's very difficult to resist deletions by a few of the very persistent editors, like Betacommand. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: (not photos)
published prior to 1 January 1955
Published prior to 1 January 1946
B1
Photographs (except B2 below):
taken prior to 1 January 1955
taken prior to 1 January 1946
B2
Photos published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown:
taken prior to 1 January 1955
Published prior to 1 January 1946
C
Artistic works (except A & B):
the creator died before 1 January 1955
the creator died before 1 January 1946
D
Published editions1 (except A & B):
first published prior to 1980
first published prior to 1971
E1
Commonwealth or State government held2 photographs or engravings:
first published more than 50 years ago, or if made before 1 May 1969, first made more than 50 years ago
Made before 1 January 1946 The government has declared that expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide; use {{PD-AustraliaGov}}
E2
Commonwealth or State government artistic works (such as drawings)
first made more than 50 years ago
Made before 1 January 1946 The government has declared that expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide; use {{PD-AustraliaGov}}
1means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint. 2held means where a government is the copyright holder as well as would have held copyright but reached some other agreement with the creator.
PD-AusPublic domain in Australia//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_124
Australia
This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.:
if it entered the public domain in Australia prior to 1996, or
when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law.
Information about the creation date and creator should be provided.
If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in Australia an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion.
If the media is in the public domain in both Australia and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons.
Note: If this image is in the public domain in the U.S., modify the end of the copyright tag from }} to |commons}}. This will replace the preceding U.S. copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.
Because Australia has long-standing copyright relations with the United States, some Australian works might have a subsisting U.S. copyright. In such a case, the works in question are not in the public domain in the U.S. even if they meet the above conditions.
Commonwealth or State government owned2 photographs and engravings:
Greetings MilHist. Wikimedia UK has had a dozen tickets given to us by the Tank Museum here in Dorset. I will be putting out a call for photographers in a few hours. But even if you aren't a photographer or likely to be anywhere near Southern England this year, we would welcome your requests in the table of requested photographs. Regards Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC) aka WereSpielChequers
Hello - I've nominated Yuriy Ilyin for a Did you Know nomination that should go live soon, if anyone feels they can improve the article/proofread it before then it would be appreciated! Additionally there are some new articles on Ukrainian military figures, notably Mykhailo Kutsyn, Volodymyr Zamana (which need images) and Denis Berezovsky, which may be worth adding to given current events. SheffGruff (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I've recently created 100+ articles about these squadrons, using the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons, (DANAS), which is the authoritative work in the field. There's a list of those articles HERE. DANAS is available online, but it is broken up into chapters and sections of chapters, making it difficult to know what all is in it. I'm thinking of posting an article with a title like "List of U.S. Navy Patrol Squadrons", which would list all the Patrol Squadrons in DANAS, provide easy links to the chapter and section that apply to each chapter, and would provide links to the relatively few squadrons that have their own Wikipedia articles. A draft of what I'm thinking about can be found HERE. I know that such an article would be useful to anyone interested in these squadrons, but I'd like some feedback on the idea of having it. For example, is it kosher to have the links to the chapter sections in the body of the article? Any and all feedback from people involved in this project would be greatly welcomed. You can provide it here or on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
A little bit off the subject, but I wonder if there has ever been a discussion on the titling of articles on United States Navy and Marine Corps aviation squadrons on Wikipedia. It is not uniform at the moment. There are articles with titles like Lou is proposing: Hypothetically VP-1, but there are articles on other squadrons with titles like: Patrol Squadron One. I believe I have seen at least one article with a title like PATRON ONE. The majority use the abbreviated format, but it seems to me that an uninformed encyclopedia user would be more likely to use the full title in searching for information and that argues for using that form for the article with the shorter forms being redirects. On the other hand, this may be one of those areas where there's a consensus favoring the VP-1 format among active editors in the area that isn't in the MOS, but is followed . I would also concede in the example I chose VP-1 differentiates from ZP-1 without using the clumsy and ambiguous Aircraft Patrol Squadron One.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, having "(U.S. Navy)" on the end doesn't fit the naming conventions. If they were repeated, you would slap "(United States)" on the end, but in this case, they aren't needed, as no other country has our naming conventions for these sorts of things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I am VERY aware of the many ways these articles are titled. It seems like there has been no coordination (but that's not surprising). Once I started posting a lot of them, I decided to use something simple, and to correct the names later if necessary. I put "(U.S. Navy)" on the end of all my "VA-nnn" articles because there are many articles about highways in the U.S. state of Virginia that are titled "VA-nnn". The disambiguation problems are more than I'm equipped to handle. The problem is almost nonexistent with my "VP-nnn" articles, because nothing else (with one exception that I found) starts with "VP-". I'd like to have a discussion about all this with thoughful people, and IMHO a lot of wise thought is necessary. I've outlined a lot of this stuff HERE. Feel free to post comments there, or here. Lou Sander (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This isn't Lou's fault so much as the fact that we really don't have a consistent naming process for these things, and there are not rules set in place that I know of that we follow. Years ago, we had a slight issue with some of the Air Force names on this site (it occurred when I started to mass-produce pages for Air National Guard units), but we decided to keep them without the disambiguator. On the other hand, the people over at Commons have seen it fit to add a disambiguator on every category known to man. Although the Navy doesn't acknowledge that units by the same name share the same heritage, we have often treated them as such, so Lou's actions in this regard aren't necessarily wrong, but they go against what we have done (which is technically wrong when you look at it that way). In terms of what to do from here, I am down to move everything to the disambiguation-less titles, and merge in the "Second XXX" pages and whatnot, since that might serve to confuse the average reader. As long as Lou doesn't object, I'll start moving the articles within the next few hours or so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A caveat (although anecdotal). My expertise is with USAF units, but I understand (from a relative, recently a non-aviation USN squadron commander) that the Navy has changed its treatment of aviation squadrons in the fairly recent past. Where it formerly treated aviation squadons like ships, (i.e. if a VP-1 was decommissioned, a newly commissioned VP-1 would be a "second VP-1" not the same squadron) it now treats them more like the way USAF does (i.e. the new VP-1 could be the old one reactivated -- or whatever the term is, so Kevin's merger proposal may be in accordance with current practice. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ktr101:@Lineagegeek: I'd REALLY appreciate it if you wouldn't move any articles right now, at least not in the absence of close coordination with me. There are good reasons why Second VA-55 (U.S. Navy) was named the way it was. I know it's not in keeping with certain standards, but it conforms with the way the squadron is named in DANAS, the standard reference work in the field. There is a LOT of work involved in straightening out the lineages of these squadrons, and a LOT of room for error and confusion. I have been immersed in this stuff since late January, and the more I work with it, the more I see how it all fits together (DANAS standards and Wikipedia standards, etc.) PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't act in haste. I am VERY happy to share all the information, and I am VERY interested in having an optimum scheme for naming these articles. I have done a lot of meticulous work here, and more of the same is needed before all the names and disambiguations are straightened out. Lou Sander (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Lou Sander Can we go ahead and move all of the ones that aren't the 55th and other squadrons like it? In terms of the "Second XXX" squadrons, I wouldn't be adverse to putting the active years after it, as it would be a more sane title than is what there now. Moving the pages won't do anything but give you redirects, as long as we don't merge anything. I have over six years of experience working in this area, so I know what I am doing, just so you are aware. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ktr101: Thanks for the reassurance! Maybe let us know a few of the articles you would like to move, along with the rationale for doing it. Once again, I'm looking for good names, and I chose the ones I chose to make it easier to create a lot of articles with a minimum of hassle. Now that they are created, it's cleanup time. I don't know much about your group's conventions, but I know a LOT about how the Navy keeps track of this stuff. Just to show people what's involved in the naming and renaming of these squadrons, HERE is the cross-reference document for Patrol Squadrons. (BTW - I did all the VA squadrons while I was learning this stuff, then I did the VP squadrons. They are less messy.) Lou Sander (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ktr101: The VP squadrons are a lot less problematic than the VA's. When I created them, I paid a lot of attention to avoiding "Second (whatever)" and the like. I handled it by putting in brief lineages of prior squadrons (see VP-44, which was actually the Fourth VP-44, or VP-22 which I did a bit later on.) The VP squadrons are all detailed HERE. You can see everything about every squadron with one or two clicks. All the VP's except one are named "VP-nnn", and I hope that is satisfactory to everybody. The one exception is VP-16 (U.S. Navy), where there is a disambiguation problem with a drug that is also known as "VP-16". It would be great if that one could be cleaned up, but I lack knowledge and confidence about how to handle disambiguations. Lou Sander (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Lou Sander: All I want to do is move all of the articles from the "(U.S. Navy)" disambiguator if possible, which would not change anything on your end. In terms of merging things, we can save that for another day, as you would be most qualified to do that work. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ktr101: There may be a problem with that (as I understand the proposed action), since there are a bunch of articles about Virginia highways, named "VA-nnn". There are also Virginia congressional districts named "VA nn", and sometimes there are several versions of the highways (renamed, etc.). It looked like a nightmare to me, so I just named all my articles "VA-nnn (U.S. Navy)". It may be nonstandard, but it avoids (or postpones) the disambiguation problems with the highways, congressional districts, and who knows what else. I'm NOT expert in disambiguation matters, but I know enough to see that there is potentially a lot of work involved in cleaning that stuff up. (Look at VA-18 for an example.) Lou Sander (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Lou Sander: I can still move some of them and you can create the disambiguation page behind them, but I mainly wanted to address the "U.S. Navy" part, since it doesn't go with naming conventions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There are also problems with the Vermont Congressional districts using VT-XX; I ran into those when I was trying to link squadron articles for my article on the early war carriers. I'd much prefer to use years of service for disambiguators rather than Second, Third, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ktr101: I don't know anything about creating disambiguation pages, so I don't think I'd do too well at creating ones to handle all the numerous situations. I appreciate that there are naming conventions, but I'm not aware how they might fit here. It would be helpful if you or somebody could figure out a proper disambiguation scheme for VP-16 (U.S. Navy) and Etoposide, a.k.a. VP-16. That one is a piece of cake compared to the squadrons-highways-congressional districts situation. Lou Sander (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: The use of Second, Third, etc. is in keeping with the very-well-thought-out scheme used in DANAS, which is the ultimate reference for all these articles. DANAS includes an extensive cross-reference list that is organized by Second, Third, etc. Service dates would not be useful in consulting it. IMHO this is a case where the classification scheme used by DANAS/the Navy doesn't mesh too well with what might be preferred on Wikipedia. Lou Sander (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It may well be thought out but does me absolutely no good when I need to find out which VA-114 served on the Constellation in 1955 or whatever. That's why I want to see years of service used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It is unlikely that there will be articles on more than the most recent VA-114. The years of service for that one may well include years of service under different designations. VERY complicated. (Believe me, I've cross-referenced more than my share of these things in the last couple of months--it is complicated and time-consuming.) One CAN consult the DANAS article on the proper VA-114 to learn of its deployments. They usually aren't in the article, though. Lou Sander (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
So long as there's a redirect or something that will allow me to find the squadron that I want to reference or link; I don't care about much else in naming them. I know how complicated the Navy's history is with its aviation squadron and their near-continual disbandments and redesignations and I don't envy anyone who's made it their mission to sort all that out. But I need to be able quickly figure out which exact article I want when I want to link it or simply reference it. WP:SHIPS had a bunch of British ships named with their pennant numbers which forces me to guess which one served in WW2 vs the one post-war one; and I hate that. And I really don't want something mimicking that used for the squadrons like Second or whatever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
For those interested in this "First, Second, Third" stuff, I've worked up THIS table showing every VA squadron listed in DANAS, with links to the DANAS sections in which they are listed. (I know, it's one long table, and the articles aren't in there yet. Give me some time to fix that.) NOTE: The articles are there now, with links to every one of them. There are NOT links to the various Virginia highways, Congressional districts, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
As I have said before I just dont like the first foo or second foo naming it doesnt look encyclopedic so I would suggest that the older squadrons just use the year like VA-99 (1930-1945) and the later or current ones dont need it, the dates are more like other articles and remember these articles are for a general audience who are unlikely to go anywhere near DANAS. Just on the issue of disambiguation dont worry about it plenty of folks here can help with that once the names have settled. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I definitely see your point (both of you), and the idea of using the years is starting to appeal. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd stuff can be dealt with by simple statements in the body of the article. Another thing: the suggested names have nothing to identify them as aircraft squadrons, as opposed to obsolete Virginia highways or Congressional districts. (I AM worried about disambiguation, since it is a mess right now for certain VA articles.) I'd like to leave this to percolate for a few days, to see if others chime in. I'd propose then to change the names of a few articles, and get the disambiguation done properly (once again, I know next to nothing about proper disambiguation). Then, if the trial/test flight has worked, we can move ahead.
Once again, I purposely put all the VA article names into the same non-optimal format, for the specific purpose of making it easy to come up with a "universal" scheme for naming and disambiguating them. Lou Sander (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, that has crossed my mind. The difficulty is that almost nobody "in the know" would refer to a squadron that way. The "official" name of that squadron would be Attack Squadron ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (spelled out, and with the numbers in all caps). You can see this on the websites of active squadrons. Another way of referring to such a squadron is ATKRON 125; it's not seen as often, but it's around. There are redirect pages in existence that use all or most of these formats (I haven't checked every one, of course).
After living and breathing this stuff for six weeks, my thinking is that the best thing to use for an article name is VA-125, with whatever redirect pages people want to use. The advantages of VA-125 are ease of typing and wide use of the nomenclature. The difficulties are disambiguation and dealing with Seconds, Thirds, etc. Both those things will need to be carefully thought out, but that is being worked on. There's a "help wanted" ad for an expert disambiguator below. Lou Sander (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's an interesting one: VP-64 was redesignated as VR-64. They are sometimes referred to as FLELOGSUPPRON 64, which is short for Fleet Logistic Support Squadron SIXTY FOUR. As for me, I prefer VR-64. :-) Lou Sander (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Infobox flag protection ?
First National Flag - the Confederate flag of history.
An alternative Confederate country flag is sometimes displayed in the Infobox for Confederate related articles that is repeatedly disruptive. It is the “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” as identified by the CSA, Inc. Placing this flag on historical articles is pushing that organization’s POV. The Confederate States army, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and others served under the First National Flag, the history article at WP should picture the flag of their time, the best would be the “First national flag with 13 stars”, or the flag icon, |country= {{flagicon|CSA|1861}} [[Confederate States of America]]. The First National Flag is used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865.
The “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” was passed as Richmond was being lost, it was never fabricated, never a part of the historical Confederacy. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB. In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.
I have defended the First National Flag against BSB disruption on Confederate States of America, Confederate States Army, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Battle of Fort Pulaski, but the flag appears at many Confederate-related articles. Is there some systematic way of protecting the First National Flag in Infoboxes? with a bot or something? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The flag is called up by {{Country data Confederate States of America}}. There are various flag aliases to produce the different flags. The template itself is edit protected at admin level, so no vandalism by changing the flags there can be done. As for the change of flags in individual articles, it's a case of watching for changes I'm afraid. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There is great confusion about the naming and disambiguation of U.S. Navy aviation squadrons. (See the lengthy and wide-ranging discussion ABOVE.) We need someone who is very well-versed in disambiguation to work out a few test cases, so we can figure out how to take care of the rest. I have two test cases in mind — one fairly simple and one fairly complex — if a well-qualified volunteer steps forward, I will provide all the details. (I am a skilled editor myself, and knowledgeable about these squadrons and their articles, but a total newbie with disambiguation). Reply here if interested. Lou Sander (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates by policy and consensus. The core policy for article is covered at Deciding_on_an_article_title, and the desired outcome should be "...recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." If the intended article title is identical (or similar) enough to another article then the guidance on disambiguation comes into play. But ultimately if policies and guidance lead to more than one equally valid solution, then the one that gains the most traction from other editors is likely to win out. You could ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation for specific advice on disambiguation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
All good and valid points. Renaming will happen, especially to the squadrons that are now badly named. In the meantime, I hope to work out the best disambiguation scheme, starting with a few of the already-more-properly-named articles. I'll post a request at the disambiguation project. Thanks for identifying it. Lou Sander (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The first and easiest would seem to be in the VP area. See User:Lou Sander/VP Table for a list of all of the VP squadrons. Note that all of them but one are named "VP-nnn". The only reason that VP-16 (U.S. Navy) isn't named VP-16 is that there's a redirect to "VP-16" on the Etoposide article. Apparently "VP-16" is some sort of nickname for Etoposide. If you search for VP-16, you get the Etoposide article, which has some stuff about disambiguation. It seems to me that what's best for all is to rename VP-16 (U.S. Navy) to VP-16, and have that article include a disambiguation link to Etoposide. All this is providing, of course, that it doesn't step on the toes of people interested in Etoposide. The justification for doing it as I suggest is that 1) VP-16 is an actual squadron name, but only a nickname for Etoposide, and 2) it eliminates the need for the squadron name, alone out of all the others, to have the disambiguation extension (or whatever it is called). Lou Sander (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
PS - I just posted a request on the Etoposide talk page, to see if anyone over there has any input. I'm guessing there won't be any, since that article doesn't seem to get much activity. Lou Sander (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Good get! I've been thinking that it might do to be bold, and just make the squadron the main article, but include the disambiguation links. I don't like to do that, but the justifications above seem to me to be valid. If there are objections from the pharma and bio worlds, we could always change it back. I will do as you suggest and post some queries at the two projects. Lou Sander (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I presume this is an issue that has come up before on other conflict articles.
Does anyone have any thoughts on how we should approach reaching a fair position here without getting in to some kind of macabre competition over whose casualty pictures are more deserving?
How are firearm articles like Talk:Gunshot not populating the Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists? I have been working through WP:GUN and have noticed similar articles failing to populate the category even though they clearly have no B-Class checklists. --Molestash (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the standard for what appears on the incomplete B Class checklist changed sometime last year and dropped 10,000 articles or so. Articles with something like {{WPMILHIST|class=something|importance=any}} used to appear on the list, but no longer do. It seems that only if {{WPMILHIST|class=something|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}} is on the page with either a blank or a y/n for one of the B class items will the article appear. Of course, the good news is that the backlog went away.--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the inclusion of pages with no checklist parameters at all in the backlog was a bug to begin with; the category was intended to identify cases where the checklist had been incorrectly/incompletely inserted and filled out, not to serve as a catch-all for Start-Class articles that had never gone through a B-Class assessment. The latter is obviously a much larger group of articles, but they're not really instances where there's a problem with the assessment template that needs to be actively fixed. Kirill[talk]01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I need some help in checking the copy right image tag on the image from commons File:Kammhuber Line Map - Agent Tegal.png. I used the image in the Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer article and during its review although the image was tagged as PD in the UK, a request was made to add a "German PD" to the image as well. My problems, first I don't know if it is public domain, second, I thought that material seized by the Allies was considered public domain, just like some of the Heinrich Hoffmann images. Any help and guidance is welcome. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The anonymous EU tag should cover it - it's been more than the 70 years since publication and the author apparently wasn't disclosed (which is in no way surprising for a map like this). Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
UK PD is pretty much identical to German. I suppose you might hit URAA, depending when Germany adopted consolodated copyright dates. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Audie Murphy honors and awards at FLC
Not trying to be pushy, or canvass, or anything of that nature. This is my first go-around with FLC. AM honors and awards has kind of stalled in the process, but I notice others before it did also for a time. Not knowing what to expect, is there anything else I should do besides sit and wait it out? And can lack of further input on the nomination cause it to be rejected? — Maile (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Shadowboxes
First, some explanation. The William Guarnere page was very busy today. He died yesterday and a bunch of IPs started listing him as dead without benefit of a reference. I ticked off a lot of people by reverting their edits. A valid news source finally carried the piece, so another one is gone. Looking at the page later, I noticed that Guarnere is credited with the Presidential Unit Citation with one OLC; the reference is an on-line shadowbox. So the question is: Is a shadowbox any better as a reference than a blog?--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think that individuals could be awarded the PUC? My understanding is that this is a unit-level award, and individuals can wear it only while they're actually posted to that unit and not after they leave it (for instance, soldiers in D Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment are entitled to wear the PUC ribbon that company was awarded for the Battle of Long Tan, but have to remove it if they're posted to a different company in the same battalion). Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Bad typing on my part. The 101st was awarded the PUC. Those who were present for the period get to wear it forever. Those who are assigned later get to wear it while assigned.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikitable question
Does anyone know how to shorten the vertical line on the rhs? Thanks.
Battle of the Somme British, French and German casualties: July–November 1916
Month
British
French
Sub- total
German
(% of Allied total)
July
158,786
49,859
208,645
103,000
49.4
August
58,085
18,806
76,891
68,000
88.4
September
101,313
76,147
177,460
140,000
78.9
October
57,722
37,626
95,348
78,500
82.3
November
39,784
20,129
59,913
45,000
75
Total
415,690
202,567
618,257
434,500
70.3
Casualties from Wendt: Verdun 1916 Die Angriffe Falkenhayns im Maasgebiet mit Richtung auf Verdun als strategisches Problem (1931)[1]
well I'd lay it out like this, which I believe to be closer to the manual of style and accessibility (though don't quote me on the later)
Battle of the Somme British, French and German casualties: July–November 1916[refa 1]
Month
British
French
Sub- total
German
(% of Allied total)
July
158,786
49,859
208,645
103,000
49.4
August
58,085
18,806
76,891
68,000
88.4
September
101,313
76,147
177,460
140,000
78.9
October
57,722
37,626
95,348
78,500
82.3
November
39,784
20,129
59,913
45,000
75
Total
415,690
202,567
618,257
434,500
70.3
^Casualties from Wendt: Verdun 1916 Die Angriffe Falkenhayns im Maasgebiet mit Richtung auf Verdun als strategisches Problem (1931)
Thanks, I've only been able to copy a table from a wiki page and adapt it as needed so I'll follow your recommendation.Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, military experts. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this old abandoned Afc submission, but there doesn't seem to be a project British Marines. Should this article be kept (or made into two articles), or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, there was already an article about the younger man, Richard Williams (Royal Marines officer), and it had extensive military information but little personal info, so I moved that material from the draft article and added an appropriate edit summary. I deleted the rest about him from the draft article, so now it is just about the older Williams. Both articles could use some cleanup from someone familiar with military history (since I'm not really familiar with what's suitable for inclusion in such articles), and then the draft article can be renamed and moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
While all the details are here in hundreds of specialized articles, we are lacking an overview of the Naval history of World War II. If you look at the World War II article, naval affairs are given very little attention (eg destroyers and cruisers are not even mentioned). So far the new article has a short outline and a long bibliography, so I hope people can join in. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
PDF question
If you use "take a snapshot" to, er take snapshots, how do you turn off the "take a snapshot" so that you have the usual vertical cursor again?Keith-264 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Go back to the Edit pulldown menu and turn it off (uncheck take snapshot). If that does not work, hit the Escape button. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try the esc button. Could it be the malignant hand of Google interfering with the software? (It's a pdf from Archive.org with a Google advertisement on the front.)?Keith-264 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
A-class reviews in need of attention
Hi folks, if anyone has some spare time and is looking for a way to help MilHist, the following A-class reviews have been open for over a month and would benefit from the attention of another reviewer:
Could someone take a look at this article? It doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements. Looks more like an obituary for a local man than an actual article. Wild Wolf (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It would appear that the man is getting ready to run for election. The article has no particular notability at this point, in my opinion. Now, if he wins his election, he would be notable as an elected official in the state of Georgia. The article contains a couple of misspellings and the parenthetical locations used everywhere are distracting; it needs some cleanup if it is to stay. Just my opinion of course. Cuprum17 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As a general he is automatically presumed notable per MOS:SOLDIER. This claim checks out [11][12] I don't see where it says he commanded an infantry regiment. We could email him at bernardfontaine40@gmail.com Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Milmos only says that the people/units/etc. are likely to be notable because those categories usually have sufficient, non-trivial documentation to prove their notability. Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Lt. Garlin Murl Conner
Does this project have a section for "requested articles"? Don't know if you've seen this news item, but it's about the widow of Lt. Garlin Murl Conner trying to get her husband the Medal of Honor. I took note that it says "Conner left the U.S. Army as the second-most decorated soldier during World War II". What a shame, with all that backing, the judge denied the request on a technicality.— Maile (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I've never started an article, but I support the idea. There's a good starting point here. We have plenty of pages for people who earned fewer medals. (Don't get me started on the number of Easy Company-related pages we have.)--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I uploaded a new picture to the article of British sailor Frederick Fleet, who served on the Titanic and began to expand it. Can anybody help me with both grammar and referencing the article? It's not mandatory! only if you want!. Thank you. --Japanesehelper (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Albert Kesselring
I'm having trouble in the Albert Kesselring featured article with a POV pushing IP who heard somewhere that Operation Bagration was the most important battle of World War II. The original text read:
An Allied offensive in April finally broke through, leading to a collapse of the Axis position in Tunisia. Some 275,000 German and Italian prisoners were taken. Only the Battle of Stalingrad overshadowed this disaster. It refers to the two battles that occurred in early 1943.
The new text is an outright lie besides being ungrammatical:
Of course, far more prisoners were taken in the Ruhr pocket in 1945. Can someone please revert the text back to the original for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm very inexperienced with the details of uploading an image and making sure all the points are covered. How do we legally upload either or both of the following for use on the Garlin Murl Conner page?
I assigned the names I used here. The first had to have been taken by an Army photographer or by a war correspondent; I think the former more likely. The second just looks like an official photo, but I can't prove it. No dates. No credit. I prefer priority being given to the second because it's Conner alone, but the other would serve as a infobox image.
You need firm evidence that this photo meets one of the criteria needed to be "free". It's not really possible to tell from links directly to the photos themselves - do the sources provide any details on where the image came from? It's not safe to assume that photos of US military personnel in uniform were created by a government photographer given that many soldiers had photos of themselves in full uniform taken by private photographers to send to their families. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. One page (the photos appear multiple times on the Web) said "Presentation" was provided by the Conner family but didn't address the original source. I'll spend some time at WP:NFC. If I can justify uploading to myself, I'll decide what my next step will be.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk02:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI on "presentation" photo - Making the presentation to Conner is General Alexander Patch who did the presentation of the Medal of Honor to Audie Murphy in Austria. It's almost assuredly a government photo. But you need to find something that says so, and that dates the photo. — Maile (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate input from members of this project at talk:Yugoslavia in World War II. A couple of users feel that the article is a content fork of Yugoslav Front and propose to delete/redirect it, but there is a debate about whether it is worth have a summary article which covers the full Yugoslav experience of the conflict (holocaust, government in exile etc.) as well as the purely military aspect. Brigade Piron (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks quite a bit like the HK 69A1 or the police version MZP 1. The biggest differences appear to be the shape of the butt-stock and the sights. Intothatdarkness21:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
How to summarise a 65+ year complex conflict in a single map?
One possibility for discussion
At Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict, we would be grateful for thoughts on what an appropriate introductory map would look like. The map on the right is one possibility. The wars within the overall conflict are summarised here: List of wars involving Israel. Egypt, Iraq and Syria have been at all-out war with Israel on three occasions, so their position is clear. The big question is how to illustrate those countries whose participation was more complex, in particular:
Lebanon: Had a secret pre-agreement with Israel in 1948, and did not participate in any other wars against Israel. During Israel's involvement in the Lebanese civil war, various factions fought with and against Israel. And in 2006 Israel and Hezbollah fought, but the Lebanese Army did not. My summary doesn't do justice to the extreme complexity, but the relevant point is that Lebanon has never been at all out war with Israel but is involved in the conflict.
Jordan: Had a secret pre-agreement with Israel in 1948. In 1967 Jordan defended briefly before quickly retreating from the West Bank. In 1973, Jordan had an "understanding" with Israel, via the US, and did not participate in any meaningful fashion. Again the situation is more complex than my summary can do justice, but Jordan was never at all-out war with Israel but did gain and lose territory.
So the question is how to illustrate this simply whilst managing to communicate some of the important nuances about the war footing of each country. Any ideas or precedent articles would be greatly appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Where is America, where are the demonstrations of zionist aggression at its behest using its resources and why use a criterion of land area, rather than military power? On that point, the Gaza Strip and the thefts of Palestinian land since the 1940s are absent.Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the map at higher resolutions, Gaza is indeed in the map. But Keith, I don't think such highly biased commentary is particularly helpful to the discussion.
I don't know that you can do much better than the map you have, apart from perhaps an animated map, but that might not be appropriate for the lead image. All you really need is an explanatory note in the caption for the map - you'd need one anyway to tell the reader what the colors signify. You can give a short summary of the involvement of Lebanon and Jordan there. I'd agree that the old map showing the entire Arab League is a poor option, by the way.
I would be tempted to say "try only colouring one aspect". Take your base grey map, highlight Israel of today in blue, highlight territories held by Israel at some point but not now in light blue or hashing (ie, mainly Sinai at that scale), and for all other "involved" countries do them in white or some other colour with black outlines. You can thus easily see which countries were directly involved st some point (compared to all others, still base grey) but without the complexity of trying to put them in relation to each other - leave that for the text. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Fixed by me, Chris (I think). The actual vandalism occurred two days but was reverted by ClueBotNG on the same day, I changed the file type from "image" to "file" within the parameter in the infobox and it has disappeared, but if you look at the differences in the page history between ClueBotNG's removal and my change from "image" to "file" it doesn't show the vandalism which is odd. Perhaps the problem was something to do with ClueBotNG or the page just wasn't refreshed properly. Gavbadger (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Also remember that the job queue has been, and still is, slower than an asthmatic snail in February in Nome; a lot of times when a template is changed, pages it's transluded on won't reflect the change for days (sometimes over a week) unless it's purged or edited. - The BushrangerOne ping only03:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Expedition to Ostend 1798
I have written a stub for the British Expedition to Ostend in May 1798. It was a classic commando raid nearly a century and a half before the term was invented -- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. Perhaps others would be kind enough to look it over and fix any obvious errors. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons
For my own purposes, I've created a User page that contains such a list, complete with links, references, and annotations. I think it would be good to move it to the article space, but I'd first like to see comments from people involved in this project. You can see the user page HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
For example, this list is 100% based on information in an authoritative official publication about Attack, Strike Fighter, and Patrol squadrons. The other lists are compilations of input from many sources, and cover many additional squadron types. Also this list provides a unified source of accurate references to the DANAS articles. The other lists do not even provide those references, though they do provide thumbnails of insignia and partial lists of aircraft flown. This list is a supplement to the other lists, definitely not a replacement. Lou Sander (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
As it duplicates the current articles it would far better to use your references to improve those articles, although adding "In DANAS" or "Not in DANAS" rather than adding a reference doesnt appear to be constructive. (I have removed these comments as they are not really encyclopedic) MilborneOne (talk)
I don't see how it duplicates the current articles, as partially explained two comments above.
I put the "In DANAS" and "Not in DANAS" comments into the Notes fields of several sections of the "Inactive squadrons" list because those sections were very incomplete and contained a non-trivial number of inaccuracies. Then I fixed those sections, using the notes as guides to which list entries needed attention. Not that it matters, but this work took considerable time and effort and IMHO had a correspondingly positive result. I suppose that the notes are no longer needed, though now nobody can tell the provenance of a given table entry. Lou Sander (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW, while I was doing the Notes fields stuff on the "Inactive squadrons" page, I mentioned it on that article's Talk page. Since the two squadrons pages seem to be getting some attention now, we should all probably discuss our changes on their talk pages. I'm going to do that, myself, and hope that others will follow suit. Lou Sander (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
OK but the actual article is not the place for editorial notes and as you added information it would have been quicker to add the reference as you went along to show provenance. That said I am sure with a little guidance from you we can help add the appropriate references. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Getting back to the usefulness of the proposed article. If there are squadrons not listed in DANAS whose existence is supported by reliable sources, then the article would not be a complete list of US Navy aviation squadrons, and therefore of less use than the existing articles. A "list of... ...in [name of publication]" article might be relevant in cases where the list is of itself the subject of attention by reliable sources eg a "list of plays in Shakespeare's First Folio". Without that coverage I think it might be subject to questions over proving notability of the article subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The "Inactive squadrons" page is certainly not a complete list. Numerous omissions were found (and corrected) recently when the VA, VFA and VP sections were compared with the data in the proposed article. As to notability, the "Inactive squadrons" list, like most lists, is also subject to "questions over proving notability of the article subject", though one has to wonder who would raise such questions. Lou Sander (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
To answer the original question: yes, the articles are supposed to be there. The subcategories are used for certain common types of errors, but other errors in the template cause the article to be placed directly in the main category, since it would be impractical to create a separate subcategory for every possible type of tag error. Kirill[talk]01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Could someone with expertise in the Napoleonic Wars please have a look at Battle of Hardt? 20,000 dead, decisive battle of the Ulm campaign, three generals killed, yet there seems to be nothing about it online. It was created in a single edit by a new editor with a backdated nofootnotes tag on it - seems likely to be a hoax. Thanks, RubyMurray01:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User blanked that article shortly after I posted here, and has made no further edits to any article, so I assume it was a hoax. Thanks anyway. RubyMurray12:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Articles needing some care and affection
Found these four, which were not marked as Milhist and were largely orphaned from other articles and so may have not shown up on anyone's radar.
Apart from stylistic issues, a bit of help with referencing is required.
The last I have had a bit of a go at improving in terms of layout and grammatical style, but someone more familiar with the subject might make better and more efficient progress. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
As has been told to you before: "This is a list of things. But the regulars at WP:FLC don't think it's long enough to be a Featured List. Therefore, it's treated as an article for assessment purposes." This is the reason it is not classified as a list. If you want it classified as a list, go talk to the regulars at WP:FLC. - The BushrangerOne ping only02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed this, it doesn't have a hatnote either. Should we consider the ancient Egyptian military the primary topic, or the hiphop band, and where should a hatnote point to? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The USS Monitor article has just been nominated for GA and reviewers/opinions are needed. To start the review and/or comment please go to the GA nomination page, under the Warfare section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Operation Mullet
I have been making articles to fill in the missing links in the set of bombing operations of South-East Asia, 1944-1945, including Operation Crimson, Operation Balsam, Operation Light, and others. The last link in the series is for Operation Mullet, and I have a draft for this at User:WPGA2345/sandbox/Operation Mullet, but I can't seem to find the kinds of sources that I was able to find for the other operations. I know when and where this operation was carried out, the principal mission, and a few ships involved, but not much else. Some of this information is from this personal webpage, and I have not found better/more reliable sources for it. (Note that there seems to be a different Operation Mullet carried out by a British tank unit in Germany in January 1945.) What do you think I should do with my draft for the South-East Asia bombing operation? Can it be merged somewhere? If no more information is available, the link in the template will remain a missing link unless something is done. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - ☛20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
An IP editor is restoring 3500 characters regarding a fringe theory that the Italians blew up their former battleship in Sevastopol harbor 10 years after the end of the war. I cut that whole bit down, while retaining the links to the IP's sources, because he had a massive quote in his version and his additions made the whole Soviet-owned portion of the article about twice the length of the entire Italian service section. The IP is at three reverts already and I expect a fourth shortly since he wrote the text that I cut under several different addresses. Can an admin look over the situation and issue warnings/blocks as appropriate?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Input requested. Should the default size of post-nominal letters set by this template remain at 85% or be increased to 100%? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If anybody is interested, your attention is needed at Royal Moroccan Army. Ongoing content-dispute relative to Infobox military engagements. Further explained on talk page. Feedback welcome, thanks Tachfin (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica looking for experts in military history
yes the EB is still in business (online) and it just sent this announcement to members of the Society for Military HistorySince last fall, the Society for Military History has been negotiating a partnership with Encyclopaedia Britannica. This relationship offers mutual benefits. Britannica seeks to recruit qualified authors for its entries on war and other military affairs. In return, it offers free advertising to those of our members with books in print who decide to join their list of distinguished contributors. Britannica will also promote the Society for Military History, and being affiliated with such a revered institution will boost the stature of our brand. While this arrangement may not appeal to all our members, the SMH leadership thinks that many others will be happy to take advantage of this opportunity. If you are among them, here is the information you need:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, as part of a new partnership with SMH, invites all SMH members to contribute to Britannica’s coverage of their fields of expertise. In turn, Britannica will highlight the Society, make all member contributions open to the public and freely retrievable by search engines, and build an author profile page for the member where the contributor’s books can be highlighted and linked to Amazon.com to assist in sales. Some 100 million readers have paid daily access to Britannica’s websites.
Just visit www.britannica.com, log in with the free access code “expert” for both the Username and Password, and review Britannica’s coverage of your fields of expertise. The revising and expanding of existing entries, and the contributing of new entries on topics (battles, biographies, etc.) not currently offered by Britannica, are most welcome.
Then contact Theodore Pappas (tpappas@eb.com; 312.347.7491), Executive Editor of Britannica, with the kind of contributions you’d like to make. Contact him with any questions at any time.
For the Society’s partner page at Britannica, click here (http://corporate.britannica.com/the-society-for-military-history/) and for a sample author page, see Gregory Urwin’s (http://www.britannica.com/bps/user-profile/9467531/gregory-jw-urwin) and the links to his recent articles.
The SMH executive leadership is also working on partnerships with the National Endowment for the Humanities, Organization of American Historians, History Club, and other entities. Information on these negotiations will be released as they mature. /s/ Gregory J. W. Urwin President, Society for Military History Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
So they want published authors to provide them with content for a commercial project, but aren't going to pay them anything at all for their expertise and time? I imagine that this might work for some authors who want to lift their profile, but it seems exploitative. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review for the article about the Swedish late 17th-century warship Kronan. My goal is to take make it an FA and I believe feedback from members of this project would be very helpful. If you think something is missing or could be improved, please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kronan (ship)/archive1. Your input would be much appreciated!
I was able to flesh out the WWI part of the article somewhat (interestingly enough he appears to have started his career in the ranks of the Ordnance Corps prior to the war, but I couldn't find any reliable sources on this) but couldn't find much on the grenade itself. Perhaps someone else has access to sources about this weapon? - Dumelow (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A whole bunch of military articles have had their capitalisation changed. I'm not sure if it's right or wrong - Should it be "Landing craft assault" or "Landing Craft Assault" for instance? I thought the latter was an official designation. (Hohum@) 16:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
User Sturmvogel 66 probably attempts to drop from the article a relevant evidence regarding the explosion of the battleship with pretext that it is a massive quote, by calling it a fringe theory, and persists in removing this text without adequate explanation (while attempting to mislead admins by repeating that the editor who restores the text is an IP editor, and one should expect a fourth [revert] shortly since he wrote the text that I cut under several different addresses, thus unreasonably hinting that being not logged in and the use of different IP addresses by the editor is allegedly intentional and is related to editing in Wikipedia). Please persuade Sturmvogel 66 to desist from removing the text, and instead to join the discussion on the Talk Page at last. 2601:9:1B80:281:8158:26E1:A266:CC9D (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Insurgency, counter-insurgency, non-state actors, small wars, and all that.
They'e similar topics, but not identical. There would definitely be scope to have articles on all of those terms if they were all properly researched, scoped, and defined. The overlap is probably due to a lack of understanding of the differences (they don' exactly roll of the tongue, but they do exist) and due to people not realising what the scope of a given article is and that the material they're adding might be better placed in one of the others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just put IAI RQ-5 Hunter (an article about UAV, or "drone") on pending changes because there have been a few unconstructive edits that have sat there unchallenged for a few weeks. Nothing too serious, but it could do with a few experienced MilHist folks adding it to their watchlists. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Air battle over Niš
I apologize if I'm placing this in the wrong place, but could someone add this article to the correct location of articles that need improvement? Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi all - if anyone has the time and interest, this article needs to be completely overhauled. The problem stems from the fact that it relies far too much on contemporary publications, the authors of which had no idea that Phạm Ngọc Thảo, the director of the program, was a communist agent and was sabotaging the program. Which is sort of an important fact if you're going to try to explain why the program failed. I can probably help a little (I do have access to some sources, like Pribbenow's translation of the official Vietnamese history of the war, Victory in Vietnam), but I don't have the time to do it entirely myself, so I figured I'd bring it here for wider attention. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Bella Bella Airbase/Shearwater BC/Denny Island Aerodrome
Please see here on the Shearwater article about the WII anti-submarine airbase needing an article, or at least as section on the Sheawater article (in that link) or the Denny Island Aerodrome, which is what the base's airields are today and was for a while the Bella Bella Airport until the new one opened in "New" Bella Bella (both Shearwater and what is now called Old Bella Bella have also "worn" the name Bella Bella; Shearwater still is the site of the Bella Bella P.O. I don't know what categories may apply here, I'll try to figure them out but I'd expect regular here would know right away. I'm going to bed (it's 12:09 a.m. in my timezone).Skookum1 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
WWI poster scans
"Women of America, Save Your Country"
I have been slowly working at uploading high resolution scans of World War I posters from the Library of Congress. You can find the ongoing uploads at Category:World War I posters in the Library of Congress. There are currently over 800, with twice this number listed in the category as they are in both jpeg and tiff formats (the jpeg versions are better for thumbnails and the tiffs are better to create new derivatives, such as detail crops). The tiffs are archive/research quality scans, over 4,000 pixels on the longest side. The posters are mostly USA propaganda and information, however some are from other countries, including Germany and Britain.
None is used in Wikipedia articles at this point, I encourage military history buffs to take a look, as some of the posters are notable in their own right for social impact and as illustrative works for the artists that created them. --Fæ (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This article has been completely revised. I've also added sections on World War II AAF Basic Training (as well as the Basic Training Centers), several of which are new articles about Greensboro, North Carolina, Atlantic City, New Jersey, Miami Beach, Florida and the St. Petersburg Florida Training Centers.
Also all of the AAFTC Flying Training Wings now have articles, which sorts out which school at which airfield was assigned. Also sorted out the Contract Primary Flying Training Airfields. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks something like {{this article is written in British English}} and sits on top of the infobox template. Sadly the help pages have been as useless as ever.Keith-264 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The only ship with even a relatively close name is USS Brister, but she was only commissioned a couple of days before the attack and was still in the US. Unfortunately, the authors of the books available in Google Books (one of which, Hoenig, is used as a source for the section) haven't provided footnotes, so it's difficult to find where the information came from - presumably they're copying an error in Infield's Disaster at Bari. If you have access to that book, you might see if its included there and if he provided a footnote. Interestingly, there's this paper from the Naval War College that cites the incident with USS Bistera (he's an Army puke, so he can be excused for writing about a ship that never existed), but he cites Infield's book, which makes it seem likely that that's the source of the error.
I haven't been able to track down anything on the ships that were in Bari that day, and it would probably require a trip to the archives to find one. There is a list here from the US DOD of seamen who were exposed to the mustard gas, along with the ship they were on. It notes that the records are probably incomplete, since the records from the US hospital have not yet been located and the British records were redacted, but it only includes the four Liberty ships that were sunk and Lyman Abbott. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
a) There was a SS Bicester damaged; as this is pronounced approximately "Bister", I wonder if there's a verbal transcription at work here?
b) Infield is probably not the ultimate source. This 1980 book references the Bistera, and this has the same, from the diary/memoirs of Edward Delos Churchill, published 1972. It's not clear from the snippet view if this is Churchill's comments or the notes provided by the editor (I suspect the latter) but at least it pushes the error back substantially. If it's Churchill himself, then we have an interesting quandary - it strongly suggests the incident really happened in some way, even if the ship name is in error. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Got it! Here's a 1945 official report citing the "destroyer Bistera": here, which cites (verbatim) S.F. Alexander, Toxic burns sustained in the Bari Harbor catastrophe. North Africa Theatre of Operations Report: December 27 1943. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I've conducted some search in the net, and italian sources talk about an italian merchantman Bistera[13][14]. About a destroyer escort named USS Bistera, nothing even similiar in the list of US Navy ships. It seem to me that this information has been spread virally thru Allied documentation starting from an error of transcription. [Here http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.it/2010/06/bari.html] Bistera has become HMS Bistera. Ok, thanks but for me doubt still remains, indeed a not important one. --Pigr8Melius esse quam videri20:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Rick Atkinson describes the attack in The Day of Battle. On page 275 of the trade paperback version, he describes the rescue effort of Bistra (no "e"), with no indication that she's a warship.Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk23:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Atkinson cited Saunders in his footnotes. I don't have access to the Naval Institute archives to read the Proceedings. Maybe someone else has access or hard copies.Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk21:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I recently came across this article, the seriousness of the situation if my deductions and suspicions are correct and grounded is such that I whissh to refer the matter to this talkpage, as the article falls under this Wikiproject and I know that there are people here who are experienced in dealing with such matters. I have found whole paragraphs to have been lifted from other websites, and due to the very recent creation of this article by a new editor I find it highly unlikely that they all (including the manufacturer!) spontaneously decided to copy Wikipedia in the last two weeks. I suspect that the images that have been uploaded have been fraudulently claimed as the uploader's own when they likely belong to the manufacturer or other sources; one looks to have been taken as if out of a sales brochure, it looks like it was taken in a studio by a professional in the line of work rather than a chance-snap at a show or the like - it's hard to articulate accurately but I'd be very surprised if it doesn't originate with the vendor. It would ask for the opinions and investigations of other editors to examine this matter and see if the article is substantially infringing or otherwise, and if these suspitions are shared. Something feels wrong here to me, I'd prefer this be evaluated by others however. Kyteto (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I am the technical writer for Inter-Coastal Electronics (ICE), who manufactures the SMODIM and designs training systems for the U.S. Army as contracted through PEO STRI. I wrote all the material on the ICE company website, as well as hundreds of "Contract Deliverable" documents to the U.S. Government for our training systems, as well as the systems descriptions used on the PEO STRI websites. I took the photo you say looks like it was shot in a studio. The other photos were taken by co-workers when installing the SMODIM on the Apache helicopter. I am working to rewrite the sections you say are "copyright violating". In the military industry, many phrases are common, such as "weapons emulation", rather than your edit of my text to "emulation of weapons"
I attribute accurate terminology when describing these systems. I don't understand why you are "suspicious" of my contribution. I thought I did a good job of compiling verifiable references and intended to contribute to the [Tactical engagement simulation] page which is currently a stub. What exactly do you think "feels wrong here", after I contacted you and told you this already?SusanDJones (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If you notice the timing of your response (18:35), and the timing of my post here (18:30), I actually placed this here before you had replied, not after. I was suspicious of potential copyright infringement, which potentially lands Wikipedia in legal troubles, hence why it was taken so seriously when noticed and thus opinions sought here. In the past, we've had a few bad eggs stealing content from elsewhere, not that this is necessarily happening here. What felt wrong, to me, is an issue that can be summarized by Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and to some extent by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Kyteto (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I was asked by the owners of my company, Inter-Coastal Electronics (ICE), to publish SMODIM data on wikipedia. All the systems described and referenced are designed, manufactured and fielded by ICE to the U.S. Army and allied militaries [Foreign military sales]. If you see the ICE webpage: http://www.inter-coastal.net/contactus.html you will see that ICE has personnel stationed at Fort Hood, TX, Fort Irwin, CA and Fort Polk, LA, as well as the United Kingdom to provide military training support. SusanDJones (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Susan, just to confirm - do you own the copyright to the text and pictures personally, or are they owned by the company? The ICE company website, for example, claims copyright over this image here. There's an important difference, for example, between a photograph that you took as a private individual, and a photograph that you took while at work - the latter copyright is then usually owned by the company, unless your contract said otherwise; the same applies to text etc. If ICE wants to release these images (or text) so that anyone around the world can use and adapt them freely, including for commercial purposes, that's brilliant (we want to encourage that sort of behaviour by organisations!), but there are processes that we'd normally follow to confirm that the editor has the authority to donate them in that way. That's simply to protect the rights of the organisations concerned. Hchc2009 (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I was asked or instructed by INTER-COASTAL ELECTRONICS (ICE) the manufacturer and my employer to post this data, they reviewed and approved it. How can I provide this confirmation of authority? SusanDJones (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just wanted to note that I discussed this a bit with Susan and have no doubt that she's acting in good faith and trying to contribute material (based on her explanation) that she created at the request of ICE, who also requested she contribute whatever was notable and appropriate to Wikipedia. What isn't clear is if ICE claims copyright on the material she's trying to contribute (given how the material is associated w/ copyright statement on their website), or if they've merely licensed her content for use on their site and are encouraging her to post it here, as well (where/how appropriate), right?
I got the impression that they're not aware that if they're asserting copyright of material they still want to see appear in Wikipedia, they'd have to release it under some kind of a CC-license, right? I know that SusanDJones is finding this to be a bit frustrating/discouraging, since she's acting in good faith and needs to know what, exactly, she must request and obtain from the company if they assert copyright, or if there are alternative solutions (Such as paraphrasing some text but still citing it, and maybe uploading alternative images she took but didn't release to the company?)...
Hchc2009, you seem to be polite, amiable, and inclined to assume good faith and just trying to confirm what the backstory is, so maybe you could provide Susan with a bit more specific guidance as to the "...processes that we'd normally follow..." to resolve a situation like this? And what alternatives might there be (if any)? I'm unfortunately not very experienced in matters such as these and so am not well-positioned to guide Susan through this process, but I hope she can obtain the guidance and support necessary to enable her to successfully contribute now and (hopefully!!) in the future! JDanek007Talk22:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll try! If you're uploading an image to the Commons or Foundation sites, the system being used is called OTRS - the link is here, [15]; you basically upload and send an separate email, showing the permission from the copyright holder (e.g. a company or an institution) and a tag goes on the file. The result looks like this: [:File:Reconstruction of Worcester Castle.jpg]; I've uploaded it, but there's a permanent record saying where the permission from the museum is stored, and they're properly cited as the owners of the copyright. You could probably do the same for data, if you didn't want to paraphrase it etc. (I've only ever done images though). I suspect someone like User:Pigsonthewing would probably know for certain. Hchc2009 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy of a book by William Arkin called Code Names? Seems like a pretty useful book, linked to a large amount of other DOD information here. Among interesting ones are Eagle Guardian and Exercise Pacific Partnership. Buckshot06(talk)10:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I've given you rollback rights to make things alittle easier. Just keep reporting the IP to AIV if he returns. If the IP is static, we can give it a nice long block; if not, we can look at rangeblocks of page protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Mystery Photograph
I have come across a picture of a Fairey III with the serial No. S1818. According to the Fairey list, this is airframe number F-1565 completed as a Fairey IIIB. This would make it from WW1, operating from Westgate-on-Sea. Except and this is where the mystery stems from, the photo is taken in the Falkland Islands and there is a pair of these aircraft, one of which made a forced landing in Berkley Sound (the first aero accident in the Falklands). The picture is believed to have been taken in the mid-1930s. As far as I call tell, none of the Royal Navy ships that shipped the Fairey III could have been in the Falklands. The only one I can hazard a guess at would be HMS Dorsetshire from the African squadron. Can anyone help with correctly identifying the aircraft and ship? WCMemail09:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
S1818 was a Fairey IIIF Mk IIIB (not a Fairey IIIB) according to Taylor's Fairey Aircraft since 1915. According to p. 446 of Falklands The Air War by Burden et al, which also has a photo (poosibly the same one), it was from 718 (Catapult) Flight based on HMS Exeter (68), which visted the Falklands in September 1936.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for that information, the information I had at hand indicated Exeter carried Fairey Seafox rather than the Fairey III but that didn't enter service till 1937 so something hadn't added up. Worthy of a note at HMS Exeter (68)? WCMemail12:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
A lot of campaignboxes added to pages like these: Battle of Aubers RidgeBattle of Messines (1914) had been removed by User talk:Thqldpxm who has replied thus: "If you are offended by my edit, I apologize. (I do not speak English well, sorry Please understand.)
Campaignbox World War1 in Battle of Agbeluvhoe, Campaignbox Frontiers 1914 and Campaignbox Western Front (World War I) in Siege of Maubeuge I think that it is unnecessary to. Because, for example Battle of Agbeluvhoe ⊂ Togoland Campaig ⊂ World War1
My response is slow because I don't know how reply. I am very sorry."
Are there any conventions as to campaign box contents and relevance? Some changes to the contents of the boxes have been made this year and a few new ones added but this had increased the number which overlap as well as embodying newer pages and topics.Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
G'day, Keith, the policy link is WP:CAMPAIGN, but I'm not sure it provides much guidance here, unfortunately. Based on the above, I'm not quite sure of the reasons behind the removal (the syntax doesn't quite make sense to me, sorry). As such, I'd suggest WP:BRD applies in this case, and consensus should be pursued by the editor removing them before doing so again. Given that it appears language might be a factor here, the editor who removed them might have a valid reason for doing so, but might be having trouble expressing themselves clearly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the editor seems to be a bit previous, according to other comments but also appears willing to listen to reason. I pasted the link on the talk page. There's about 25 deletions to resolve.Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Checking back on a number of the content changes (see his/her special contributions, there appear to have been a number of contentious changes (overwriting existing categories), as well as blanking. I'm not a specialist in most of the campaigns as such, but I do know enough to recognise campaign-driven content changes when I see them. Frankly, the scope, number and specific ability to recognise categories and replace them with a few manual tweaks (we're not talking cut-and-paste over an existing category) smacks of WP:NOTHERE. If the user's English is so poor as to not be able to communicate on the most basic level, knowledgeable or not, they simply shouldn't be editing here. I'm going to ask which language they speak and see whether it's one of the languages I'm well grounded in, or find someone who can interpret on their behalf. Sorry to be such a cynic, but I work on a multitude of Slavic related articles (Eastern Europe, the Balkans, etc.) as well as Middle Eastern articles. I've encountered too many "my inglish not so mech good" dupes to feel overly sensitive about AGF where it's not merited. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: Having checked the user's global accounts, their home page is Korean Wikipedia (2 edits only - neither of which involved writing in Korean; no user page; no talk page bar a standard welcome) + French Wikipedia edits x 2 edits (again no user page, talk page or any edits requiring the use of French) + Chinese Wikipedia x 1 edit (no user page, talk page or edits requiring the use of Chinese) + English Wikipedia x 540 edits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Massacre_of_Kalavryta#On_categorization_as_Violence_against_men
While I'm always happy to see more reviewers, I only count 26 articles in GAN/Warfare. Of which maybe half-a-dozen already have reviewers. I think that the situation is far more desperate at ACR where some articles have been sitting for more than a month awaiting reviewers. Normally we're quite a bit better there, but I don't really know why things have been different of late.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Actually, it's not as simple as that. There may be some problems with the bot alert, but it picks up MH tagged articles that aren't at Wikipedia:GAN#Warfare, but are nevertheless nominated for GAN. Here's the scoop. GANs listed at Warfare aren't the only MILHIST GANs. Here's a few current examples Talk:Dejan (magnate)/GA1 is listed under Royalty, nobility and heraldry, but is also a MILHIST GAN, as is Talk:Dayton Project/GA1 which is listed at Chemistry and materials science. Both are MH GANs as well. So the "current" 24 ain't all the MH GANs. Any ideas about how to fix this? @Kirill Lokshin:? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense, although it seems to be very slow in deleting completed reviews; which is my main point of criticism. No ideas off the top of my head, but I'll think on it a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thakns I'll consider that. It's a big book, and we only need to identify 18 more, most of whom may only get a passing mention. All the best, RichFarmbrough, 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
Sorry I must be dense - what info did you actually need from the book? I had a quick look and couldn't find any of those guys listed at the link provided in the book. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on this page regarding Bismarck's role as a peacemaker, which is nowhere near agreement and would benefit from an outside opinion or two. Can anyone look in (here) and comment? Thanks, 12:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
.svg)
