Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The May newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War Good article reassessments Lockheed YF-22 • Galatian War Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,350) • only work on referencing and citation (43,141) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,469) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,633) • work on structure (31,782) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,186) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,746) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (20) • assessment as lists (123) • project tags fixed (8) • assessment checklists added (12) • assessment checklists completed (33) • task forces added (296) • attention to task force coverage (679)

Task Force housekeeping

Now might perhaps be a good time to consolidate some of the quieter TFs into larger, more active, ones. Obvious candidates are:

• Taiwanese military history (one editor) could be absorbed into Chinese military history.

• Australian military history and New Zealand military history, with a scope expanded to include the Pacific Islands, could be merged to form the Australasian task force.

• Lebanese military history and Ottoman military history are merged into Middle Eastern military history. The Lebanese TF is already specifically designated as sub-group, so this is not really a radical change, and the prime movers are increasingly inactive. While the Ottoman also straddled Europe, its main sphere of influence was the Middle East.

• Military science could be merged with Military technology and engineering to form the Military science and technology task force.

Thoughts?  Roger Davies ^talk

Initial comments

Agree with all suggested mergers. Buckshot06(prof) 14:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. EyeSerene^talk 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the Ottoman one. The Ottomans were from very early on a European power as well as an Anatolian one, and a very active one at that. One could even argue that the centre of power of the Ottoman state before 1517 was in Europe rather than Asia. But even after the defeat of the Mamelukes, and with the exception of the wars with Persia, most of the Ottoman military activity actually happened in Europe. The Middle East may have formed the bulk of the Empire, but in terms of foreign policy & military history, the Ottomans were most active in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe. Constantine ✍ 17:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the same mind with the Ottoman Task Force. The Ottoman Empire's main military campaigns were fought on European/Central Asian soil (with Russia, Austria, Austria-Hungary, etc). I have to agree w/ Constantine that Ottoman Military should remain separate. As for the others, I have no objections. Cam ^(Chat) 19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's true, but this is more about whether or not the Ottoman TF is active enough to support its existence as a standalone TF. Perhaps we could look at other TFs to find a more suitable one for a merger? EyeSerene^talk 07:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Agree with all mergers; they can always be de-merged if enough people join them. Skinny87 (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that while separating two merged task forces may be theoretically possible, it's an utter nightmare in terms of practical logistics; so we shouldn't make this decision lightly, with the idea that we can flip between the two arrangements. If we're going to merge things, we should be reasonably confident that we won't need to un-merge them at least in the foreseeable future. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree with naming of new Australizan/New Zealand Task Force, if its scope is going to include other nations in that region, perhaps it should be named the Oceania task force.
• Disagree with the merging of the Taiwanese and/or Chinese Military History Task Forces. As seen in the argument of who is a Taiwanese and Chinese American both words are politically loaded and contentious, and although all editors are suppose to maintain a NPOV, this may cause some tension in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Oceanian military history" sounds like a reasonable alternative to "Australasian military history"; I assume there's nothing controversial about the term in the region in question?

• Nothing wrong except your suffix. I've never heard of 'Oceanian', ever. I'd suggest sticking with Oceania. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Really? I'd always assumed that "Oceanian" was the common adjective form (cf. Category:Oceanian countries). Do people there normally only use the noun form, even in an adjective role? Things like "Oceania history" and so forth sound off to me, but that could be a mistaken assumption on my part. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Although, looking at this further, Military history of Oceania uses "Oceanic" instead. Is that a more common term? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, I've never heard of either. Prefer 'Oceania military history.' Buckshot06(prof) 00:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've heard both Oceanian and Oceanic, but never Oceania as an adjective. Perhaps Oceanic would sound better here. – Joe N 01:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems I'm outvoted. Oceanic military history will do fine. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• As far as the Taiwanese one is concerned, I don't think that we should let the political issue keep us from doing what's best for the project. The alternative, in my opinion, would likely involve deleting the Taiwanese TF entirely; it's far too small and inactive to sustain itself, or be worth maintaining merely for organizational value. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another possible candidate might be the Romanian TF into the Balkan TF. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Romania was normally not considered part of the Balkans. Is that not the case? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What about upgrading the Romania task force into a central Europe task force that would cover all the missing countries? - Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria, etc? Buckshot06(prof) 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's more Eastern Europe than Central Europe, really—and that's one area where trying to merge task forces together will almost certainly cause huge fights to break out. It's better to leave those particular task forces well enough alone, in my opinion, even if they're not quite as a active as we'd like.

(The potential is certainly there, in any case; the sheer numbers of articles involved are quite high, even if we have too few editors working on them.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If we created just a general Eastern Europe TF that included the Balkans, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus (possibly even the countries currently in the Nordic TF), and overlapped slightly with European Russia, that would avoid political issues. The main drawback would be that it might become rather large in terms of number of articles. – Joe N 01:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Romania is, it certainly isn't Central Europe, which would be Germany, Switzerland Austria, the northern part of Italy, Czech republic, and an eastern swath of Hungary. If you look at the history journals that deal with "Central Europe"... they define it pretty clearly. Eastern Europe, then covers Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. Point: for a good part of the early modern and modern past, most of the armies from those areas would fall under Habsburg or HRE categories. While they have a long history as a people, they have a relatively short history as a state.

• One of the elements I find fascinating about this discussion is the move from nationalist military history, toward geopolitical definitions that are not necessarily nationalistic. Veeeeery interesting. Is there a problem with having task forces that deal with the areas/states that have active members, and then putting the others in general geographic clusters? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned at the name Military science and technology task force - I think the military science part gets lost, and it sounds as if it's just about science and technology in a military context. Military science is, of course, the study of the causative factors and tactical principles of warfare (per Dictionary.com - though Military science seems to think it's about technology and equipment) and thus embraces articles on strategy and tactics rather than technology. But then I'm a member of the Military science task force, and I've never done anything specifically arising from it, so my views shouldn't count for much. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Weighing in finally on these...

• Taiwanese military history absorbed into Chinese military history: Have to admit the first thing I thought of here was current political significance of such a merger, even though I know that's not what's meant with this proposal, so I have to say I'm not particularly comfortable with it.

• Australian military history and New Zealand military history, with a scope expanded to include the Pacific Islands, merged to form the Australasian task force: I can handle this merge and the suggested name, or the name Oceanic task force (shades of Orwell...!).

• Lebanese military history and Ottoman military history merged into Middle Eastern military history: Agree with merging Lebanese Task Force into Middle East Task Force, but I think Ottoman Task Force should stay separate.

• Military science merged with Military technology and engineering to form the Military science and technology task force: While I think Cyclopaedic has a good point about the difference between science (as he's defined 'military science') and technology, I'd prefer to see these rationalised if possible.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for Australasian task force- almost no-one uses "Oceanic" in everyday use and Australia and NZ are going to be the major components of the taskforce anyway, so "Australasian" is fine IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also say "Australasian". "Oceanic" is an adjective that refers to the oceans rather than Oceania. Constantine ✍ 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Australasian works best for me. It's unambiguous and, as Ian mentions, Oceania is very Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. I see nothing wrong with having both an Australian task force and a New Zealand one. IMO an Oceania task force would be difficult to live with (being melodramic of course), although an Australasian one would be acceptable but only grudgingly. I think the Australian task force in particular is a fairly active one and if we accept the recent rogue creation of the Pakistan task force we should be able to justify the continued existance of the Australian one. Personnally I don't see the need for the change. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That part of the proposal isn't about ending the existence of the Australian TF, which I agree is one of our more productive ones, but rather finding a natural home for the all-but-inactive New Zealand TF. I suppose there's no real harm in keeping inactive TFs on the books, but in terms of the (albeit small) administrative overhead it makes sense to rationalise them where we can. EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, you've seen my comments above - just want to say I continue to support the merger of TFs as per my notes above. Don't really have any strong opinion what the Aust/NZ task force is called, but believe it should be merged. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, I too support a merger of the Australian and NZ task forces, however, because it has been proposed that the smaller populated island nations be included within its scope, I only have disagreement on what it is named. For that part I believe the name should be as inclusive as possible. Furthermore, I believe we all have the understanding that military forces in American Samoa will remain within the scope of the US Task force?

However, I do object to the merger of the Taiwanese/RoC Task Force with the Chinese/PRC Task Force, due to the political issues that may arise from it, as I had stated above.

For all other mergers, I have no opinion on them, and should continue per consensus, if one has been reached. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast, what Kirill's told me in the past with 'delineation' issues like American Samoa is that he's happiest if there are no particular inclusion restrictions. Am Samoa issues might attract two taskforce tags, but his argument would be there's no harm in that.

For the record, I have no objection to merging the ROC and Chinese task forces. Buckshot06(prof) 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no harm in both TF's being able to improve any military articles relating to American Samoa, just as long as there is no exclusion, of the US Task Force, then it should be all gravy. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While my contributions in this area have been modest, I don't see the wisdom in merging Military Science with Military Science and Technology. The former is more fundamental and relatively invariant with time whereas the latter has many many more pages devoted to it and changes constantly. Military Science has no real impact on technology. Technology does mediate the application of Military Science but not the fundamental principles which are centuries old. Dduff442 (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say change the Indian one to a whole subcontinental/South Asia one. The Pakistan one is simply pointless and some SL and Bangladesh are floating in SE Asia YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Add Nepal to the subcontinent/S Asia one, maybe Afghanistan as well; the Taliban is current "middle east" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll flag this discussion up in the new edition of The Bugle to get a bit more feedback so we can move it towards a resolution.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to a South Asian task force. In fact, this has been proposed before as well. Taking an example from the area I work in; articles related to the Sri Lankan civil war either have no regional task force or are in the Idian/south east asian ones as YellowMonkey mentioned. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this one, also. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, the conversation so far is fairly chaotic, and deliberation about any one task force suggestion is getting lost in between the conversations relating to the others. I think a subsection for each proposal should be created (maybe with a summary of the opinion so far as observed by one or more of the Coordinators): that way, we can keep discussion of the proposals out of each others' way. -- saberwyn 08:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary

As requested, with the caveat that I've contributed to the discussion above so am not technically uninvolved. If anyone feels I have misjudged consensus as a result, please feel free to amend as necessary :) I suggest further discussion, if desired, takes place under each proposal's individual section. EyeSerene^talk 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Taiwanese military history and Chinese military history

• Original proposal: Taiwanese military history (one editor) could be absorbed into Chinese military history.
• Summary of discussion: Few explicit opinions (outside blanket approvals) have been offered either way. The main objection is that the merger may have awkward political ramifications; this has been countered by the suggestion that politics should have no bearing on what's best for Milhist, and because the Taiwanese TF is so small the alternative might be to remove it entirely.
• Consensus position so far: Merger approved

I believe that I am the only one opposed to the merger at this point. No? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose also expressed a concern, for the same reasons, although it wasn't an outright oppose. EyeSerene^talk 12:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian military history and New Zealand military history

• Original proposal: Australian military history and New Zealand military history, with a scope expanded to include the Pacific Islands, could be merged to form the Australasian task force.
• Summary of discussion: The idea of some form of merger has attracted almost unanimous support; however, what to call the new task force has been more contentious. Suggestions have included "Australasian military history", "Oceaniac military history", and variants on the two. Both Australasian and Oceaniac have attracted support.
• Consensus position so far: Principle of merger approved; no clear consensus as yet for the new task force name (although "Australasian military history" may have a slight edge)

• • I would lean towards "Australasian", as, although I am familiar with the term "Oceania" for the region, I have never heard the term "Oceaniac". Also, at first glance, most people would read the name as task force for oceans. -- saberwyn 03:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I've changed my mind to be in favour of Australian and New Zealand military history task force, and limiting inclusion to those two nations. -- saberwyn 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Although I have already stated it, I support a title relating to the Oceania region, it is more inclusive a term and doesn't favor a single nation within said region. Alternatively South West Pacific redirects to the Oceania page, at like the suggested South Asia TF, SWP TF may also be an idea and has historic precedents in the SWPA. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Would SWP then also include the Phillipines, then? If not, we're likely to cause confusion due to the common meaning of the name in WWII matters; but I'm not sure that there's a good argument to be made for expanding into SE Asia either. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, lets leave SE Asia out of this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would support a task force called 'Australian and New Zealand military history task force, but I would not support a task force called Oceaniac or Oceania military history task force. My reason for this is that the majority of the articles that would be in the task force would be Australian and New Zealand and hence the other hangers on would just be the poor cousins that probably wouldn't get improved anyway. Why not an A&NZ task force, which could exist alongside the currently existing South East Asian task force, which could be expanded to include the Pacific Islands nations. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Another idea is that there could be the ANZAC or Australian and New Zeland task force, or whatever you want to name it, leave the South East Asian Task Force as is, and then have/create a Polynesia/Micronesia/Melanesia task force for those other nations and territories which were termed by someone else in this discussion as "poor cousins". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we do, I would really like to see something covering all those islands. I support Oceanic, which covers those and sounds less awkward than Australasian (it's really long and hard to spell). – Joe N 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese military history and Ottoman military history

• Original proposal: Lebanese military history and Ottoman military history are merged into Middle Eastern military history.
• Summary of discussion: This has attracted little explicit support (although comes under several blanket approvals). There have been no objections to merging the Lebanese TF with the Middle Eastern TF; the main opposition arises from suggestions that the Ottoman sphere of influence was not limited to the Middle East. However, the question of whether it is active enough to support its stand-alone existence, or could be merged with a more suitable task force, remains to be examined.
• Consensus position so far: Lebanese task force; merger approved. Ottoman task force; accounting for blanket supports, there is a weak consensus for the merger. However, further discussion may be desirable.

I support the merger of the Lebanese task force into the Middle East task force, but think that perhaps the Ottoman task force needs to be separate. After all it is not so much a geographical grouping in that regard, but rather a period of history. For example, the ACW task force is separate from the US, as is Napoleonic from French, British etc. I'm not involved in any of these task forces, though, so my vote might be a little redundant. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Military science and Military technology and engineering

• Original proposal: Military science could be merged with Military technology and engineering to form the Military science and technology task force.
• Summary of discussion: Again, this has attracted a number of blanket but few explicit supports. A concern was raised that Military Science has meanings incompatible with Military technology and engineering, but although acknowledged this has not been widely echoed.
• Consensus position so far: Merger approved

To acount for the concern of the discrepancy in meaning from "science and technology" to "military science," I would suggest Military arts and sciences task force. I found both US and Canadian official usage to substantiate this name as adequately covering the full spectrum of the merged task forces.

• In the DoD there is no definition of "military science" but "military education" defined as "the systematic instruction of individuals in subjects that will enhance their knowledge of the science and art of war." This use of arts and sciences is in alignment with usage in traditional academic institutions.
  • http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/m/5471.html
• At the Royal Military College of Canada the Department of Applied Military Science falls within the Faculty of Engineering and is very much focused on science and technology. At the same time, the college offers a Bachelor of Military Arts and Science(BMASc) which is an interdisciplinary programme mixing traditional academic arts and sciences. There are also several Diploma of Military Arts and Science programs offered through Canadian vocational colleges and aimed toward Canadian non-commissioned officers.
  • http://www.rmc.ca/aca/ac-pe/ug-apc/dcs-dep/ap-pu-eng.asp
  • http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENCA290&num=20&q=Diploma+of+Military+Arts+and+Science&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Given all this, it seems to me that the term "military science" is occasionally (or potentially by region) used more narrowly than it is here on Wikipedia. At the same time there is precedent (US DoD and Canadian academia) for using "military arts and science" to cover that broader meaning. MCG (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Romanian military history and Balkan military history

• Proposal emerged during debate: Romanian military history could be merged into the Balkan military history task force.
• Summary of discussion: The point was made that Romania is not considered part of the Balkans; further suggestions then involved the creation of a wider "Eastern European task force" that might include "Balkans, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus (possibly even the countries currently in the Nordic TF), and [portions of] European Russia".
• Consensus position so far: Not moved beyond initial proposal stage; further discussion needed

Approve merger of Romanian task force into Balkan task force. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I also support this merger. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Indian military history and Pakistani military history

• Proposal emerged during debate: Merger of Indian and Pakistani task forces into a newly-created South Asian military history task force, to include areas such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.
• Summary of discussion: Unanimous support so far.
• Consensus position so far: Merger approved, although this suggestion has not yet attracted wide participation and further input would be useful.

Approve merger of both into South Asian task force. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Should it also include Bhutan, Maldives, Tibet, the British Indian Ocean Territories, per the South Asia article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Tibet seems out of place, both politically—the Chinese/Taiwanese thing is paralleled here—and historically, since there was little military similarity between Tibet and the Subcontinent. (Having said that, I'm not sure if we even have any articles on Tibetan military history at the moment, so this may be a moot point.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Tibet, as there is little/no military activity across the Himalayas until the last 100 or so years and Tibetan military issues have always been with Chinese invasions. In the old days, Chinese pilgrims and Buddhist scholars etc always went up to Kazakhstan and turned around and went through modern Afghanistan and Pakistan to get to the foothills of Nepal to places like Varanasi and Lumbini. The Himalayas were virtually impassable. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the eight SAARC nations, since these are the ones generally regarded as south asian countries? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would see no problem with that, except in so far that it should include the islands of the Indian Ocean north of the equator and east of the 60E Longitude, and should not extend to China if it were to become a full member of SAARC. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a suitable scope to me. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

This thread has now been archived a couple of times for lack of comment, which may be an indication that everyone who wants to has had their say (at least for the moment). Therefore unless there are any objections, I'm intending to close up those proposals which have consensus in the next 48 hours or so. Summary below. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Struck; last call for comments going out in newsletter so will hold off for a little while. EyeSerene^talk 15:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the following changes are approved:

• Taiwanese military history will be absorbed into Chinese military history
• Lebanese military history will be absorbed into Middle Eastern military history
• Military science will be merged with Military technology and engineering to form Military science and technology
• Romanian military history will be absorbed into Balkan military history
• Indian military history will be merged with Pakistani military history to form South Asian military history

Those areas that do not have consensus are:

• The scope and name of the new combined Australia/New Zealand/Pacific Islands task force
• The absorption of Ottoman military history into Middle Eastern military history (no consensus=status quo, so the current position is that Ottoman military history will be retained as a separate entity)
• The scope of the new South Asian military history task force

Fully support these proposed changes; I'm sure the remaining issues can be worked out in time. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What objections I have have already been expressed, and seeing as how I appear to be in the minority opinion, the ROC/PRC military history merger shall continue.

There appears to be some additional backing regarding my defined scope for the South Asian military history task force, see above.

I don't believe there is so much a question of scope, as much as name. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless I've missed something I'm not seeing any objections to "South Asian military history" as the name. Have I understood your point correctly?

Re the scope, I agree it does now seem there's a consensus emerging to include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and the islands of the Indian Ocean. EyeSerene^talk 08:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No objection to the name, no objection ot the scope. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse name and scope for SATF. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot one thing, the islands of the Indian Ocean shouldn't include the islands off the eastern coast of Africa, which should be in that task forces scope. Therefore Madagascar, Seychelles, & Mauritius should fall under African military history task force. And thus my statement earlier regarding the part of the Indian Ocean that should be under the new SATF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Military Science and Military Technology would be clearer. Very very few people with an interest in military matters have an interest in Mil Science. The vanishingly small number will struggle to find it under 'Science and Technology'.Dduff442 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Intentional break

So where do we go from here? It appears that most of the proposals have reached consenus, in whole or in part, save some minor adjustment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We're waiting to see if anyone who wasn't aware of the discussion sees the mention of it in the newsletter, so if noone else comments in the next few days, it can be implemented as far as I know. – Joe N 14:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion closed

Thank you very much to all who have participated; your thoughtful guidance in shaping the direction of our project is hugely appreciated! The five changes that have met with our membership's approval (those summarised in the "Next steps" section above) are now being implemented. A large number of updates to various pages and templates are involved, so the process may take a week or two to fully filter through. EyeSerene^talk 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Historians of the Year

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

---

Military historian of the Year 2009

With the end of the year nearly upon us, the time has come to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project should be awarded this years "Military Historian of the Year" award. Any Milhist editor may nominate up to ten editors – this is to prevent any of our resident geniuses from nominating the entire membership list :) – but can vote for as many editors as they like. Self-noms are frowned upon.

The top three get the gold wiki, the silver wiki, and the bronze wiki respectively. All other nominatees will receive the WikiProject barnstar. Please nominate in the following format, with brief comments (twenty words max). Votes go under the nomination and are approval (ie support) only.

• [user name] [reason] ~~~~

:# Support. ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Thanks!

Nomination and voting

Please try to keep nomination statements to twenty words max. Thanks, and good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Abraham, B.S, for great bios, branching out from VC winners into RAN, RAAF and general Australian Army work. This year contributed 8 FAs and numerous GAs, and earned 5 A-class medals, 2 Four Awards, an Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown, and the Wikichevrons with Oak Leaves. An all-round active participant/reviewer and twice-elected coordinator. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as nom. Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong support - you had time to write articles with all of those reviews? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support For seemingly trying to give every article at the milhist peer review some useful comments, making the process useful. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support per nom, excellent work Abraham! Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support yup, and very helpful to the newbies (like yours truly). Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support—AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support For his all around dedication to milhis, and especially his assistance to other editors through peer reviewing their work. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) - Come into the project like a breath of fresh air, contributing a broad range of quality articles (including 3 FAs), detailed and insightful reviews, and plenty of discussion. Recently earned the Wikichevrons with Oak Leaves for all this and more. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as nom. Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Admirable bunch of GAs and FAs, and along some important key topics too. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support – an excellent "newbie" editor and person. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Always nice to see a new editor who really jumps in and starts contributing great stuff. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• BilCat (talk · contribs) - Bill has continued to tirelessly work on aviation and other articles to improve their accuracy and protect them from vandals. While not as flashy as developing FAs and the like, this kind of editing is vital for enhancing Wikipedia's credibility and a brief look at Bill's contribution history on any given day highlights the remarkably wide range of articles he keeps an eye on and contributes to. Bill has also continued to be a great source of advice to other editors working on aviation and military topics. Nick-D (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Somebody after my own heart, actually: quietly but thoroughly raising the standards of quality. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Durova (talk · contribs) – She has added to this project's Featured Pictures (I counted 8 or 9 from 2009, although I'm sure I've missed some), and importantly has offered to share her skills with others and teach them how to touch up images. Moreover, her research for Wikipedia has had real-life results with the Library of Congress updating their records about this image. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Turns out those Feature Pictures number a lot more than "8 or 9". Nev1 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. One of the primary contributors to the project's collection of historical images and illustrations. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

   Note: While the nomination fairly sums up Durova's dedication to the project, it seems to underestimate the amount of work she's done; according to User:Durova/2009 MILHIST project work, she helped bring 35 relevant pictures to featured status this year alone. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Support - per Julian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Absolutely. Pictures aren't always worth a thousand words, but hers leave me speechless. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. A most impressive amount of featured credit contributions. The Wounded Knee Massacre restoration made news offsite - and Durova's discovery was incorporated into official exhibit notes at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. This type of effort helps to reflect positively back on the project. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support per all above. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Support —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. Probably the most important person working on our featured pictures. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7, for excellent Australian bio and battle articles, and penetrating A-Class reviews. This year he's contributed 4 FAs and numerous GAs, and earned 6 A-class medals and an Imperial Triple Crown. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as nom. Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support—AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. It seems like every other ACR I do is an Australian general from him. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ian Rose (talk · contribs) - for making a significant impact on Wikipedia's coverage of military aviation-related topics. Ian has developed no less than eight articles to FA status this year (all of which passed ACRs first) and a further four to A class status, achieved large numbers of GAs and DYKs, been elected a coordinator twice and has made a very valuable contribution to the project's review processes. Nick-D (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - per Nick. I'm always glad to see Ian's comments during ACRs. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support good writing, good research, and good and helpful human. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support—AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support – an excellent and ever helpful editor who is a great asset to Milhist. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support For his overall work on milhis. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Support. Great stuff all around. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• MBK004 (talk · contribs) - For outstanding work as both a coordinator for the project and for his consistent monitoring and updating the status of articles within the OMT page parameters. MBK always seems to be on top of things here, and is always among the first to lend assistance or to correct an error. Its an honor for me to nominate him. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support definitely one of the people who fills the tires and keeps everything smoothly running. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support – ever working behind the scenes to keep the cogs turning, among collaboration and maintenance work on naval articles. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Lots of behind the scenes stuff most people don't see. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Per nom, and willing to help out an editor who get's himslef into sticky situations sometimes! - BilCat (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Support per nom - perhaps our most active coordinator, of no small import. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• MinisterForBadTimes (talk · contribs) – Although MFBT has not nominated and Featured content, they have done diligent work in the area of ancient history, which is a weak spot for this project. He has developed Greco-Persian Wars to GA status, a genuine "big picture" work, and its importance demonstrated by the page views. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. His work on the Greco-Persian War and related articles has just been incredible. Kyriakos (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nick-D, for his continuing "big picture" work, particularly achieving FA status for Military history of Australia during World War II, one of 5 FAs this year along with 2 A-class medals and a Triple Crown. Another fine all-round participant/reviewer, twice-elected coordinator, and admin to boot (and don't we all love to boot admins - sorry couldn't resist)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as nom. Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong support - great reviews at WP:MHR#A-CLASS + scary good article writer. Australian light destroyer project is one of my favorite articles, while Military history of Australia during World War II is one of the best articles on a large-scale topic that I have seen (I don't think you used enough books, though—I count 67. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Nick always writes great articles, especially the valuable "big picture" type as Ian points out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. His articles are great and Military history of Australia during World War II is just a phenomenal achievement. Kyriakos (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, and I agree with Ed that Australian light destroyer project is one of my favorite articles written this year (too bad it isn't featured, nudge...) -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support—AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support – tireless editor, reviewer, coordinator and administrator. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Support For his large number of well rounded contributions to milhis. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. Good stuff, including articles and coordinator work. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - Good work, good admin (I've felt his boot a time or two - and needed it a few more!), and alwys willing to help out in difficult editing situations, especially in keepin gNPOV in aticles. Great work on Aussie-related articles, but well-rounded too on other areas of the world. - BilCat (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs) - I've already had occasion to compare Parsecboy to Bellhalla for quantity and quality of articles. If I have my numbers right, he's contributed to no less than 11 FAs this year, and earned 6 A-Class Medals. His dedication is something to behold, and earned him the Wikichevrons with Oak Leaves as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as nom. Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Steady, reliable. I've been writing for the project 6 months and he's done a lot to help me understand wikipedia and the project. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support, and do not forget that within those 11 FAs is a fully-featured topic for WP:OMT as well as several other topics that are close to completion! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support – amazing article work and ever helpful. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - goodness, six A-class medals as in eighteen A-class articles? Didn't know it was that much. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Taught me more about German battleships than I ever wanted to know. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sturmvogel 66‎ (talk · contribs) - Unlike my other nominees, Storm doesn't tend to target Featured status (though he has one of those anyway) but has produced a phenomenal number of very useful articles generally of minimum B-Class standard as well as at least 16 GAs (including a Good Topic), 2 As, and a stack of DYKs. Also 5 times winner of the Monthly Article Writing Contest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline I'm afraid that I must decline the nomination although it was most unexpected as I don't feel that I've done enough to warrant such an honor this year. But wait for next year when I expect universal acclamation for both the quality and quantity of my output! (he said, twirling his moustache, with an evil glint in his eye.)Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as nom. Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Indeed, I am impressed as the nom says, by all those DYKs - and also the 5-time monthly contest winner is no small feat either. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support – a machine who just pumps out articles! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• The ed17 (talk · contribs) – For exceptional and prolific contributions to maritime-related articles, most notably historic battleships. During 2009, The ed17 has submitted to Wikipedia seven featured articles related to military history, two A-Class articles, and an additional eight good articles. He has recently been promoted to administrator, and has served well as a co-coordinator of MILHIST twice. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support as nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong support This is a hard worker who produces high-grade work, & very easy to work with besides. (Also, he pays well. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Ed produces a ton a high-quality work, and it's been a pleasure collaborating with him on a number of articles, such as Amagi-class battlecruiser, our TFA on the 9th. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support, the project and WP:OMT would be at an extreme loss without him. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support – excellent editor who is always ready and willing to assist. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Lots of contributions to articles and work in the coordinating department. – Joe N 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions and comments

Eh? What qualifies someone as Military historian of the year? Volume? ratings? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruth, the emphasis tends to be on quality and volume of articles, but being an all-round good egg helps (a little bit like WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Like Ruth said, its the person who you think did the most for the project in the last 12 months; someone whose hard work and dedication deserves to be rewarded. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the person who nominates the winning editor get a prize, as well? :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, there's an idea... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How about bragging rights for nominating the winner? That sounds like a good prize to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That'll do, especially since at this stage of the game it looks like I have two shots at those bragging rights... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang (talk · contribs) has done fantastic work getting the Battle of Barnet and Battle of Bosworth Field up to FA quality in 2009. His articles have been poached tagged by WP:Milhist, so isn't it only fair that Jappalang is eligible to be "Military historian of the year"? He has clearly done fine work in the subject – widening the project's scope, which appears to be obsessed with modern warfare – and yet because Jappalang has not added their name to the project's membership list they're ineligible. Is this fair? Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think anyone who's contributed quality content that falls under the project's purview should be eligible, since, after all, the readers won't care whether he's explicitly a member of the project, just whether his articles are well written. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

or she....  !!! Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

RFC: Does the book, Starship Troopers, fit in our criteria for inclusion

Does the book, Starship Troopers, fit in our criteria for inclusion in the project?

For the aid of readers here is an excerpt from the MiliHist project's scope:

Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose.

Note that the project generally covers only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable. A distinction is therefore made between fictionalized depictions of historical warfare and purely invented depictions of fictional warfare; topics sufficiently divorced from actual history that a discussion of actual military history would no longer be relevant to them—such as futuristic warfare in Star Wars—are not considered to be within the project's scope. However, songs and music with long military associations—for example, It's a long way to Tipperary and Lili Marleen—are within the project's scope.

Ryan4314 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I say no, as the first sentence makes it clear that we are dealing with military science fiction, not fact. Other elements of the story, as read through the plot, also seem to suggest that military science is not quite there yet, so this helps reinforce my 'no' train of thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I'd initially say no, although the fact that the film is often considered a satire of the modern army, and that this book is required reading for a few armed forces (interesting that, if surprising!) sways me ever so slightly. But that's because of its legacy, not its content. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering it is Science Fiction and not Military History i would say no--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Müch as I enjoyed it, & as big a fan as I am of RAH, I'd also have to say no. It does, however, make me wonder if military SF generally shouldn't be added. Speculation on forthcoming modes of warfare has been part of military historiography for decades; while this is further afield, it's also a projection. One might also say commentary on the period. The same could be said of, for instance, Dorsai (commentary on mercenaries) or Tactics of Mistake (which is self-explanatory). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

With permission I have "bolded" the comments of contributors for ease of reading, please feel free to revert. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point there, but such technology would have to come from R&D efforts, and R&D comes under the purview of the Science and Engineering task force. Its therefore technically covered, although the extent to which it is covered is open to interpretation. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I would disagree on it falling under Engineering & thus isn't needed here. If Submarine falls here, does "Das Boot"? "Grey Lady Down"? "Hunt for Red October"? By extension, then, does ST or Dorsai!? I'd say it should. Not to say they shouldn't also fall under Film or SF, but who's better to judge the quality of the likes of Harry Harrison than somebody familiar with military matters? (OK, you'd probably have to be an SF buff, or your grasp of the fiction would be deficient, but...) I agree with Kiril in ST (among others) being more esoteric examinations of military theory. It's been years since I've read it, but IIRC, that was Dickson's whole point with Tactics. Do we ignore it just because it's...unconventional? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:55 & 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, comment above was not so much aimed at this particular book as it was to point out that R&D work, such as would be covered by the Science and Engineering Task Force, would be the likely place for any such attempt to develop equipment described in the novel. What I was getting at in my post above is that those who work to bring us tomorrow's technology today are usually people in science and engineering fields. For example, our nulcear weaponry in poular culture article notes that:

Nuclear weapons are a staple element in science fiction novels. The phrase "atomic bomb" predates their existence, back to H. G. Wells' The World Set Free (1914) when scientists had discovered that radioactive decay implied potentially limitless energy locked inside of atomic particles (Wells' atomic bombs were only as powerful as conventional explosives, but would continue exploding for days on end). Robert A. Heinlein's 1940 Solution Unsatisfactory posits radioactive dust as a weapon that the US develops in a crash program to end World War II; the dust's existence forces drastic changes in the postwar world. Cleve Cartmill predicted a chain-reaction-type nuclear bomb in his 1944 science fiction story "Deadline," which led to the FBI investigating him, due to concern over a potential breach of security on the Manhattan Project.

Given such examples, of which this is only one, it would be plausible to assume that some of what is penned in Starship Troopers would inevitably become real-to-life military hardware at some point in the future. When exactly is the issue, but the transition between pages in a paperback novel to real-to-life equipment would likely be effected through R&D projects. (Merry Christmas, BTW, I hope yours is as good as mine.) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

We're at cross-purposes, then. I was thinking of the use of (in ST's case) battlesuits, & how they influence tactics & strategy. Which, I argue, is within scope, here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the article was originally included not as a fictional depiction of warfare, but simply because of the prominence of the novel within U.S. military circles; see Starship Troopers#Popularity with U.S. military (I think it's still required reading at West Point). I'm not entirely certain whether that should qualify it for inclusion in and of itself; but I don't think we should limit ourselves to evaluating it merely against the criterion for fictional depictions—it can also be viewed as a work of military theory, albeit a more esoteric one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are enough reliable secondary sources that treat it as a work of military theory, then perhaps. Durova³⁸⁶ 17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No we ignor it because it is not history (it has not happend yet). We cannot say at this distance if its a prescent fortelling of future millitary delelopments, or just a peice of average SF (by the wat shouod we include 'Bill the galatic hero' as a counter point?, it has much to say on the millitary and propoganda?Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Although it's tempting to add fiction and particularly SF (I've just finished the latest book in The Lost Fleet series, which has great space battles), I think it would be uncontrollable. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with the skepticism. But not many works of fiction are taken seriously enough as military theory to become required curricula at an important military academy (is that really so?). There's at least something to discuss here; question is whether there's enough substance to expand that into a significant part of the article. As things currently stand I'd say no. Durova³⁸⁶ 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this then case with other fiction that is required reading in the millitary? for example The Red Badge of Courage makes no mention in its article that it is required reading in the USMC. Moreover why is Starship troopers required reading, its tactics? Technology? or as an example of men under fire? So if we are to included Starship troopers then we sould include all fiction that is considerd required reading by the millitary.Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we also cutting out wargames? (I don't know.) By definition, they aren't real, either, yet they do involve actual military theory. (Even chess. And yes, I know, they're also covered elsewhere.) I think of H. G. Wells' works on wargames, & wonder if his fiction would then be in/excluded. Also, if we're going to exclude SF as "hasn't happened yet", then any fictional treatment is also out of bounds. Does that leave out "Midway"? "Pearl Harbor"? By the "it hasn't happened yet", military simulation and operations research are out of bounds, too, because they both involve prediction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Still Xmas Eve here, but a Merry Xmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa {or whatever's appropriate ;p} to all. 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

In general I would agree with whoever said that while historically based military fiction should come under this projects auspices, science fiction / fantasy military fiction should not as they do not deal with real world military history. However in this specific case (and probably a handful of others), I think that the use of the book in an instructional/educational capacity by the academies of a major military force gives it enough of a connection to real world military theory etc. to be included by this project.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link to support this fact? Moreover in what context is it read>Slatersteven (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree that one mere fact (even if true) would do it. If sufficient reliable third party sources exist to write a substantial article section that discusses it as a serious work of military theory, then that would be worth considering. Passing mention isn't enough. We don't tag Eton College for MILHIST even though the Duke of Wellington said the Battle of Waterloo was won there. Durova³⁸⁶ 19:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That’s partially my point about context. Exactly what is it used to demonstrate? Tactics, strategy, (as a friend of mine put it "justification of the bombing of civilian targets"), the responsibility of solders within wider society? or something I have not thought of. We have to be able to demonstrate that it is used because it is a work of military theory (and called such by RS) not just that some high ranking solder thinks it a good book and wants others to read it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Tactics and strategy as they relate to the modern military could be within the scope of the project, but that still leaves of with the issue of to tag or not to tag a fictional book. I still think the book should not be tagged, but the strategies and tactics could be added or linked to relevant articles within our scope. I note that some of the concepts covered by the article - such as powered armoured combat suits - already have articles and are tagged as being within our scope. If we extend our coverage to this novel then I fear we may be compelled to extend it to other plausible SF series like Ghost in the Shell. From where I sit we could reasonably pass on tagging the article and not lose anything of great importance since its key military points appear to be covered in other articles on site and linked to from this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Um guys? If we adopt the military fiction task force with WP:NOVELS, all military fiction books, whether fiction or non-fiction, are going to be categorized under our scope somewhere... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Firearms articles to translate/mirror from French, German, Italian wikis

I went through the firearm sections at fr.wiki, de.wiki, and it.wiki and found 30-some articles with no parallel at en.wiki (and linked a few others that existed but were not cross-linked). Below are the MILHIST-related examples, so if anyone wants to take a stab. "Translate" is maybe not the right word, as some articles aren't so great and would be better built from scratch in English (and then linked to the it/fr/de version), while others are quite developed, have photos, etc.

German: de:Erma ESP 85 A, de:Falcon (Gewehr), de:FN Model 30-11, de:Gallager Carbine, de:IMI Galatz, de:Le Protector, de:Mauser K98 Spanisch (Santa Barbara) FR 8, de:MG 11, de:MP 41/44, de:Pardini SP, de:Raketenpistole, de:Sturmgewehr 58, de:Tabatièregewehr, de:Terzerol, de:Truvelo SR, de:Tesching, de:Turret-Revolver, de:Vz.24 (Pistole), de:Wieger

French: fr:Fusils et mousquetons Berthier, fr:K3 (fusil), fr:Fusil-mitrailleur de 7,5mm modèle 1924/1929 D, fr:Gorjunov SG-43, fr:RMR, fr:Frontier Bulldog, , fr:Pecheneg, , fr:Ruby llama, fr:Star Modèle 1914 fr:Bakalov, fr:Le Français 6,35 mm/7,65 mm/Modèle Armée (knocked out cross-out ones last evening)

Italian: it:Schioppo a vento Gilardoni, it:Fucile Vetterli-Vitali, it:Winchester - Maxim

If folks actually find this a helpful exercise, I can to the same for military vehicles, etc. Many of which have actually pretty good writeups and pics, just gear Anglophones don't think of as much since it's outside our immediate field of vision. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind doing a runthrough for units: battalions, brigades, divisions, corps, armies etc, and the same thing in the 'Armed forces of X' categories? It would be a useful task list to have for the national militaries task force. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly can, but which languages would be the most profitable for folks? I'm cool spending an hour digging out a couple dozen articles, but only if there's actually some follow-up on it where translators will go in and make good use of the target list. Do we have any "to translate" list for WP:MILHIST anywhere? Just let me know the most productive way to employ a target list, and I'll go rummage around and create more. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The German wikipedia is mostly about Europe/NATO units. It's French wikipedia - with its African details - that I would prefer you to focus on. Would you mind going through the African nations' articles in Fr wiki - I'll see that they are followed up. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you give me articles that are worth the effort, I can translate them from German to English, however, there's a big problem with citations. Getting them right, might take me some time. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

White flags in infoboxes

My edit was reverted ({{POW}} → [[Image:White flag icon.svg|15px|Surrendered]]) with words: "We need to keep everything consistent. See other WWII related pages." I need to know—Who 'invented' to use white flags in the infobox for WWII related pages, because I see the {{POW}} template is used in many WWII related pages: [1], and don't see any rule about white flags. And I need to hear its rationale and benefits of this for readers, because longer [[Image:White flag icon.svg|15px|Surrendered]] leads to the image of white flag, instead of {{POW}}, that lead to the Surrender (military) article. — Al3xil ✉ 15:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I dont know where they came from but it is located on a number of other pages. See:Battle of France, Eastern Front (World War II). Its not that bug of a deal and If you like, I can revert my own edit. Thanks--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That will be great, if you change it back. But I still would to know the standard (flag or template) for the future. Let me know, if there is some rule, and thanks for a quick response. — Al3xil ✉ 16:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I belive that the new standard is the White flag as readers can recognise that more than a # symbol.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed say more than a # symbol, but it also is a bit problematic. It links to the SVG image, not to an article explaining what it's about, so if the reader doesn't get it immediately there's no obvious way of explaining; the # approach at least means there's a link to surrender. It can also be confusing in a situation where, say, a leader surrenders or is captured but the rest of his force does not; a white flag is a very clear visual symbol, and so it's easy to assume it's more broad than it really is.

Personally, I would prefer using neither - I'm not convinced there's any benefit to cramming as much information as possible into the infobox - but I'm tempted to say the textual one wins out. It's certainly the one still documented as standard here. Shimgray | talk | 17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the flag often, but it is a clear indication of what happened to an individual and certainly clearer than #. One issue that niggles with me and seems worth mentioning here is that not every person who ends up in enemy hands after a battle actually surrendered, and I think it might be unfair simplifying situations in that way. I originally added the POW template to an article because the name seemed accurate, but Colonel Frost maintains that his little force at Arnhem bridge didn't surrender, but were overrun. This is fairly true as well, there was a truce, but fighting continued until all the remaining men had been captured (although they all ended up as POW's). I'd be happier if the white flag linked to POW, but that creates issues of its own.... Perhaps rename the template whatever happens? POW and surrender are different things after all. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were being used solely for those taken prisoner, we could have it generate, say, ^[POW] after the names, rather than the ambiguous hashmark. Marking "taken prisoner" rather than "surrendered" seems best; if a force surrendered, it'll probably be explicitly mentioned in the infobox anyway! Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having something that says POW in superscript sounds good to me. I don't like the white flags at all because of the links and how visually disrupting they are, but the hash mark can be kind of confusing if you don't have popups on. – Joe N 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be worth standardising, I think, if we do this - Smith^[POW], Jones ^[KIA]. Thoughts? I note that {{KIA}} already has an alternative display mode, which gives (K.I.A.) after the name. Shimgray | talk | 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. both have problems. We do need something that just says POW. and one that says KIA as well.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think, ^[POW] is the best solution for prisoners of war. We might use the white flag for a surrender of complete units like the 6th army at Stalingrad. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the flag is good for large conflicts, countries and armies (such as in the Battle of France), but less so for individual people. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Required task forces?

Do all articles require a task force? This Field Marshals of the Hereditary States of the House of Austria. does not fit any of the categories, unless we go for the time periods Early Modern and Napoleonic. It is distinctly not German, there is no Austrian task force, nor a Habsburg one. So can this article remain without a task force? Also, I'm not sure how I got a period into the title when I renamed the article, but how do I edit that out? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, all articles do not require a task force. Some regions are not covered. This one you're talking about would go in the time-period TF - as you said, early modern/Napoleonic. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Auntieruth, sorry if I've mucked this one up. I originally put the German tag on it because of the category that it is siting in (Field Marshals of Germany). If an article doesn't fit into an already existing task force it can be placed in the "no" task force by adding the parameter no=yes to the mil hist banner. Alternatively there appears to have been a suggestion that it might fit into the Napoleonic task force or Early Modern. I'll leave it up to you to decide though as I've already managed to get this one wrong once before. Cheers! — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those lists that falls into a lot of categories, dating to the time when armies were not national, thus an "Austrian" (or Habsburg) general could be Hungarian, thus not Austrian, or German, again not Austrian, or Russian or Swiss, etc. I think I will leave it without a task force until one is created that fits the bill. Even if we had a Holy Roman Empire task force, it wouldn't apply. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian Army units

I checked out Indonesian Wiki at your suggestion, and there are tons of military unit write-ups there. I don't know any Indonesian and don't know how good gTranslate is for Indo, but I did manage to figure out the category names, so inter-wiki'ed the subcats for AF, Navy, and Category:Military units and formations of Indonesia. They list 159 distinct units of the Indonesian military. It certainly is a huge military, not sure how well those units are covered in English-language media. EDIT: A ton of the unit articles are very short and simple, mostly stats and a little history, so might be easy to gTranslate and plug into the English. Here's my stab: Batalyon Infanteri 714. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest caution with simply translating unsourced articles on military units - what evidence is there that they're notable? The Indonesian Army has dozens (over 100?) infantry battalions, and I doubt that they're all notable. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would you advise caution Nick? I thought we had established that even separate combat companies were notable, and separate infantry battalions. The vast majority of these units have been involved in East Timor, Moluccas, the fighting in Aceh, the Dutch/Indonesian war, the various separatist uprisings in Indonesia's early years, and Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation with Malaysia. They will also have been involved in planning to resist feared Australian incursions into Indonesia. I'm frankly surprised at you, because you appear to be displaying systematic bias. Why should we write up the 39th Battalion (Australia) and not write up these units, simply because the details of their exploits are only available in Bahasa Indonesia or books like Ken Conboy's KOSPASSUS and may not come out for a while? By the way, my copy of MilBal 2007 says that the Kodams have 60 battalions, and KOSTRAD nine battalions, plus the three airborne brigades: total of around 78. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nick's main point was that many of these articles are unsoucrced. And since sources prove notability, that's improptant too. I think we need to make sure the information we're translating is properly sourced. Many of the other interwikis are very lax on sources, so this may limit waht we can use if it cn't be verified properly. So I'd advise caution too. - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, we need RSs. But Nick seemed to be claiming they were not notable - it was that point I was addressing.

I wasn't saying that they're not notable - just that they may not be notable and caution needs to be taken. I'm reasonably confident that all Australian infantry battalions have received sufficient coverage to meet WP:ORG as I'm familiar with the level of references available on them, but don't know if the same applies to Indonesian infantry battalions, particularly territorial infantry battalions. Machine translating non enWiki articles is a great way to counter our systemic bias in the coverage of military units, but when the source articles don't have any references care should be taken. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of WP id is unsourced - and many indonesian editors perpetually try uploading and moving across articles into WP en with not a WP:RS in sight - the WP Indonesia en project has an endless battle with the issue - if military history articles come into the project - then that is fundamentally a member of shooting it in its own foot effort brigade - the Indonesia project would have to put them up for Afd on the grounds that a transfer has occurred without due diligence at sourcing - I can think of a lot better things to do than transfer from WP id. cheers SatuSuro 07:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have had the same experience and agree with SatuSuro on this one. Maintaining this hard line against transferring un or poorly referenced content into WP EN might indeed create systematic bias, but if I had to chose one evil over the other, then I'd rather have a systematic bias than woeful (or more likely) no referencing. --Merbabu (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If indeed WP:N had the pip over the WP:RS we end up with a huge number of unreferenced stubs (no WP RS - and ok the subject exists but you might not be able to write much about them) - not a pretty sight and something the Indonesian project already has with places - whether we need it for military units is quite concerning that anyone should want to do that to the project SatuSuro 07:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there's no harm in interwikiing so long as the sources exist both to justify the notability of the battalion, and also sources for the claims made. I'm not sure how this would be established though, without access to an Indonesian-language state/national library - but I'm aware of the idwiki issues SatuSuro and Merbabu have raised and they are real issues. Orderinchaos 10:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) OK, points well made. While I was thinking about this earlier I came up with the idea of a List of Indonesian infantry battalions as a central reference point, rather than starting a huge number of unreferenced stubs. Tim Huxley, Director IISS-Asia in Singapore, is the man 'with the book' on Indonesian battalions, and I will poke around again in his published work. I think a list article, well referenced, is indeed the way to go. What I propose is simply listing the battalions from IndoWiki with designation, location, and higher command imported - thus establishing identity - and for anything else, we will have to provide sources. I have an old orbat for KOSTRAD which can form the basis of some of this. Additional comments/violent disagreement? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to find web sources in Indonesian military units. I can help look for print sources in the Cornell University Library Southeast Asia collection if someone is willing up to take up the project. I do agree that a list article would be best for now. Arsonal (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I've got some random sources naming various Indonesian infantry battalions which can be included. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is really appreciated that the Indonesia project issues have been heard - it is a great relief - as in the past the arrival of new material with inadequate sourcing or signs of cites - has really strained the Indonesian project resources - to see a willingness to work with the project and have sourced material is to be commended - thanks! SatuSuro 15:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The trick is to look for the Indonesian coded designations. Search for 'Yonif 744' (Inf Bn 744) for example. YonArm for cavalry, etc. All the abbreviations are available via the Indo interwiki links. If we get a few people searching for these type of code references we'll get a long way. Various reports etc on E Timor, Moluccas, etc (International Crisis Group) will also help. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: page is up, please, somebody watchlist it as well as me, add start adding data.. Cheers and best wishes. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately - stubs have started with (1) no RS - (2) Indonesian name as title of article - I think we need some further discussion here - in the Indonesian project en - we tend to have the English translation as the title and the Indonesian name as the AKA redirect - could those involved in creating stubs comment on this here please - or we are starting off on a poor start. SatuSuro 08:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The WPMILHIST guideline for unit names is English translation (with transliteration of names/locations etc) - which fits with the Indonsesian project. So by my understanding Batalyon Artileri Medan 11 should be at 11th Field artillery Battalion (Indonesia). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Suro, I'm keeping a very close eye on this, and I merge stub articles all the time if they cannot stand by themselves. I was also aware of the name issue. There are two possibilities. Matthew Vanitas went with Batalyon Infanteri 714. When I created Infantry Battalion 744 (Indonesia) I went with the opposite, translated, approach. Either is possible, and if you would give your preference Suro I'll switch the form around - either which way. The one thing, in my view, that we should NOT do is '11th x y z.' This does not appear to reflect Indonesian practice. They always use Inf Bn xxx. I reflected this when I created Infantry Division 1 Kostrad. Comments/disagreement welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the Indonesian numbering convention seems reasonable, since WP:MILMOS explicitly makes a provision for keeping numbering conventions (albeit in a slightly different context):

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

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Current practice in the Indonesian project is to find the english translation of the item the article is about - and have the indonesian language versions as an aka and redirect - as it then discourages the issue of Indonesian language only editors feeling that they can add material not in english (which is a serious issue believe me) - in the end if somebody on milhist is going to take issue (sigh) - it doesnt really matter whether the Indonesian name is used for the title - as long as the aka in english/ or indonesian is both a redirect to it and in the lead sentence - as far as the Indonesian project goes - if that happens all is sweet - it is when there is only one version as title and lead sentence item - with no indication of the other language - that it is unreasonable and or unnacceptable SatuSuro 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use the English-translated name. There are special cases where we would use the Indonesian name, especially if the Indonesian acronym would be more well known, e.g. KOSTRAD and Kopassus. Arsonal (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) GraemeLeggett has already moved the two battalion articles to the form Infantry Battalion 714 and Field Artillery Battalion 11. The military regional commands are all at KODAM, eg Kodam Jaya. I believe the placing for the KODAMs to be correct - that is the way they are usually referred to in English (do you concur, Arsonal?). We'll make sure all the translations get into place. Any other thoughts SatuSuro? - should we merge the battalion articles which are short and unsourced into the list? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I do concur. You can verify by searching for "Kodam" and "Kodams" in Google Books (specifically). I've found that doing this usually gives you a sense on how certain terms are used in the literature. Another issue I would like WP:MILHIST to consider is how to treat acronyms in Indonesian military units. More recently, I've been leaning away from full capitalization as acronyms such as KOSTRAD and KOPASSUS have become so commonly used that it can effectively be a word of itself. This treatment of compound words is quite common in the language. Arsonal (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone clarify on this - Kodam VI/Tanjungpura roughly works out as Command VI Tanjungpura with Tanjungpura being a place. ie similar to the German practice of giving Divisions names as well as numbers. And if so, is the forward slash actually needed? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that they are alternative names, but they are not necessarily locations. Some are names of people (e.g. Diponegoro and Pattimura) and states (e.g. Sriwijaya) from Indonesian pre-modern history. Some Kodams are also not numbered. (See Indonesian Army#Military Area Commands.) I am fine with leaving out the numbers in the article namespace and putting a redirect. I should also mention that modern literature most often use the term Kodam to describe the units. However, you may see some literature describing them as "Divisions", e.g. "Diponegoro Division" and "Siliwangi Division", especially those dating around 1940s to 1960s. Arsonal (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Correcting myself since I misread your question. I'm not sure if the forward slash is needed. Using it seems common in a Google Books search. We do use slashes a lot, such as in legislation designations. I would be fine with leaving it out, and I trust your judgment in this matter in compliance with whatever manual of style. Arsonal (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the names - for that's what they are - are usually Indonesian mythic 'honorifics;' you could make a comparison to Russian formation honorifics. There are two current Kodams that are not numbered, Kodam Jaya in Jakarta and the new one covering Aceh. I have just moved Infantry Division 1 KOSTRAD back to the original form I created it as, Infantry Division 1 Kostrad, as Arsonal is right - the terms begin their life as acronyms, but become words in their own right and appear to be used as such. The TNI began their existence with divisions, that's correct, but all the divisions were disbanded, with some of the divisions' heritage living on as military regional commands. A comparison would be the high numbered US Army Reserve infantry divisions, such as the 103rd Infantry Division (United States) which became a regional readiness command of the Army Reserve.

With / names, we've got to be careful; for the Kodams it's all right, but would get very confusing if we do it below that level. Every infantry brigade and battalion seems to have a name, and I think we should leave it at Infantry Battalion 714 or maybe Infantry Battalion 744 (Indonesia). Buckshot06 (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cat tagging

As a BTW - I have been cat tagging for the new WP:DEATH project - and of course quite a few items overlap with MILHIST - I have come across quite a few obvious MILHIST categories with no project tags at all: Is there any one in MILHIST actually monitoring the category issue - or does checks at all? It is well worth having categories tagged for project maintenance and overall monitoring purposes - also there is the issue that maybe a bot running person no longer does it or is off on holidays - or no-one in the project is doing anything? SatuSuro 06:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the 'Southeast Asia task force=yes' does not appear to work /appear in the talk page template at the moment - anyone with any idea why? SatuSuro 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I find a lot of articles that should have the MHP tag but do not. Some of them are reallllly old. Probably created by someone who did not tag, or did not know how, why, or wherefor. So I just tag. :) To have a definitive answer, one must ask a Coordinator. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Point is there are many categories that are in the ambit of milhist - so it makes sense to put the bare minumum of MILHIST on the cat page - as for articles - I suspect it depends very much in which subject/sub project area you are talking about. It is not fun btw - it can cause RSI very easily SatuSuro 01:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking the 6th

Shouldn't this page really be Sixth Army (Germany)? (And, btw, shouldn't this be von Paulus?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? (Seriously.) The German wiki page is at de:Deutsche 6. Armee, so isn't this one the direct equivilant? - BilCat (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Because in the English sources I've seen, the usual is Sixth (or Fifth, &c). I won't argue with de.wp, 'cause that may be the German (military's) standard. I also find the abbreviated forms too informal. (I don't expect to get much support on the issue, frankly... :( ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Paulus should be von Paulus, I think. As for the Armies, I've always used 6th, 7th, etc. for German Armies in everything I've done, and haven't seen any sources saying otherwise. It may be informal, but if that's what is used, it should be what we use. – Joe N 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We've looked at this issue - see the conversation on Indonesia above. WP:MILMOS explicitly says: 'Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army".' Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. (I wouldn't do it, but that's another issue. ;D ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is about the sixth army and they are mostly known under this name in Germany. You're right about von Paulus, although for whatever reasons we Germans often say only Paulus. Since 1918 von is only part of a name and carries no social implications. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In the German Army of WWII armies had Arabic numerals, thus 6. Armee (= 6th Army), while army corps had Roman numerals (e.g. XXII. Armeekorps). Army groups would be known by letters (Heeresgruppe A = Army Group A) or a name (e.g. Army Group Weichsel). To make it more confusing, they didn't use the subtractive form of Roman numerals (e.g. XXXXVIII. Armeekorps), but that is another issue.

I do not know what it is, that Paulus is always referred to as von Paulus in English publications. Maybe because his wife was Romanian nobility. Paulus' father was an accountant, but definitely not nobility. --Dodo19 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

USS Syren/Siren

The article on USS Syren (1803) states that in 1809 the ship was renamed USS Siren. This is unreferenced but the page does contain the line This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. However a new user has just added a number of contemporary newspaper reports from the war of 1812 which all refer to the vessel as the Syren. Also I dug up this London Gazette dispatch which names her as the Syren as well. So was the ship renamed in 1809 or does one set of source material contain a mistake? NtheP (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be an issue of standardization, which languages were not until later in the 19th century. Some argue that it was part of the national movements. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting ships, published much later probably used what was the "standard" (and "new") spelling, Siren, whereas the newspaper reports used the "old" spelling. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder that. DANFS is quite specific about a change in spelling in 1809. I wonder if the change was a directive from the US Government that wasn't carried out by the crew of the ship and hence not by anyone who came into contact with it to reported upon it. The Salem and Boston papers could quite easily be unaware of a change of name but the the report of the captain on the Medway uses the Syren spelling three times and this was probably taken from the log when it was captured. NtheP (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Tskhinvali now open

The peer review for Battle of Tskhinvali is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Heinrich Hoffmann (pilot) now open

The peer review for Heinrich Hoffmann (pilot) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Hawaii (CB-3) now open

The A-Class review for USS Hawaii (CB-3) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Helmut Lent now open

The featured article candidacy for Helmut Lent is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Florida class battleship needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Florida class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rifling

FYI, User:KVDP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has made two requested page moves at WP:RM that conflict with each other

• Rifling → Rifled barrel - see Talk:Rifling
• Rifled musket → Rifled barrel - see Talk:Rifled musket

Rifled barrel is a redirect that targets Rifling

76.66.197.17 (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

332nd Infantry in Italy in World War One

Is there anyone out there who can help with this one? Currently the article is titled 332nd Infantry in Italy in World War One. There have been some concerns on the talk page about the name and scope of the article. Anyone with some sources on this unit, or an interest in US military units might wish to take a look and add their two cents worth about the issues. Also if someone feels like improving the article that would be greatly appreciated too. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say merge to 332nd Infantry Regiment (United States), except we don't have such an article. Move it and expand with WW2 material? Shimgray | talk | 02:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As the article covers more than just the 332nd Infantry, I'd suggest moving it to United States contribution to the Italian Campaign (World War I) or similar. It's an interesting topic and a perfectly viable stand-alone article. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Asia

I have initiated Afd for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Asia as well as the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_of_Asia and believe that the template possibly needs the axe as well. The rationale behind this move is that the subject and category is far too big and anomalous - it needs breaking down to smaller and more coherent units - like southeast asia - and so on - it is clear that this will require discussion - I do hope some constructive debate will help a move to a more usable and understandable set of articles and categroies rather than what currently stands SatuSuro 02:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Both nominations are withdrawn temporaorily in AGF due to possible changes in MILHIST organisation - but will probably be re-nominated in the new year pending the outcome of what happens in MILHIST issues SatuSuro 04:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Canadian National Vimy Memorial now open

The featured article candidacy for Canadian National Vimy Memorial is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Peter Heywood now open

The featured article candidacy for Peter Heywood is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions on Air and Air Defense Force of the Islamic State of Afghanistan

Ran across this new stub Air and Air Defense Force of the Islamic State of Afghanistan. I don't know much of anything about Air/AD issues. Should this be merged into something else, or is it worth developing in its own right? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it, and given the fact that the force in question is not all that notable it should be megerd with a page about the Afgan armed forces in this period, which I cannot find.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sorting these issues, I've also created Category:Former military units and formations of Afghanistan. Is this the preferred format/term for military units which no longer exist? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see part of the problem is there's no Military of the Islamic State of Afghanistan article, so the article in question is a bit stranded. For the interim, I've gone ahead and created Category:Islamic State of Afghanistan (1992-1996) to contain any articles on that period, as Category:History of Afghanistan is getting pretty cluttered. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So what we need then is the page to be created, and this page merged with it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, honestly, we could just merge everything into Islamic State of Afghanistan, which isn't very long. But then it wouldn't be part of the Military category-trees. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've merged this into Northern Alliance. Matthew, thank you for creating that category, but it doesn't fit with the category structure. Whether they're today's, 1980s, or 1890s, they all go in the same category - Category:Military units and formations of Afghanistan. Otherwise after these new corps eventually disappear, we'd have to move them into that category as well. There is a possibility of something like 'Military units and formations of Afghanistan during the Soviet War in Afghanistan' but there's nothing to put in it yet. Also, 055 Brigade is a component of a non-state entity - Al Qaeda - and doesn't properly belong in the category anyway. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Blaster Master now open

The peer review for Blaster Master, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! –MuZemike 21:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RAF Oxenhope

Somebody might want to look at RAF Oxenhope. Chris (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Actually doesn't even have the right name, It was RAF Oxenhope Moor. I'll try and straighten it up when I get a bit of time. NtheP (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Brichcja who beat me to it. NtheP (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Korea

A user has raised concearns about the page. One area I agree with him is the fact that UN casualiy total list only killed whilst the communist one adds all casaulties. Problom is I can't edit (or at least do not know how to edit) the pages infobox to corect this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Slatersteven is referring to the Korean War article Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am and the info box seems to be a unique template, thus I do not know were it is stored.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you should be able to edit it here - Template:Campaignbox Korean War. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but this ism the campign box, its the info box that needs editing. it did however give me a clue cheersSlatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New cat: Category:Trial and research tanks

Created Category:Trial and research tanks, inspired by Category:Trial and research firearms. The category is for prototype and experimental tanks which were never fielded (or fielded only briefly/experimentally). Its parent cats are Category:Tanks and Category:Weapon development. I mostly filled it in with WWI prototypes, but please feel free to add in later experimental tanks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New article 1st Armored Car Squadron (United States Marines)

I can't even recall where I saw mention of this unit, but I marked it for later article creation. I finally got around to creating 1st Armored Car Squadron (United States Marines) (found one USMC website with basic info, and one awesome book on Google Books). Kind of a neat little side-note to the history of armoured warfar. And, me being me, I followed it out to create new articles for all the red wiki-links I created (for the vehicle they used, the company that built them, the founding officer, etc.). I'd love to find a photo, any ideas? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Try the bases at which they were stationed, they may have a photograph somewhere. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Much as I wouldn't want to rain on any parade but is this unit notable? Or should it be a section in 1st Marine Regt? It had a short existence, never saw action and wasn't a large formation. I'm more than happy to be shouted down but when in other areas there are mass deletion of articles relating to decorated servicemen that are deemed non-notable due to the decoration not being one of the highest, having an article for a unit which appears to be little more than a footnote in history seems to me to be not quite right. NtheP (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I figure it's notable in terms of precedent-setting, in much the same way that we have plenty of articles on prototype vehicles, weapons, etc. This is basically one of the first armoured land-vehicle units in US history. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Accepted but that the squadron didn't see action or even go to France still makes me think it lacks notability. To be somewhat ad absurdem about this, the same justification could be used for any unit that was the first to adopt a particular weapon or style of warfare.

I think that the article as it stands doesn't highlight the notability particularly strongly. As written, it doesn't explain why the creation of the unit was any more important than the first US unit to be given the bayonet, or a submachine gun, etc. - of which there would be many around the world in each respective military! It might work better if the article drew out how the unit influenced the evolution of armoured warfare in the rest of the US army in some way. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New cat Category:Military disbanding and disarmament

Trying out a new category Category:Military disbanding and disarmament, for historical attempts and programs to disarm groups. Not sure how easy this will be to fill, or how much dispute it will involve, but wanted to at least try the concept. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is very close to the term Disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR). That term covers the attempted reintegration into society. Would you mind considering a category name move to cover Military DDR? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would actually welcome a refinement of the cat title. I suggest someone pitch a good idea and we run it by WP:CFD. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Backlogs needing attention

Please help clear the backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:

• Category:Unassessed military history articles = 20 articles unassessed.
• Category:Military history articles with no associated task force = 296 articles without task forces.

After assessment, they are automatically removed from the category. Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that there are a number of military related articles with nothing on their talk pages (the talk pages are empty) so therefore they would not have these tags, but are not inlcluded in this count. I would recommend someone looking for military history articles with empty talk pages. I was able to do a basic one with the list comparer in AWB and the American military personnel category and came up with quite a few, but I am sure there is a better way to capture more articles than just biographies. --Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate links for military navboxes

There is a discussion regarding the appropriateness of linking Air Force Blues, an article about an unofficial web comic, in the Template:US Air Force navbox. Please see Template talk:US Air Force navbox#Air Force Blues. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Battle of Waddan

Here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Forward Operating Base Chapman attack now open

The peer review for Forward Operating Base Chapman attack is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Hans Beißwenger now open

The peer review for Hans Beißwenger is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside of scope?

Generally, you guys rate all articles pretty quickly. I have noticed that you have not rated either Red Tail Reborn or Flight of the Red Tail. Are movies about military-related topics such as Commemorative Air Force projects outside of the scope of the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems someone has rated the later. Should these have the MILHIST tag?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they're fine with the milhist tag, and I've rated the other. EyeSerene^talk 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured List review for List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients

I have submitted the List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients for review as a featured list and I would like to invite any comments.--Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Petlyakov Pe-8 now open

The A-Class review for Petlyakov Pe-8 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Johann von Klenau now open

The featured article candidacy for Johann von Klenau is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Nimitz class aircraft carrier now open

The peer review for Nimitz class aircraft carrier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Max-Hellmuth Ostermann now open

The A-Class review for Max-Hellmuth Ostermann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 09:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Missouri grounding incident now open

The peer review for USS Missouri grounding incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 09:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of focus on key articles

I am concerned that there is a lack of focus on the quality of the most important articles in scope of the project. Can we incentivise work on key (essentially high-hit rate) articles in the competitions? I see a lot of reviews of marginally notable topics and if I was cynical (ha!), I'd say it was because they are easy to get passed, exactly the opposite of the incentive we want. Getting something like WWII to FA is a truly Herculean task and should be acknowledged as such. Dhatfield (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your points, and I suspect anyone new to wiki would wonder why some obviously key articles aren't to the highest standard. Unfortunately I think they are also the hardest and most controversial subjects - minor disagreements can last for weeks or even months before a decision is made. Marginal articles allow editors to write about subjects they have a deep interest in (we are volunteers after all!) without getting involved in endless debates about which style of English is most appropriate or what to call Germany. I imagine there is probably a better balance of sources to fall back on for smaller subjects as well, whereas you'd need to hire an entire library for something like a World War. So yes, they probably are easier to get passed, because the breadth of knowledge is narrower and the facts easier to ascertain. Just some thoughts. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ranger Steve as to the difficulties associated with elevating the quality of the most wide-ranging topics. But how to encourage people to do that? And exactly which articles should get the incentives, the most popular ones or those with the broadest scope like WWII? WWI already has a good incentive, but nobody's stepped forward. I suppose barnstars, or extra points could be awarded for the various contests, for such articles, but how would they be selected? Size, popularity, combination? And who does the selection? I suppose Eurocopter could decide those for the WWI contest, since he's running it, but that doesn't help much for the rest of the project.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An anniversary seems like a good reason to focus on something in my opinion, and there are a lot of 70th Anniversaries approaching for individual WWII engagements... Ranger Steve (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this debated. I've had the impression for some time that most of the project's effort is devoted to going into more and more detail (or more articles about less and less), rather than looking at the big picture. Obscure minor battles, vehicles, weapons and units get articles while big topics get neglected. Articles on "soft" subjects such as tactics are particularly poor. I'm trying to do my bit by (very slowly) improving Trench warfare! Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments already formed in this post. In terms of the anniversary question we do have the WWI centennial project to bring the core topics of WWI up to scratch. I also agree that sometimes we divert our energies to subjects that perhaps aren't the traditional encyclopedic subjects, and as a project we can get caught up in a circle of endless drives. But, what we have to remember here is that this is a volunteer project, and as such, the volunteers will work on what interests them the most, be that ships or the VC in my case.

As a project, I think we do have to push these core articles a bit more through the review processes that we have set up. The trouble comes with the sheer amount of work needed to bring these articles up to scratch and the sheer number of interested parties who have to be placated. I remember the efforts to clean up WWII a while back that ended up discussing every paragraph in minute detail and become bogged down in discussions about POV. This will inevitably discourage editors from working on these types of articles. I have yet to come up with an idea to mitigate these issues, and I haven't seen one in action on Wikipedia yet. Take a look at the FAC history of Roman Catholic Church for an example of how not to do it. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the long excruciating process of bringing a popular-topic article to FA is what happens to the FA articles after they are promoted: The became even bigger targets for the POVers! It makes all the time and effort seem worthless, and often the aricel becomes more of a mess than before. For me, the best incentive is one the project itself cannot provide at this time: Some form of protecton, flagged or traditional. Beyond that, I don't see the point of trying on the high-traffic articles. As long as anyone can edit anything, they certainly will! - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, the problems are twofold: first of all, the most popular articles are generally those with larger scope, and which therefore have more sources available to consult. In order to cover the topic fully, it would be necessary to invest a massive amount of time and energy into it. The other problem is the other people. Larger scope, more popular articles generally have more people watching them, and everyone wants the article to fit their vision, or just wants to make trouble, advocate their point of view, or sees bias in every innocuous statement. – Joe N 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Classes start here on Thursday, and for my students' research paper, I have assigned them to write a wikipedia article. The course is a 20th century world history course. Although I would be reluctant to thrust them into a controversial topic, there will be 40 articles coming up in the next 2-3 months that I will have some influence on. Any ideas? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, perhaps responses to Ruth's practical question re. topics for her students should be a new subsection so it doesn't confuse the overall thread here. For my own part, Ruth, do they have to be brand new articles or could your class upgrade some stubs as well? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Outdent A very valid point, but in addition to the responses above I think it's worth pointing out that by their nature, the 'popular' or 'big picture' topics will already have a great deal of coverage in other encyclopedias/books/etc. Of course that shouldn't prevent WP producing its own versions of them as best it can, so this becomes more of a 'one-stop-shop' for knowledge, but in the greater scheme of things it's not like people will have nowhere to look if WP isn't the best place. On the other hand, WP is sometimes the best or only place you find decent articles on the more obscure or less popular topics, and I think that's part of its great value. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruth, do not forget to register your project with WP:SUP -MBK₀₀₄ 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did that. Didn't know about it, and was wondering how I was going to get this in front of various administrators. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's done a fair bit of work on 'big picture' topics, I agree that it can be a lot of hard work getting them to a reasonable standard. The pay off is pretty important though - for instance the World War II article, which was developed through several months of intensive discussion and editing, now does Wikipedia proud and should make a good impression on the 27,000 people who view it on the average day. It should also be noted that many of the most popular military history articles are at B or A class standard. From my experiance, once an article is developed to a reasonable standard it normally stays that way - unhelpful edits to the World War II article are lucky to survive for a few hours, for instance. The problem though is that the process of improving these articles attracts unproductive nationalist editors who want to push their views - something which largely explains why the World War I article is in a poor state. I'd also note that while it's harder to work on these articles than on more obscure topics, they do have the benefit of normally being covered by some books which are considered the standard works on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The big articles take a huge amount of time and effort because of the amount of sources available, the number of people watching a page, and the fact that a lot of people will have their own opinion on how the subject should be dealt with and the confrontation (often exhausting and frequently frustrating) that can ensue. There are easier targets than the big subjects, and I can understand why they are avoided. It's not just a problem here, about six months ago there was a discussion at WP:FAC about how to motivate people to write core articles rather than small obscure ones.

In short, writing extraordinary articles requires extraordinary motivation. No amount of barnstars or points is enough. When I began my rewrite of the castle article, it was because it was in such poor shape; it had a handful of references and one particular vandal was pushing a pro-Spanish/anti-Italian agenda. This person was very persistent and I felt that the best way to stop them was to rewrite the article. Without that incentive the article would still look like this. Keeping vandals out wasn't the only reason for improving the article, it's a subject I find interesting and so do about 70,000 others a month. If you're not interested in something, you won't be able to write well about it. WP:MILHIST may suffer from recentism, but people write about what they're interested in and I wouldn't want that to change. If it did, Wikipedia would stop being a fun hobby and become a job. Interest alone should be enough reason to develop the most important articles. A side effect of working on the castle article was that smaller articles on individual castles don't seem so daunting anymore.

I understand fears that high-traffic articles may degrade over time, but for what it's worth, now castle is a Featured Article it feels like the amount of vandalism has decreased (although this is based on personal experience rather than an in depth study); people are more willing to defend well developed articles than rubbish ones (again, one of the reasons a lot of POV was allowed to creep into the castle article. For the most popular articles, they will change even after the main contributor has gone onto other articles; but a well written article on something like the Hundred Year's War is worth hundreds of articles on tiny unknown forts in the middle of nowhere. Think about how many more people would benefit from well sourced, accurate information.

There are a myriad of difficulties when dealing with the most important articles. The main thing WP:MILHIST can offer, aside from peer and A-class reviews, is support and protection. The busiest articles will attract POV pushers and the like. To prevent an editor from feeling overwhelmed, they need someone else who can step in on their behalf sometimes, or who can chip in and say "I think you're right".

What might help is a feature in the newsletter. I'm thinking of something along the lines of a short interview about a broad subject within our remit. People can't be forced to be interested in something, but if they're given the chance to learn more you never know what might happen. Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Beautifully expressed. I would just add that one of the benefits of working on big articles should be that you are not alone, and the rewards of working in a successful team should be greater than those of the lonely artist in his garret; which may depend on whether one is motivated by barnstars, or by a desire to achieve some public benefit. One of the frustrations of working on small articles is the feeling that no-one else is reading your work, let alone helping. Big articles shouldn't be solo efforts, and the POVers should be shouted down by a number of interested editors. There just aren't enough of us looking over any given article at any time. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that would really help for big articles is getting a resource together for the sources. It was mentioned above that "WWI already has a good incentive", which may refer to the $250 bounty or the centennial project, but I looked at the number of sources, and for any one individual to check and use all the main sources, the outlay could be well in excess of $250 (not to mention the time invested). It would help if people put their hands up and said "I have this book, and can check stuff if needed", or for others to get other books out of libraries, and so on. And to take things slowly, step by step. Maybe try and get WWI featured by the end of this year, but set a smaller target for the next few months? 07:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC) For my part, I'm considering getting the new book on the First Battle of the Marne. Working on that, and then seeing how that translates into a paragraph or section in the WWI article. Though I see Western Front (World War I) is already featured. I think I saw someone say that it is the Eastern Front stuff that is difficult to cover to a high standard. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a note about this, Western Front was featured in 2006, and just a cursory examination shows places where referencing could be improved. I think it would be better to also change the structure to break out the bits on Air and Gas warfare to another section instead of having nearly the whole article be chronological, so, even though it is FA, you could still help by working on it. – Joe N 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the $250 could be much of an incentive given how broad the topic is, and even if a person had a broad knowledge of everything the writing up would still be economical. As for the contests, they give equal weight to all articles and only look at the class, so writing a "comprehensive" 3 paragraph article on an enlisted man who is only notable for one even such as winning a Medal of Honor gets the same points as a general who did many coups and ruled for 20 years, let alone an article on a really big topic that may be controversial or the subject of many different analyses by historians as to the legacy of the event etc, or arguments over who planned and plotted what in a coup. So a contest with a flat all FAs/GAs/Bs are the same won't be an incentive. Even a 20X bonus for a major war compared to a non-complex biog or straighforward equipment probably wouldn't suffice if we are talking raw economic rationalism as means of altering people's habits. Mastering a very complex FA may earn respect from a few people, but if anyone wants a personal following or whatever, they would be better off playing politics and marketing themselves rather than trying to achieve excellence, I doubt any non-purist incentive can work. Also while some people see FAs as a means of getting 40,000 TFA hits and pushing their POV, the really big-hit articles wouldn't need an extra 40,000 and they would be better off spending 20 hours of cleanup/MOS time to write more nonsense POV articles. Any half-decent POV pusher knows this, and with rising standards, luckily, less POV pushers are willing to try and spend the extra time for presentation cleanups to get their propaganda on the front page (I can remember a few cases in the old days when some of these folks started their FAC noms with a soapboxing statement about how the subject of the article, an alleged massacre/injustice etc etc was so important and that the world needed to know about it) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are a few semi-sophisticated POV pushers going around who focus on articles of lesser, but strategic, importance to the topic and then use cherry picked or unreliable references to push their view. Articles concerning war crimes in World War II are frequently troublesome, for example. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I lost all interest in contributing to the key article on WW2 because of the endless debates on minor details. FFS, pages and pages on the name to call Germany! This also leads to the situation that minor edits are immediatly reverted, because there has been no discussion on them. This leads to an article frozen in time, where the current version is always considered the best over any change by the leading administrator of that particular article, even when a change is undoubtedly an improvement, and undisputed.JurSchagen (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine we've all been there (or at least in a debate close to it). We should remember though that POV isn't a dirty word; everyone has a different point of view on a lot of things, and the more resources there are the more likely that support for a particular point of view can be found (and the harder it is to find the correct answer). A lot of debates take place with the best of intentions in an effort to make our articles as accurate as possible. Of course there are some editors who are trying to push their own fringe POV, but these are usually caught out fairly soon. It's the articles where everyone is working in good faith that are the most awkward! Anyway, the net result is the same, editors get bored of debating and give up on the article. To be honest I'm not sure its something that can be fixed - one of the (ahem) 'joys' of wikipedia is that everyone can edit, and lets face it - the consensus strategy for making modifications doesn't always get things right. Discussions can quickly flare up into debates and then straight into arguments, insults fly and rather than trying to share and explain a position, people just end up trying to... win (I'm not saying all discussions go this way). Partly that's a problem with text based conversation; it's not like sitting down in a room or even a pub, it's more akin to an online game.

I suspect that the only way to get articles into a better state is to get people to voluntarily bow out of them, or agree to let one or two editors who work well together to write an article in a way they see fit before others copy edit it for factual errors (and less so for prose). Too many cooks and all that..... Ranger Steve (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think strong POV is more the norm in a lot of Asian countries, and other not-so-developed areas such as Eastern Europe. In many of these countries, history is still a bit comic-book like in that it depicts a struggle of a bunch of under-resourced innocent people (them) fighting the well-armed atrocity-committing bad guys (the neighbours) valiantly with bare fists. An us and them mentality is more prevalent in RL in those areas, and it shows on Wikipedia. I know one nation-based WikiProject including an admin where they all insist on using "freedom fighter" and "martyrs" to describe their military personnel and write articles describing "genocide"s of less than 100 dead. That WikiProject also had a few FAs, and I'm pretty sure if I researched the content of the history would be complete cherrypicked nonsense; those FACs always got 100% drive-by support from the members. Luckily a few of these FAs have dropped off the perch due to referencing, prose and presentation issues, saving the need to point out the POV, which would spark ethnic wiki-riots and accusations of racism from the members of that ethnic group. And generally, while in EE, there are a few folks (5-10) from each ethnic group at least, and therefore at least some resistance to anything controversial, in some parts of Asian topics some ethnic groups have no active representatives in certain areas, and 3-4 from one group can easily just monopolise an area in the absence of representation [or competent counter-attacking POV pushing] from the opposition race relating to the corresponding RL conflict/interaction; there's no way a person from a uninvolved race/religion would spend all their time stalking the ethnic chauvinist around full-time YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A similar problem is where the nationalist edit warriors don't allow needed changes to an article as this would dilute their POV-pushing. Without naming names, there was a recent FAR of an article on a military campaign which was core to the country's history which ended up with the article being delisted mainly due to the editors being unwilling to budge on removing a heavily POV section which duplicated the more neutral tone of the rest of the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing that YellowMonkey's comment made me think of is adopting the importance rankings used by many projects. We haven't done this for many years, and I've always assumed that this was because we just had too many articles and too big of a scope, but if we added it and gave points in the contest based on importance rank, with the number normally given multiplied by a certain number for high and top importance articles, we could give some incentive that might help. The problem, however, is that one person can't really bring one of these up to featured status, or even GA or A-Class, alone. I'm not sure if modifying the contest or even just adding the importance rankings would work, it's just a thought. – Joe N 18:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

With nearly 100,000 articles tagged by WP:MILHIST, I don't think an importances scale is practical, or even necessary (we all have ideas of what's important, and some such as WWI are indisputable). I'm dubious about the contest and how much points can motivate someone to work on something, but rather than "importance", why not use page views as a multiplier for points? Nev1 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with importance scales is their inherent subjectivity. Beyond the obvious core articles (WWI, WWII, War etc) then is down to individual task forces as to whether it is important. What is important for one is less important for another. I also think we have to be careful about alienating those editors who do work on "less important" articles. I agree with Nev that I don't see any amount of points being a motivator to work on the POV magnets such as WWI/WWII. The views might be something to look into, though that will lead us into issues such as George W. Bush being heavily viewed but not what anyone could describe as a core milhist article. Woody (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hit count as a multiplier works if we adopt a customer is king model, but it will also fuel more recentism than there already is YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One challenge that hasn't been discussed here with is key articles is that they tend to be complex subjects. (I suspect this has lead to a situation I've noticed throughout Wikipedia I call "the donut phenomenon": in any given topic, the better articles are about secondary or tertiary subjects,forming a ring around the core subjects which are less developed.) You can understand what I am talking about if you take the example Dhatfield mentioned above -- World War II -- & try to explain the subject in 500 words or less -- without leaving out any important issues. I doubt you could compile a list of the major topics in less than 500 words. In my corner of Wikipedia I've been focussing on subjects of lesser importance as a means to work towards those of greater importance: get the details right, and eventually one will be able to explain the greater plan. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I started on Ngo Dinh Diem and as I knew very little ended up reading in more detail various events and opponents he was involved with and will probably never finish with the branches before getting to the trunk. A lot of people, as they are mostly beginners will do it this way, as they have to learn things in more depth to understand, whereas an expert knows how the facets fit in and can put the overview together immediately. The donut effect is definitely more promounced these days as expectations have gone up; there were lots of old 2006 and earlier FAs where some amateur historian Wikipedians wrote some FAs on iconic heads of state and independence leaders by just cut-pasting and paraphrasing a few rough and non-scholarly mini-web-bios that were just mediocre tertiary sources (sometimes from the official govt website synopsis) without getting the detailed scholarly books and journal articles and systematically dissecting the key events they were involved in and then distilling it, possibly creating subarticles on the way. The new way makes the article quality better but will also deter a person from writing up boldly, having a go, and getting a parent article done more quickly as sometimes they are focused on the subarticles that they neglect to cut the summary of the completed subarticle and paste it back into the dishevelled parent article. Yes I'm guilty there! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Khalid ibn al-Walid now open

The peer review for Khalid ibn al-Walid is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Robert Peverell Hichens now open

The A-Class review for Robert Peverell Hichens is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Red Tail Project now open

The A-Class review for Red Tail Project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Barrage (artillery) now open

The A-Class review for Barrage (artillery) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles in need

The assignment is a 50,000-110,000 byte article. They can use a stub or a start, but it has to reach GA/A quality, or FA if possible. They have to abide by the MOS, and all its quirks, and go through at least one project peer review. They are not required to do a MH article. And I'd like them to stick to the 20th century, but they don't even have to do that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned this in the thread above, but I'll go ahead and do it again. Do not forget to register the assignment with WP:SUP. There have been some unfortunate outcomes with projects that have not been noted there when the flood of new or poorly-expanded articles shows up on the administrative noticeboards. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I've done that. I'll have to come up with a way to keep tabs on them, too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not the most key topic, but it would be nice to see a good article on Brazil's Revolt of the Whip (Revolta da Chibata). It doesn't look like there is a plethora of English sources, but there is still a substantial amount. If this student speaks Portuguese, well, there is a ton. See the bibliography for this: [2] (pdf) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Any way to help mentor their research? While most will want to cover "popular" topics, a few will obviously want to investigate something unusual. I can offer suggestions on sources for Ethiopia/Horn of Africa topics, & warn them if they want to tackle something there simply isn't any easily accessible material for. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Older Featured Noms

Just a reminder that the following Featured Candidates are still looking for some additional input after around a month of review time:

• FLC for Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile
• FAC for Frederick Scherger
• FAR for Military brat (U.S. subculture)
• FAR for Soviet invasion of Poland

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The military brat FAR is also in need of opinions, almost entirely about the appropriateness of content rather than anything about MOS etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And the Soviet invasion of Poland YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YM, I've incorporated them above in the original format. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Miltiary Fiction Task Force

I notice that there's a new milfict TF, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force

Shouldn't that TF be shared/listed in the WPMILHIST sidebar navigation template? And be a shared TF with this WPP?

Also, shouldn't an option like "ficiton=yes" be added to the {{WPMILHIST}} banner?

That TF already apparently includes the WG Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force/Napoleonic fiction, which is part of this WPP...

- it would be like how War Films functions, being shared with WPFILM

76.66.197.17 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle, this would be possible. In practice, we would need to negotiate the sharing of the task force with the Novels WikiProject; some of what they've done there is incompatible with how task force infrastructures are normally set up, and there's no neat way for us to adopt the task force as a result. (In any case, the editors there may not want our involvement—it's not a good idea to just assume that they'll be fine with us building our infrastructure into their task force.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is relevant to a question I have, but I'll post it separately. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WWI cultural response and project scope

I've raised a question about scope here, on the WWI task force talk page. I also touch there on issues about how literary and other cultural responses to war get handled as far as WikiProjects go, and am asking whether it is in scope or not. I read the scope bit on the main WikiProject page, but it seems there is a wide range of stuff and it is still not entirely clear. I see there is a war films task force, and a recent section on this talk page talks about fiction. There are a wide range of other cultural responses to war, outside of documentaries and historians, including art, poetry, photography, theatre (plays, musicals), music, and so on. Is it possible to clarify the bit about "historical accuracy", and how cultural responses as a whole are handled (i.e. overview articles, as opposed to articles about individual books, plays, films). Part of this feeds into a question I raised here at the talk page for the WWI Centennial project. The way that the legacy and aftermath of wars is handled, and where the scope begins and ends, is not always clear, but it is an important part of the coverage of the topic, I think, even if it is not always strictly military history. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Naval battles

A dispute has arisen over how to name naval battles which do not have a well-established name, see talk for Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, also the naval campaign template for the War of 1812. I suggest that, while "Action of date X" should be the default option if nothing better can be found, "Ship A v. Ship B" is usually the best way of describing single-ship actions, and "Sinking of Ship C" is a perfectly legitimate way of describing some actions if this really was the dominant feature. PatGallacher (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pat, just to clarify; is there a centralised discussion of this dispute anywhere, or is this it? Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound bearings?

In hope of avoiding an edit war, I invite comment here on the tone of this page, in particular the position advanced by Blair (described as NPOV). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Windsor now open

The A-Class review for Operation Windsor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940 now open

The peer review for List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Topic nomination for Gorgon class monitors

All interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Gorgon class monitor/archive1 as to its suitability as a good topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)