Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The April 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 • John Bullock Clark • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Battle of Plum Point Bend • Henry Biard • Johann Mickl • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • T-26 • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument Peer reviews Central America under Mexican rule • Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • Charles the Bold Good article nominees Stephen Badlam • Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Adolf von Rhemen • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Japanese destroyer Take (1944) • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory Good article reassessments Crusading movement Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,139) • only work on referencing and citation (43,154) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,230) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,588) • work on structure (31,777) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,190) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,697) • only work on supporting materials (1,333) • assessment (10) • assessment as lists (116) • project tags fixed (8) • assessment checklists added (10) • assessment checklists completed (33) • task forces added (310) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Unit Citations

In the articles Leroy Petry there have been efforts by another possibly well meaning editor to add unit citations to the award section of the subject's article. Per AR 670-1 if the unit member was not assigned to the unit during the prior which the citation was awarded for, then the unit member only wears the medal as an organizational item, and not as a permanent medal to wear. I have also raised this issue in the Salvatore Giunta article as well.

Rather than carrying out two separate discussions, I would like to know if there is a consensus within this editing community regarding this issue, which may or may not have farther reaching implications to other articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone awarded a unit citation of any sort may wear it in perpetuity per AR-670 as explained in Chapter 29, Table 29-1. The only personnel who wear them on a temporary basis are those later assigned to that unit outside the time frame for the award. Nobody who was simply part of a unit that once was given, for example, a PUC would be cited as having been awarded one. When a reliable source cites a person as having been awarded a medal or ribbon we should reflect that in the article. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Granted, each member of the unit would not be given an individual document stating permanent wear; however, we can verify, using reliable sources, based on dates individual is assigned to a unit, and dates when a unit is awarded the citation, whether an individual subject is entitled to permanent wear of the unit citation.

My point being that individual subjects biographies should only reflect those unit citations that the subject can wear permanently, not that worn temporarily. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that show that the awards as worn in the picture are temporary ones? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a reference stating that is is temporary, however, does anyone else have any references showing that the wear of the unit citaitons are permanent? Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the editor who is adding, or re-adding content, to provide a reliable source to support its addition. Therefore, the burden should be on the addition of the awards on the subject bio, rather than on the removal of said awards. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say holding him hostage to the outside possibility that the awards are worn in a temporary status is beyonde the reasonable burden of evidence, more so considering all his previous time in one of the most heavily awarded units in the Army and that he now resides in a rear echelon support/medical unit. That said I wouldn't be up in arms with the caveat of (worn) or (authorized) or some such was added. Either way I think I've made my position fairly clear and I'll wait on the input others. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside of Leroy Petry, what about SSG Giunta, who has now departed the Army via ETS (end of term of service), choosing not to re-enlist. Should his article continue to indicate him being entitled to wear unit citations, even though he is now no longer a member of the unit which he was previously a member of? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If the RS used to add the citations makes clear the time frame for the award then the article should reflect. If it doesn't indicate a time frame the reasonable assumption should be made that there isn't one. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So you would support removal of the citations from the Giunta biography? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The three PUCs were awarded once in WWII, and twice in the Vietnam Conflict to the 503rd.

The MUCs were awarded once in Vietnam, and for service in Iraq in 2003 per this source. SSG Guinta did not join the army until November 2003. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming nobody has a WP:SYNTH complaint, if he is no longer authorized to wear them the question becomes whether or not citations previously authorized for wear and not individually awarded for permanent wear should be included and if so in what format. They are not individual awards nor are they authorized for permanent wear but he still "earned" the right to wear the at some point in his career by belonging to the unit in question. What do you think? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say, personally, that unit citations earned while the individual was assigned to that unit should be tracked, while heritage awards should not (unless there is an official source from the U.S. Army that indicates otherwise). Just my $.02 on the question.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. My principle concern though is that people will start removing any unit citation that isn't clearly awarded while in unit under the logic that it "could be" a temporary award. What becomes the new onus for retaining unit awards on bio pages? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is the linked Army Regulation that is the determining factor here. SSG Giunta was not a member of the unit at the time of awarding, and therefore is not entitled for permanent wear of the unit award. Yes, as an organizational item, he was allowed to wear it at some point, but not being retired, and not a member of the organization/unit, he is no longer entitled to the wear of those items. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the reason why I brought up this topic here, after seeing how it would impact other articles, after I started them up on individual pages. There needs to be a community consensus on unit citations on individual biography articles.

So is Intothatdarkness saying the unit citations should be kept? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...I'm in favor of keeping them only if it's possible to track when they were awarded with relation to an individual's service in the unit (which isn't possible or simple in many cases). To keep things simple, I'd say get rid of them except in unit history articles. That would allow someone who's interested to possibly track them on his or her own. While it's possible to match unit awards with an individual's service (in terms of permanent versus temporary awards), I think it might prove too difficult over the long term. Hopefully that makes some sense...Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you want all unit level awards struck from bios unless an RS can be supplied that specifically demonstartes it was awarded as a permanent award for being in a unit during the time frame for the award? TomPointTwo (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think that makes it easier for everyone.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wild about that but I see exclusionary logic behind it. MILHIST would have to set up a guideline that can be linked and pointed to for this because it will affect a pretty staggering number of articles and will no doubt agitate a pretty significant response. It should also be noted that the rules that apply to the Army's unit level awards are not the same in the other services (Marine Corps for sure). We'll need a much larger consensus first. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the reservations. I was just kicking an idea out there to try to make things easier for non-specialists to understand and possibly use. As you note, each service has different rules (the AF uses a much different system, for one example).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have provided links above indicating that SSG Giunta was not a member of the 503rd during the awardings of the 3 PUCs and 2 MUCs; the only one that is close it the MUC for 2003 service in Iraq. However, he joined the army in November 2003, meaning he wouldn't have finished OSUT until 15 weeks later. Which would be well into 2004, before he can be assigned to a unit, let alone go to Airborne school.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you've put in that leg work (good on you) the general consensus developing so far, here, is to remove the citations. Still, as I mentioned before, this has ramifications far beyond a few articles and to establish that a base for precedence really requires an extensive consensus we don't yet have. My suggestion is to wait a bit for more more input here and then canvas other projects. BLP might not be a bad idea. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I shall wait until 7 August, and if no objection is heard by then, can we presume consensus has been formed? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Claudevsq has removed the discussion tags in the Leroy Petry article, they have been reverted accordingly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As no objection was made, the unit citations have been removed from the article regarding SSG Giunta.

Is there a consensus regarding the unit citations on the SFC Petry article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2011

I like to see a canvasing for consensus so a standard SOP could be developed and pointed to for all articles involing this but I don't have a problem with moving on the Petry article now. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also like a canvass, administered by a MILHIST Coordinator, for fairness sake. After that, based on what the consensus is within the community, we can remove or keep the Unit Citations in the Leroy Petry article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The chronic misunderstanding of the 75th Ranger Regiment in relation to JSOC

There's a chronic problem at both the 75th Ranger Regiment and Joint Special Operations Command articles. Unfortunately, due to a combination of enthusiastic amateur attention prompted by popular culture references and some media attention not exercising due diligence in the weeds of DoD bureaucracy, there has arisen a common misconception that the 75th is part of the Joint Special Operations Command. A simple look at the extensive references, including official US military organizational papers, demonstrates otherwise. The current IP is so insistent that he's mistaken the absence of mention of being part of JSOC in the sources I've supplied to indicate that it's still possible because it's not expressly rejected. It's become absurd.

While portions of the 75th are assigned to JSOC led Task Forces they are not and have never been under the administrative control of JSOC nor do they, as a matter of policy or practice, deploy as a unit under JSOC's purview. I've reached the limit of my patience in trying to explain this to, the usually anonymous, editors and would very much appreciate if some other editors here with a familiarity with the subject would help address this. I know when my level of frustration has reached the point where I can be rude and I've reached it. Also note that the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment has also had these problems in the past. The most recent revert is here. Thanks in advance to anyone who gives this a look and tried to correct the issues. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The only misunderstanding is from you. Your BELIEF that the two cannot be associated because of some org charts which dont refute the claims doesnt make you correct and others wrong. You've already been provided with: an Army FM that shows JSOC as having Command and Control over the 75th when deployed, a published and award winning journalist who was embedded with JSOC forces, and Jeremy Scahill. JSOC's organization is not exactly open source, so for you to claim to know better than someone who was embedded with those forces is absolutely absurd. What does the status of someone's contributions have anything to do with the edits? Like the screen name Tompointtwo isn't anonymous? 75.111.97.117 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

May I remind the IP editor of WP:CIVL. There is no need to have the retort be personally directed at another editor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So, its ok for Tompointtwo to go to my page and refer to me as "intentionally obtuse" since I provide reliable sources that differ with his opinion? The other option he has for explanation is referring to me as an "idiot" if not intentionally obtuse. However, after reading wiki's policy on civility I fail to understand how I've encroached on this policy. Simply put, tompoint is not being objective and trying to stack editors against my edits while misconstruing the intent of my edits and providing completely irrelevant sources. 75.111.97.117 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not; but that doesn't mean that any editor should not follow CIVIL and WP:AGF as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Having command and control of a unit when it's deployed is NOT the same thing as that unit being part of (or organic to) a specific command. Technically, such a unit would be described as being "attached to" a specific higher command or unit, not part of that unit. Per Joint Publication 3-05, any SOF in the continental US (unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense) are part of USSOCOM, meaning that the 75th would fall under USSOCOM.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness, if you review my edits and discussion on the JSOC page I've never argued that the 75th or 160th is part of JSOC's T/O: simply that when deployed, neither of the two units have deployed outside of JSOC command and control since JSOC was created. "Part of" is ambiguous and doesn't exactly mean "organic to" depending on the user's definition. Out of curiousity (as per JP 3-05), wouldnt that mean that 1st-SFOD/ACE/Delta Force and DEVGRU/Seal Team 6 are part of USSOCOM when in the continental US? 75.111.97.117 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph I'm citing from JP 3-05 (Chapter III, para. 2.a) uses the wording "Unless otherwise directed by SecDef, all SOF based in the continental United States are assigned to USSOCOM". The units you're mentioning could easily be exempted from that command relationship under that provision. I'd expect that they often are, based in no small part on their classified status, but at other times they may not be. The wording in JP 3-05 is intended to give command authorities fairly wide discretion there. The reg goes on to make it clear that SEALs (the standard teams, not DEVGRU) are part of USSOCOM.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could easily be exempted, but not proven to be right? 75.111.97.117 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have access to SecDef documents, sure. Also, both Delta and DEVGRU are classed as anti-terrorist elements and thus can come under different control. Also, it can't be proven that they ARE always controlled by USSOCOM. The JP simply lays out the standard assignment protocol and then allows for exceptions to that protocol.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

World War II in photos

There is an excellent series of photo essays being published by The Atlantic newspaper. Seven out of a planned 20 have been posted so far. Highly recommended! Farawayman (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I looked through the PH one last night... great photo essay, grisly photos. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman Military History

Very briefly,... and to says that i would likes to see the chances to starts to unifies the efforts to may be (in time),... creates a division inside the project,... related with the Roman Military History,...
...those because i has saw many independent articles (and not tagged too),...
also would likes to ask about the chances of bring here several of the related articles,... in another languages,... that still doesn't exists here,... making the project-division even more complete,...
with my regards,... and thanking for the consideration,... --Cpant23 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We do have a task force, Classical warfare, that covers the entire Roman period. Was that what you were looking for, or are you looking for a dedicated Roman milhist group? As for your last question, we'd love it if you could do that. The more information, the better. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

yes i know,... i was thinking in something about the Roman Military History,... inside the task force (as a separated group may be),...
those may be bringing to life again the Portal:Military of ancient Rome (apparently not active for years),... as a start,...
...being also available to helps in those too,... in all that i can do,...
with my regards,...--Cpant23 (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

B Class

Its been some time since there was a drive to improve the B Class articles, or add the check list to articles waiting for assessment. However I think its generally accepted, that there is a shortage of reviewers, not just at Milhist but on Wikipedia generally. On the open tasks page under Articles that need specific improvements there are 359 articles that only need work on supporting materials (images, info boxs etc). Another 162 only need work on the article structure and 12 need work on grammar. These 500 articles may be easily fixed and could form the basis for a small drive, with the normal Milhist awards. Or for a bigger project there are still 26,500 articles that need the B Class check list completed. I for one would be willing to take part. Any thoughts or other suggestions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I have go every so often at looking at "single issue" articles (here and WP:Aviation) so you can count me in. Though in practice I find it's more of a case of reviewing the checklist - eg finding that an article actually does have a structure ("tick" checklist B3) but the referencing is poor (untick B1) - before starting on improvements. So I tend to have a go at low hanging fruit like structure and supporting materials first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll echo that. I tried this once for interest, using the English and structure criteria ones. I did thirteen, of which only one was deficient only in the parameter indicated. Nearly all had B1 and B2 issues. However, fixing some of these now would generate C class results, which offers some reward (psychological or contest points). However, am happy to have another go. BTW, I know I've asked this before without response - is there any easy way we can get B class lists into unassessed articles or does it have to be done manually? If the checklist went in automatically, it may lead to more reviewers filling them in. Monstrelet (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lockheed Have Blue now open

The A-Class review for Lockheed Have Blue is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Bir Hakeim

The ephemeron German user jerryscuba has rewritten the article in wide parts. He adopted the description to his personal POV in a not neutral way. In the German wikipedia he started his personal crusade, but was stopped after three weeks. Please, have look on the article and try to repair it. --Feliks (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Battle off Diamond Shoals

As discussed above, I popped down to the single criterion lists to see how the land lies and found myself at this article. In theory an article only lacking attention to grammar, it no longer has a page of its own but is redirected to another article. That article, despite being about a warship, is not MILHIST tagged. Should the original talk page have been moved at the time of the redirect? If someone wants a look, the grammar on the new article is OK - there are one or two spelling and punctuation mistakes - but it doesn't meet B1 - there are citation gaps and the presentation of the refs needs looking at. Sorry for the long commentary but it needs a more knowledgeable editor on WWII ships and someone who knows how to handle the issues of the redirect to sort out.Monstrelet (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

My habit in such cases is to redirect the offending talk page with an edit summary that the article had been turned into a redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just redirected the talk page. I should have done this when I redirected the article - oops! Thanks for noticing this. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reassessed as start, which was its original status but, given the narrow subject matter would be easy to improve by anyone interested.Monstrelet (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Submarine operations, 1971

Submarine operations, 1971 is actually about Pakistan submarine activities during the Indo-Pakistan war in 1971. Anyone know a better article title? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How about Indo-Pakistani War submerged Pakistani operations? The Pakistani emphasis should be there, as the article only focuses on Pakistani operations, otherwise it would need a section for both belligerents during the conflict.

Another suggestion is Pakistani submarine operations during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Or how about creating a larger article regarding Pakistani submerged operations, with a section regarding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Something like "Pakistani submarine operations during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971" sounds more natural than putting "Indo-Pakistani War" first, I think.

As far as a larger article, would doing it on the basis of the war (e.g. "Submarine operations of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971") make more sense than doing it on the basis of the country involved? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pakistani submarine operations during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971" sounds good to me. Actually I've been meaning to do something about the name of this article for a while but nothing really came to mind until it was suggested here. Good idea. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pakistani submarine operations during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971" seems a bit strained to me, & potentially POV. Can it be "Sub Ops of I-PW (1971)" (or "1971 I-PW")? This leaves open adding Indian Navy ops (if any) &, to my eye anyhow, is less...I dunno what the word is, just "wrong". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pakistan Navy submarine operations of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War", "Pakistan Navy submarine operations (1971 Indo-Pakistani War)" ? I was rather hoping someone would say that the Pakistan Navy called it "Operation ....."GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum I've found its close friend East Pakistan Air Operations, 1971. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, these seriously need to be merged into the main article, or renamed into something more appropriate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

An idea

So, I have been thinking of this for awhile now but I recently thought it might be good to bring it up here. For the project, we have a military structure template for forts with a few buildings and other things. This is a great template, but if we are talking about installations that cover areas the size of some small states and other extreme areas, wouldn't it be better to have a "Military Installation" template to help bridge this gap? I know that a user has recently gone around to Air National Guard base articles and has been replacing the airport one with the structure ones, but it doesn't really make sense to have a structures template for something which might include a few hangers, multiple support facilities, a ramp (and possibly an airport), and other things. Personally, I feel a need to either reform the present template or maybe even create a supplemental one, but I would like to hear what others think before I go any further. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is actually something that was proposed before, if I recall correctly, but never got off the ground because we couldn't come up with a good list of parameters for an installation infobox.

My personal inclination would be to convert the existing structure infobox to an installation one, and then move back to using the normal building infoboxes for individual buildings (with, perhaps, an expanded infobox developed purely for true fortifications). I expect that we'd also want to merge the test site infobox in with the installation infobox at that point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Infobox military area"? Just needs to cover what it's for, size, who controls it, period of use. Would be good for smaller bombing ranges, STANTA, up to CFB Suffield (which currently has an airport inforbox) and Woomera Test Range. My instinct is that "structure" implies a single building rather than a base. Going back to the use of airport infoboxes for military airbases - is there a happy medium? RAF Coltishall has two infoboxes -one for the station entity and one for the runways - as does RAF Coningsby. RAF Brize Norton has just an airport one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am all for using the airport infobox, but even then if the base is covering a tiny portion of the airport and is not in control, then it is a tad silly to have it there, but even sillier to include the structure box. Does anyone have a good idea of what they want in the template? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(Almost) never before seen photographs of the construction of the USS Iowa

Yesterday we had a bunch of Wikipedians out at the National Archives doing scanning of various photographs in the archives. We happened to end up with boxes full of construction photographs of World War II battleships. We scanned about a dozen photographs of the USS Iowa (BB-61) in various stages of construction. So far as I'm aware these photographs have not been digitized before, and have probably only been seen by a handful of people. They've just been sitting on the Archives shelves all these years.

Anyway, I'm coming here because we need help with the photographs. They're all in ~50 MiB TIFF files direct from the scanner. The level of detail is amazing, but they can't be used in articles in this form. We need someone with some basic experience to convert them over to JPGs, do some auto-leveling or whatever to equalize the light levels and coax some details out of the shadows, etc. And of course we need some help incorporating them into articles as appropriate.

Anyway, the photographs have been uploaded to Commons. Look for the really huge TIFF files in that category. Please help out with conversion of the photographs, and enjoy these views of the USS Iowa! --Cyde Weys 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Has someone already converted these? I can't see any images that match your description. EyeSerene^talk 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they haven't been converted already. If you go to the image description pages they show as being in that category, but they aren't on the category page itself. Maybe this is some bug related to the failed thumbnail generation for the files? Regardless, here's a list of direct links to the files. Now you can't miss 'em!

1. commons:Image:19-LC BS49191.tif
2. commons:Image:19-LC BS49197.tif
3. commons:Image:19-LC BS49194.tif
4. commons:Image:19-LC BS49182.tif
5. commons:Image:19-LC BS49188.tif
6. commons:Image:19-LC BS49193.tif
7. commons:Image:19-LC BS49189.tif
8. commons:Image:19-LC BS49186.tif
9. commons:Image:19-LC BS49181.tif
10. commons:Image:19-LCunnumbered.tif

Some conversion, so that they can be viewed in a web browser without having to download the mammoth raw TIFFs, would be very nice indeed! --Cyde Weys 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cyde Weys - If you need someone simply to download all these photos, do a little adjusting of levels, curves, etc then save them as JPEGs I have plenty of Photoshop/Lightroom experience, and the time, I'd be very glad to. You'd need to instruct me where to reupload them, or email them, afterwards, however, and if you want them resizing/cropping or not as they appear to have huge dimensions. I'd also recommend PNG over JPEG, personally, due to the lossness result, whereas JPEGs are lossy compression and might lose some of that fine detail you mentioned. I don't know if Wiki has a preference which you should use, but I'm good either way, so your call. I'll start downloading them now - won't take long, whilst awaiting your reply here or on my talk if you prefer. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be awesome. The simplest way to do it would just to re-upload them back to Commons with the exact same filename except a .jpg extension instead of .tif. Also, copy over the image description page for each one (which contains data like where the image came from, that it's PD-US Gov, etc.). I'll come through afterwards and adjust things so that the TIFs link to the JPGs and vice versa. And I think JPG is a better format to use for PNG than this because the file size is going to be much smaller. PNG is typically used more for schematics or files that contain a lot of single colors, not photographs. Rest assured, if someone wants the full quality versions, the TIFs will always be available, so the converted images really just need to be most suitable for inclusion in articles, and I believe that JPGs win on that front. Once again, thank you! --Cyde Weys 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as for cropping, it's probably a good idea to crop out any white frames (they contain the reference numbers, but those will be preserved in the TIFF copies). As for resizing, 2500 px along the larger dimension is probably a good size. It'll be good enough for people to still see a lot of detail in the JPGs, but not so huge that the file size is unwieldy. --Cyde Weys 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. JPG it is. I have been cropping to the physical edge where the scanner top shows, but if you prefer the whole white border trimming I can do that instead. Will get back to you as soon as they're done and uploaded, unless I have any more questions. Might let you do all the description adding - last time I added a pic to Commons it was a right arse on.. don't know what went wrong though.. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 14:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All done. If you need me to adjust them any better, or have any other photos need converting, please let me know.

1. 19-LC_BS49181.jpg
2. 19-LC_BS49182.jpg
3. 19-LC_BS49186.jpg
4. 19-LC_BS49188.jpg
5. 19-LC_BS49189.jpg
6. 19-LC_BS49191.jpg
7. 19-LC_BS49193.jpg
8. 19-LC_BS49194.jpg
9. 19-LC_BS49197.jpg
10. 19-LCunnumbered.jpg

Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to move those pictures to better titles (the description on the images) so that they have a bit more description for when someone wants to search for them without doing the categories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, though might be useful to co-ordinate with Cyde.. I just converted and re-uploaded them per his instructions above, I have no idea if he's using them in an article or not. I don't do Ship history, just glad to have some photos to work on for a short task. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 05:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the renaming is fine, it's just that the original names were the National Archives reference numbers, and that information is now no longer contained anywhere on the image description pages save for the page history. I'm trying to figure out which template to use to list the NARA ref #s and I'll add that back in. Anyway, the JPGs look good, and should be suitable for articles now. --Cyde Weys 22:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Medal bar" in biographical articles

I've noticed that medal bars are being added to soldiers' bio articles (see [1]). I reverted that addition because it was unsourced, but as a project do we have any consensus on the value of these types of sections? EyeSerene^talk 08:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they have any value. Honours (for UK/Commonwealth personnel) and gallantry awards tend to get (or should be) listed in the infobox and should also be referred to in the text of the article. These "medal bar" tables just seem to be an excuse to add images of the ribbons. If editors want to add details of other decorations e.g. campaign medals these can be added into the main text but a lot are non-encyclopedic e.g. the 6.5 million Victory and British War Medals issued for service in WW1 NtheP (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded that they are of no value to the articles in question and I have also noticed they appear more and more in articles. Does WP:Biography have anything to say on the subject. (dropped them a note about this discussion)Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Obviously one major issue seems to be a lack of sourcing, but even properly sourced I tend to agree with you both that they add little of value (almost WP:TRIVIA in fact). Taking up an entire screen or more doesn't help, especially when the bio itself is quite short. EyeSerene^talk 10:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We dont normally have a problem with listing the gallantry awards and citations but I dont see any need for images, they are being used for decoration (even the large table format is a bit over the top), as Nthep mentioned standard campaign medals are not really notable and dont need to be mentioned, the temptation with a table and images is to list everything. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

To create a table or list with images of the medal bars seems to be a case of decoration. If something is to be made of the fact that the individual received many awards then surely a picture of them with a chestful of ribbons or a photgraphy of the medla group is appropriate. I have also seem the same effect in unit articles with streamers and awards listed with matching images (more extreme example). In infoboxes too, I seem to recallI have found.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above that they have little encyclopaedic value. If somebody is notable for an award, like a VC or an MoH, then much will be made of it in the prose, and other significant awards (like Richard Dannatt's Military Cross, to give an example from my own work) will get at least a mention. In my experience, these types of sections are common in American biographies (probably because the images are PD) but less so in British and Commonwelath articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's pleasing for me to see the consensus above as I've had various heating discussions in the past with people who like to list every medal, even service/campaign medals that are not notable in themselves, as well as honours and decorations, in special sections. I see no value in these sections as wars/campaigns, plus high honours including gallantry awards, should be noted in the infobox and detailed/cited in the main body. The worst I find is the images that often go with such lists, which I'm afraid suggest nothing so much as a children's picture book to this reader... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the best place for an encyclopedic treatment is in the article text. Part of my concern was the edit summary in the diff I linked at the top of the thread ("...it is being done for all Australian Soldiers in Wikipedia"). Consensus so far is unanimous and though obviously that could change, if it stays this way perhaps we'll be able to nip this in the bud. GraemeLeggett's examples seem to fall into the same camp, though might be different enough that they merit separate discussion.

Assuming consensus doesn't dramatically change in the next few hours and days, might it be worth explicitly adding something about medal bars to our MOS? EyeSerene^talk 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur about the ribbon bars adding little of value.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to thoroughly disagree, based not only on my experience as a contributor who makes these kinds of lists, but also with my education in marketing a webpage. Here are my concerns:

1. As much as you'd like to wish readers care about the prose as much as our friends at FAC, they don't. People prefer organized lists,tables with short bits of information, and yes, images. The list of awards is as much of an inroads to the history of the article's subject as is their biography, because it's a shorthand reference point of that person's accomplishments. In fact, studies show people tend to gravitate to lists and (useful) images much more than they do to walls of prose. Because they don't care enough to read it all in the biography section to find the tidbits they want. (source) Moreover, visual representations of lists such as the awards also increase readership (source). I've experienced this countless times as other contributors try to turn entire sections of my prose into bullet points...again and again.
2. I would contend a complete list of decorations a person has won is just as important (or unimportant) to their notability as is the high school they graduated from. If an article is complete without a person's list of accomplishments, I would contend it would be complete without the less interesting "early life" and secondary education details we often require for notable people that are not directly a part of their notable accomplishments.
3. I am concerned this creates a slippery slope that seems to be against general consensus on Wikipedia overall as it is. Many of our famous athletes, musicians, entertainers, and other notable people have entire sections of awards and some people's awards even have articles of their own. Are we going to try to say those lists are notable everywhere on Wikipedia except articles under our rules? I think people on other projects would oppose a move like this pretty strongly on their own pages on the basis that it requires them to find an alternative to their lists, when the lists seem to work efficiently as is.
4. When it comes down to it, these awards are some of the most important details to our readers, especially military-minded people. After all, people have committed suicide over their decorations, strict laws exist governing award displays and thousands of people have articles on Wikipedia who have no notability outside of the awards they have received. A lot of WikiProjects have cases like these. It's the reason awards tables are often so easy to cite...the military (and military people) have such a demand for the information that it's often the one detail about a unit/person's history that gets the most thorough coverage in official histories.

That said, it sounds like the problems we keep having revolve mainly around citing this information. I would say awards must adhere to the same strict BLP requirements as any other detail, and be removed immediately if they are not cited. If we would rather limit these decorations to non-illustrated lists, I would support that, as well. But I strongly oppose limiting mention of decorations to the prose. —Ed!^(talk) 18:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be some justification for setting out a separate "awards" section in that it relieves pressure on the infobox to hold a long list, in the same way that for a British regiment it is easier to list the battle honours separately on the page and link from the infobox (as for instance in the Royal Norfolk Regiment). In articles, while the prose is unfinished, a list of awards can help in the same way as a timeline for a company for identifying points that need to be turned into prose. So there may be occasions when a separate awards section is helpful, but would you have it as the defacto standard? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying from my experience in website design and advertising, these lists are some of the most useful parts of an article because the average, uninvolved reader is usually turned off by walls of text, and the awards do create a sort of "timeline" of the person's accomplishments. While I think images to have utility, I can also see the argument that they seem superfluous by themselves. I would support awards lists like this with minimal illustration, but removing awards sections entirely forces us to cram the awards into the prose, and people don't want to search through prose to get to that information. It says enough to me that the awards tables are some of the most eavily edited parts of my articles (bots notwithstanding) that people gravitate toward the lists as quick ways to get the information. —Ed!^(talk) 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I realize for the who haven't served in the military the colorful ribbons don't mean much and seem more appropriate in a children's book however I also have to say I don't agree with removing these ribbon bars either. For people in the military those "unnecessary" ribbon bars represent an important piece of military culture and a piece of the service members career. To remove it, IMO, would be like removing all the pictures from the article and leaving nothing but bare text. Also as Ed more elequantly put it. --Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point that's being missed is that we do have a place for lists of decorations "won" (to use Kumioko's wording) by service people for extraordinary acts, and high honours recognising excellent service, and that is the infobox. There is no need for ribbon images when one click on the decoration's link will show them not only the ribbon but the medal itself. There is also no point in listing service/campaign medals that are conferred to everybody on active duty in the war or campaign, i.e. for being in a certain place at a certain time, such as the 1939–45 Star or the Africa Star -- these don't command much if any weight in histories or biographies because of their ubiquity. To respond to the comparison with awards for pop artists and so on, aside from there being few military people with so many notable honours and decorations that they'd make the infobox very long, I think most of WP would take a dim view of images of Oscars or Grammys next to each movie or pop star's award listed. The one situation I could see some reason to modify our current standard is where multiple grades of notable honours have been awarded and hence could justifiably be included in the infobox, with the year of the award, e.g. Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (1961), Companion of the Order of the Bath (1955), Commander of the Order of the British Empire (1953), Distinguished Flying Cross (1946), Officer of the Order of the British Empire (1942). Currently we don't generally include the years of awards in the infobox, and the OBE/CBE wouldn't be listed in this example (Air Marshal Valston Hancock if anyone's interested) because the KBE subsumes them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as the list of awards, Wikipedia's lists have always included awards notable enough to have their own articles, in addition to other awards. It seems to me the precedent remains that at least a list should exist of the awards. I'd also be inclined to think a photo of each decoration isn't necessarily essential; but at the same time, something that often seems to draw people to articles and talk pages seems to be identifying the ribbons seen on a subject's dress uniform. It's nice and neat to omit campaign medals from biographies when there are only one or two campaigns in a person's career, but I've been dealing a lot with early 1900's career individuals who have 6 or 7 campaigns under their belts; and people do like to see and know what awards those individuals won, as opposed to assuming and often being wrong about eligibility for awards. —Ed!^(talk) 04:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree that Campaign medals are not important enough to display nor do I agree that the Infobox is the only place appropriate to list/display the awards. Keep in mind that the display of awards is not specific to individuals but to units, bases and Ships as well. For example, USS Missouri (BB-63) is a featured article that lists all of the (as indicated above less important) campaign ribbons prominantly displayed in the awards section. So whatever is decided here will undoubtedly ripple over to these other articles as well. Also quoting above about "these don't command much if any weight in histories or biographies because of their ubiquity". Lets be a little clearer that those official biographies and histories are mostly printed on paper and they have limited space. I suspect there are many that would "like" to include the whole history of each person but due to limited room they have to be more selective. We don't have that problem and additionally people come here to find out information that may or may not be easily found in written texts (ie not all books are available everywhere with the information). Also, if we aren't going to display the full list of awards then we shouldn't display any of them. The military sets forth an order of precedence that should be followed and if we skip around then we lose credibility. Additionally, it will start to confuse people because well be missing images and they will ask why or simply add them in. It would be a terrible shame in my opinion if we decided that only certain ribbons should be displayed because it will devalue the usefullness of displaying anything and will degrade our credibility. --Kumioko (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above regarding Leroy Petry for some of the issues surrounding unit award ribbons. And honestly, I don't see why not listing every campaign ribbon or basic training ribbon would undermine our credibility. And let's be honest...there are some military awards given out just for showing up. And I've seen enough errors in the unit section regarding campaigns to wonder how accurate we will actually end up being if we start trying to list every award an individual earned. After all, unit awards are often more publicly listed and thus should be easier to verify. Sadly it doesn't seem to work that way.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Being an online encyclopedia doesn't mean we shouldn't be selective in what we present -- WP is not a grab-bag of information or a home for listcruft. Concerns about displaying "only certain ribbons" are easily overcome by not displaying any images of decorations in articles that are not specifically about those decorations. I'm also curious to know what evidence exists that we are in danger of losing credibility by not displaying every service medal in a soldier's bio. The argument that books would include this info if they had the space doesn't hold water in my experience. As you might imagine, I've been through many full-length bios of airmen to source WP articles, and I'm struggling to remember one that used the half a page necessary to list all such medals; they give space to the decorations for gallantry, and other high honours, as do we. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your right they don't because they are limited on space. I can see that there is likely no chance that I am going to win this argument but I just wanted it noted that as a member of the military I strongly oppose the relegation of the medals and ribbons earned as just image cruft and non notable. To those in the military who received them they are, in many cases more meaningful, than listing what High school I attended or that i was the school footbal star!. To not list them just reflects that although some may be very good researchers and writers they lack understanding about the importance of these decorations in the military culture for individuals and units/ships. It has the same effect if we remove the ranks and simply say they were Officers or Enlisted...I mean what does the rank really matter anyway right, there is no cililian equivelant. Sorry if that offends but thats how I feel. I'm not going to bother arguing it because I'll probably just make myself into the bad guy endlessly contesting my feelings about the display of ribbons but I hope this demonstrats that not everyone is going to agree that these are "just images or needless awards" and that some will find it quite a bad decision if its done. What may end up happening is that we will be forced to make an image off line and add a picture to each article that displays the ribbons in a photo image instead of building a table with the awards. --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Kumioko, but it's also worth understanding that there are different levels of military awards, and not all of them are equal or equally valuable. Typically in the military it's the valor awards that are held in high esteem, while the others may or may not be. I'm not trying to offend, either, but I've been around the military for a long time (over 20 years) and have met more servicemembers (officers and enlisted alike) who feel the same way that those who feel that every ribbon is valuable. Comparing ribbons to rank isn't really valid, IMO. Finally, how are we to verify EVERY medal a person may be entitled to? As Ian pointed out, most discussions limit medals to those awarded for valor. Those are easy (for the most part) to verify. Others may not be.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of notability I do agree that if we can't verify it then at the least we should add a citation needed tag and at worst we remove it from the article (and possibly leave a note on the talk page). But in general if its mentioned then it should be there. On the issue of holding Valorous awards in higher esteem I agree with that to a point too. Again though there is a measure of added respect, acknowledgement or whatever thats given to those that have been in a given campaign (Iraq or afghanistan for example) against those who haven't. I also agree with the comments below that indicate that there is some cultural and nationality differences in play. In the US for example they might be a bit more important than in the UK (I am not familiar with the UK I am just hypothesizing). --Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This "problem" for want of a better word seems to be dependent on what nation is involved. See Bernard Law Montgomery who is entitled to three campaign medals for WWI and six for the WWII, but they are missing completely from his list of awards. Where as James Jabara has 17 campaign or similar awards listed. As a compromise how about only listing those that would result in Post-nominal letters? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok strike that last bit just realised it only seem to be UK an Commonwealth countries who use that system.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment re featured article and award images. Missouri went FA in 05 was last reviewed in 09. The big ribbon table appeared in late October 2010 replacing a single image and prose text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good research. That was just an example though. After reviewing what it looked like befire, personally I think that it looks better than it did. --Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To add my two cents to this topic, I think a separate section for awards near the bottom of the article, that is well referenced, either in bar format or as a list is valuable for those who want to quickly know what a notable unit, or military biography subject was awarded. These should be avoided in the infobox, except for maybe the most notable ones (especially if they directly contribute to the subjects overall notability (such as a medal of honor or victoria cross recipient). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the medal sections particularly useful. Important awards should be covered in the text and I tend to agree that campaign medals are non-notable, but at least part of the issue is the rather startling visual impact of running into a mass of large coloured icons that are meaningless unless one wants to look them all up. Where articles are short the contrast is even more jarring; it comes across as a decorative image gallery. In order of preference I'd rather see 1. no listing at all with significant awards covered in the text; 2. a selective text-based listing, explaining what medals were awarded and why their award is notable; 3. the previous but in a table and without images; and 4. the image gallery plus table. If we have to have 3 or 4, collapsing the section might at least reduce the visual clutter. EyeSerene^talk 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review for HMS Belfast (C35) now open

Hello all. Having had some encouraging feedback recently, I have nominated HMS Belfast for A-Class Review. (Not having nominated an article for A-Class review before, I trust that posting a notice like this is part of the normal procedure - apologies if not!) IxK85 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated T-34 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

High Mobility Artillery Rocket System

Didn't see this listed here so thought I'd mention it. There's a proposed rename/move of High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (to HIMARS) discussion here GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

War on Terror

Twice an editor has removed the Netherlands from the combatant list in the War on Terror article.

No reason has been articulated in the talk page or in the edit summary.

I have begun a new discussion regarding the reversions here. All interested editors are welcome to join. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Musical titles

2011 U.S. special forces helicopter shootdown has been moved 5 times since its creation on August 6, not even 4 days ago. While there is a move discussion at Talk:2011 U.S. special forces helicopter shootdown#New title, there is no clear concensus for a move at this point. Could an admin please move-protect the page? Thanks. (Note that I was going to mention this when it was moved earler today (my time), but I had hoped the moves would stop. Oh well!)- BilCat (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kirov class battlecruiser

A proposal has been made to move the page Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser back to Kirov class battlecruiser. All interested members are invited to sound off on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces

I recently added (well, re-added) an entry at Alfred Turner (a disambiguation page). Specifically, a Sir Alfred Edward Turner (1842-1918), British Major-General, Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces (1900-1904), made KCB in 1902. I noticed that several other people held this role of Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces, and was wondering if anyone here could shed some light on what this role was, or do a short stub on it? This is partly because it would be better to have a blue-link at the disambiguation page to his role. Also, I'm considering an article on this Major-General (he was involved with the Irish issues in the 1880s and 1890s, and was stationed over there) and was wondering if he would meet the MILHIST notability criteria? Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On notability, he's a general, so it appears so as a rule (or should I say guideline? ;p ). If he was also involved in the Irish issues, I'd say definitely, seeing how conentious that was. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure all ranks of British general staff are automatically notable. There were an awful lot of Brigadier-Generals during the First World War, and I doubt all of those are automatically notable. Or is it Lieutenant-Generals, I forget! I should re-read Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. And on doing so, I'm reminded that I take such guidelines with a pinch of salt, as sometimes someone who passes the general notability guidelines doesn't pass a project-specific guideline, in which case I defer to the general guideline. The more specific guidelines are more to help identify exceptions to the general guidelines, rather than the other way round. I'll check back for more replies later, as I'd still like to know more about this 'Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces' business, if anyone here knows about that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The I-G of Auxilliary Forces was a fairly short lived post. With the rapid growth in non regular forces in the UK in the later part of the 19th century e.g. the Yeomanry, the Volunteers as well as the Militia there was a need for a senior officer to oversee them and this post was created. Then it all changed in 1907/8 with the creation of the Territorial Force. There's a brief history here. NtheP (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

IDK if you noticed the discussion here, Carcharoth, but the issue of brigadiers being automatically notable has come up before (& on the issue of General notability, actually ;p ), since they're comparatively junior in Brit service. I should also have said (had I thought of it... :( ), being head of the branch would seem to do it. The head of an SFG might only be a colonel, but when he's in the role of a general... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nthep, for the link. That does help a lot in understanding what this role was. And thanks for all the replies here, much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Who's Who, Turner seems to have done a sizable amount of quasi-political work; he was Private Secretary to the Viceroy of Ireland and held various police commissioner posts in Ireland in the 1880s-90s. His military service seems to have been entirely on the staff. He also wrote a couple of history books, and was a director of (among others) the North Borneo Chartered Company. Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall recieve... Alfred Edward Turner. I've not gone into any detail on his political work (Irish politics of the period make my head spin a bit) but there's certainly the framework for expansion there, and his memoirs are online. Regarding the inspectorate, it's notable he left it in 1904; the same year, a commission enquiring into the auxiliary forces reported they were completely unfit for service ... Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiesbaden

An IP editor has removed material from the Wiesbaden article, claiming "opsec violation". We don't appear to have a WP:OPSEC, and the material removed is in relation to military bases in Wiesbaden. Not sure whether or not the removal is valid, so over to you guys and gals. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If the closure information has appeared in print publicly, it certainly isn't an OPSEC violation. Personally I didn't see anything there that could really be considered any violation of operational security, but YMMV.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The presence of certain units doesn't seem to be a hush-hush thing - eg -the Base website lists contact numbers and the relocation of US Army Europe has it's own blog GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd say it's not OPSEC.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted the edit per the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for John Treloar (museum administrator) now open

The featured article candidacy for John Treloar (museum administrator) 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! Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Brazilian battleship São Paulo now open

The featured article candidacy for Brazilian battleship São Paulo 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! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Operations that never happened

Do we have a policy for operations that did not happen? We have Operation Sea Lion which is quite large but I am thinking more about those that will in all probability never get above Stub Class. I believe an encyclopaedia should at least mention them no matter what size article, but is there any policy or has this been discussed before. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no policy, but there ought to be a page to collect the stubs, if nothing else. A lot may never have got much past the notional stage, so there may never be enough to justify individual pages for them; they still deserve some measure of coverage IMO. IDK if it should also include ones that were dramatically recast, such as RUTTER, which became JUBILEE; that might want a daughter page, presuming it's not adequately covered under the final op's page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy on this, though WP:N is obviously the relevant policy on whether they should have an article or not. Planed operations that never took place can be notable (Operation Sealion and Operation Olympic are good examples of this) as can be operations which were proposed but rejected before serious planning began (eg Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia). Personally, I'd err on the side of creating articles on this kind of thing if the sources meet WP:N, though as Trekphiler suggests creating an umbrella type article to group stub-type content together would also work well for related cancelled operations. I hope that you're talking about Proposed Allied airborne operations of World War II or similar! Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what originally caught my attention, in June and July 1944 there was:

• Operation Reinforcement a parachute drop to the west of St Sauveur-le-Vicomte to support the American 82nd Airborne Division.
• Operation Wild Oats a drop onto Carpiquet airfield.
• Operation Beneficiary supporting the American XX Corps to capture St Malo.
• Operation Lucky Strike seizing the bridges crossing the River Seine at Rouen.
• Operation Sword Hilt cutting off the port of Brest and destroying the Morlaix viaduct.
• Operation Hands Up supporting the American Third Army by seizing Vannes airfield.

In August:

• Operation Transfigure involved the 1st and 101st Airborne Divisions, with the 52nd Infantry Division and 1st Polish Parachute Brigade landing at Rambouillet St Arnoult to close the gap between Orleans and Paris.
• Operation Axehead using the same force to seize bridges over the River Seine in support of 21st Army Group.
• Operation Boxer again using the same forces to seize Boulogne and attack V1 rocket sites.
• Operation Linnet, with the same units were to seize crossings over the Escaut, cutting off the retreating German armies.
• Operation Infatuate in early September involved I Airborne Corps, landing in the Scheldt estuary to threaten Antwerp. Obviously I have references for all these.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how generally applicable it would be, but another way to cover them is to mention them in passing in parent articles (for example, see Operation Epsom#Background for Operation Dreadnought). If necessary a redirect can be set up to point to the appropriate section. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Operation Perch#Operation Wild Oats :) EyeSerene^talk 11:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Morlaix viaduct was on the Réseau Breton system. A passage about the proposed operation could be accommodated in the relevant section of the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

♠I'd definitely like to see Proposed Allied airborne operations of World War II. :D

♠Yeah, a lot of these can be mentioned on "parent" pages, but it seems to me most of the cancelled ops are only tangentially related to actual ones, beyond those (like RUTTER/JUBILEE) which had the same objectives. That being true, they're going to get challenged as being OT. Which leaves a compendium page...

♠The other option which occured to me (& not a good one, IMO) is mention of the op(s) on the pages of the formations assigned, selected, or otherwise intended. This, however, scatters the information all over the place & IMO will tend to lead to calls for, yes, a single page for all of it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Relief of General Douglas MacArthur now open

The peer review for Relief of General Douglas MacArthur is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Embedding maps in campaignboxes

Mojoworker and I have been working on a set of potential upgrades to the base campaignbox template to add an option allowing a map of the campaign to be embedded within the template.

A simple list of battles doesn't always give a clear picture of a campaign; a campaign can consist of battles that are widely distributed over a large geographic area (e.g. Morgan's Raid or the Vicksburg Campaign of the American Civil War). It could be useful, at least in certain circumstances, to have the campaign map available within the campaignbox— especially for campaigns that have no actual campaign article for the title of the campaignbox to link to. This would allow the reader to obtain additional information from the campaignbox itself, as well as helping the reader—who may be unfamiliar with the battles in the campaign—to navigate to the desired article more intuitively than by clicking on each of the battles in the list itself.

The embedded map feature is available for testing through {{campaign/sandbox}}, and uses a pair of parameters (map_image and map_caption) that enable an optional map section. The feature can be seen in use on {{Campaignbox Morgan's Raid in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio}}, which has included a campaign map since 2008 and has been updated to use the new prototype mechanism.

We would appreciate feedback on a couple of questions:

1. Is the embedded map feature a useful one in general? Is it something that would be worth using on some (not all) campaignboxes, or making available to campaignbox designers?
2. Is the current layout of the prototype a good one? Should anything about the placement of the map be changed? Do we need any additional parameters?
3. The map can currently be expanded and collapsed independently from the campaignbox; should the campaignbox state parameter ("state=expanded") force the map to expand as well, or should the two remain separate?

Responses to these questions would be appreciated, as would any other comments! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of taking a well-defined, simple concept--an unadorned list of article links--and complicating it by adding other information. If we want to show a map that the article authors have not chosen to present, should we also include options to show the commanders, the dates, the casualties, etc.? What about those campaigns that have multiple campaign maps (the Gettysburg Campaign or the Overland Campaign, or even the Vicksburg Campaign, which you cite as an example, for instance)--do you want options to embed multiple maps?

Knowing how the second law of thermodynamics usually affects decisions of this type in Wikipedia, I presume this new level of complication will end up being added. If so, all I would ask is that you lean toward the article authors in determining whether to display this map or not. I really don't want to see robots wandering around, removing campaign maps from existing articles out of concern that images may be duplicated. In other words, set the parameters so that the article author, not the template author, gets to turn this feature on in any particular article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Only one map is anticipated — and to be fair, the Vicksburg Campaign does have two campaign maps, but then it also has two corresponding campaignboxes. Also, no plans for inclusion of the commanders, dates, casualties, etc. — simply an optional map of the campaign and I stress that it is optional, but I understand your request for an "include_map" parameter — and I think that's worth considering. There currently are a number of existing battle articles that are including maps of the campaign of which the battle is a part and the inclusion of such a map can help with the reader's understanding of the context of the battle. However, they are being used inconsistently — some battle articles in the campaign include such a map while other articles in the very same campaign do not. Are the individual articles always really the appropriate place for them? Consistency and ease of maintenance are some of the very reasons such templates exist. Mojoworker (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see this being potentially valuable for small and/or simple campaigns perhaps, but attempting to summarise major campaigns in a tiny map might be problematic. Often there's not enough space on large maps in the article body to show the necessary information at a readable resolution without a reader having to click through to the image file itself (and then expand that). That said, I like the idea of trying to find a way of visually placing "Battle of..." type articles into their wider context. Perhaps a customisable image would be possible? (by which I mean the same image for every battle in a campaign, but with the location of that particular battle highlighted) EyeSerene^talk 12:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

July Milhist newsletter out

Your military history newsletter – Issue LXV, July 2011 Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Featured and A-class content: the month in review Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers discusses RfA To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. To receive the newsletter on your talk page, become a project member or sign up here.

The bot seems to have missed me out. :( Anybody have any idea why? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Cbrown has done his bot run yet. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realised the bot hadn't edited since it delivered the July newsletter! That'll teach me to post the first thing that comes into my mind at 2am! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Does lack of sleep fall into WP:EUI territory? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the prospect of bad judgements, mistakes, testiness, & general troublesomeness that can arise (all of which I can testify to from unfortunate personal experience :( :( ), yes. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for source verification

Interested editors are invited to see a discussion that I have started on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines talk page, regarding a recent edition by an IP editor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Two quick things

First and foremost, I wanted to point out the word 'Add' on the A-Class criteria no longer links to the right page (I'm sorry, I don't have time to fix this myself). Secondly, the A class review for 'Background of the Spanish Civil War' could do with, preferably, more contributors. (About 2 weeks left, so far no comments – so I'd welcome any thoughts.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nyon Conference now open

The A-Class review for Nyon Conference is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Spearhead Land Element

Folks, expert input requested in the move discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Arbuthnot

Was it he who was a Colonel at the Battle of Waterloo? If not, then who was the colonel Robert who was there? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I found this quotation "The Colombo Observer says four, including among them Sir Robert Arbuthnot, but the General, though he had been through nearly every battle ia the Peninsular War, does not seem to have been at Waterloo". - Kittybrewster ☎ 06:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

USS Kentucky FAR

I have nominated USS Kentucky (BB-66) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

French cruiser Jules Michelet

Hello, WikiProject Military history editors. I'd just like to point out that this image of the French cruiser Jules Michelet (1905) exists as part of the Tropenmuseum donation to the Commons. I thought it would be useful in case anyone is interested in creating an article for it. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Input requested regarding article title

I just closed a move discussion at Talk:Tzachas#Requested move, and then an editor objected to the move. Before doing anything further with the page, I'd like to see input from some more editors, so we can be certain that we're getting the correct title. If anyone here can register an opinion there, it would be helpful. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)