Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

	Please use this page to start discussions that either affect the project as a whole or several task forces. For discussions about individual existing task forces, please use that task force's talk page instead.
	Skip to Table of Contents • List and scope of Task Forces • Add new section • Full archives

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 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 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 • West Point, New York • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal	Good article nominees Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • 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 • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • 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 • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Cultybraggan Camp • HMS Basilisk (1910) • 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses Good article reassessments Golubac Fortress • Loitering munition
Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,287) • only work on referencing and citation (43,154) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,397) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,621) • work on structure (31,776) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,191) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,735) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (10) • assessment as lists (121) • project tags fixed (8) • assessment checklists added (12) • assessment checklists completed (35) • task forces added (294) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Flag icons guidelines

A parade of flag icons is constantly being added and removed from various parts of articles. We have a number of specific cases which come up again and again. Let's just settle on some specific guidelines to stick to, instead of perpetuating this slow-motion revert war.

List of countries	Decorated list
Germany, Romania, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spanish volunteers	Germany Romania Finland Italy Hungary Slovakia Croatia Spanish volunteers

In articles about armoured fighting vehicles, we see flags coming and going once in the infobox,[1] twice in the infobox,[2] in lists of countries.[3] In my opinion, these are all inappropriate according to MOSICON because they don't “provide additional essential information or needed illustration”.

They may be appropriate in a mixed list, like the list of commanders in the infobox of Operation Barbarossa. But the list of belligerents (shown) could sure be more compact, without omitting any information at all:

Let's agree on inclusion of flags for some well-defined types of occurrences, or at least for some specific cases which occur in many articles. —Michael Z. 2008-12-10 17:50 z

We have discussed this before and WP:MILMOS#FLAGS was created. Does this answer your issues? Regards. Woody (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the guideline but its interpretation is not clear. Flags are constantly being added by newer editors to the infoboxes and #Operators sections of AFV articles, sometimes repeatedly[4][5] and systematically,[6] and removed by the veterans. The state of this set of articles remains inconsistent. We need a consensus interpretation of the guideline for a few scenarios, so we can get off the merry-go-round, and cite an unambiguous rule.

Here's one concrete proposal: “An alphabetical list of country names does not benefit by adding flag icons.” —Michael Z. 2008-12-10 18:41 z

Alternately, we could specifically mention infoboxes, repeated use of flags, or AFV #Operators sections, but I think it should apply to a wider range of articles. —Michael Z. 2008-12-10 18:44 z

The edit war is continuing.[7] We need some discussion or a poll on this. —Michael Z. 2008-12-12 16:58 z

Not so much an edit war, just challenging a vague and ambiguous policy. It comes down to what one considers "decorative". I believe just ONE national flag in the origin field allows the reader to quickly identify the vehicle/weapon's origin and place it within a historical perspective. Koalorka (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding a flag to the infobox, where "designer" is has never been a problem for me at FAC. Normally, the flag is removed by another editor (such as in the case of Leopard 2E). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So shall we agree to enter one flag for place of origin, which is always a country and has the strongest regional association? What happens for internationally-developed AFVs (e.g., LAV-25)?

Can we agree to omit flags in used by, designer, and manufacturer? In many cases these will be redundant with the first one. In others, the former will list several countries—including flags encourages a space-eating column layout rather than a compact list with commas (like in my example table above).

I absolutely want to ban flags from the stereotypical “list of operators”. They look attractive to drive-by editors who want to standardize article layout, but they are useless and distracting for readers. They encourage the creation of nearly empty main sections for articles with only one or two list items, and make these sections look like garish circus tents in articles about widely-used AFVs. —Michael Z. 2008-12-12 22:29 z

Yes, I think restraining the use of flag icons to the "place of origin" is the best option. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable, just one (or two flags in multinational developments like the LAV vehicles) in the origin field. Anything else is nationalistic decoration. Koalorka (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy to find a guideline we can agree on. I'll propose a brief summary note for posting at Wikipedia:AFV#Infobox, assuming no one objects in the next few days.

Do any other task forces have a similar consensus? Can we generalize this for Wikipedia:MILMOS#FLAGS?

This seems backwards. Having one flag in the infobox adds nothing at all to just the country name, and is therefore decoration, which we don't do. The place where flags may arguably be of some use is in long lists. This is the way the entire rest of the 'pedia operates; it would seem logical to do the same thing here. --John (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how flags help in long lists of alphabetized countries. I can probably find a particular country faster without the distracting patchwork of colours. It doesn't offer any useful information at all, except perhaps in an article about flags. —Michael Z. 2008-12-14 23:27 z

Well, my own personal view is that I agree with you; I was trying to sum up the larger consensus embodied in WP:MOSFLAG. --John (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. The big advantage that the current consensus has over other schemes is that three of us can agree on it. (If everyone was perfectly happy, then it wouldn't be a compromise ;-) —Michael Z. 2008-12-15 14:37 z

True. However I feel that the local consensus here should reflect the wider consensus, which involved hundreds of editors over a period of many months. I feel quite strongly that in an online encyclopedia aimed primarily at adults, there is no extra informational content in United States that isn't already in United States. Such use of icons is thus decorative and to be avoided, for all of the reasons described at MOSFLAG. --John (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess the justification for this use is not additional information, but providing information which is strongly tied to the article subject, at a glance and above the fold. For example, when you load the article, you can instantly see that it's not just about “a tank”, but “a U.S. tank”. It's arguably useful, it's better than some alternatives I could imagine, but it is still relatively unobtrusive and appears only once. I was against it, but if it leads to a truce in the ongoing flag-icon skirmishes, leaving the body count at one flag in an article (rather than hundreds), then I am happy with the result. —Michael Z. 2008-12-16 21:39 z

I, on the other hand, am not happy at the result. Your argument seems to contradict itself. Does the flag or does it not add information to the article? If it does, please describe what information it adds. If it does not, we really should not use flags like this. In an encyclopedia aimed primarily at people who are confident readers of English, I think stating in text (with a link if necessary) the country of origin is ample. Adding the flag adds unneeded emphasis on nationality and brings in all kinds of problems of anachronism which we do not need. Have a read of WP:MOSFLAG to see where I (and more importantly the wider community) are coming from on this issue. --John (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to settle on some kind of compromise, so we can write a guideline which everyone accepts. One flag is better than the scores that I'm still seeing on many articles. It is also much more spare than the well-cemented consensus allowing a couple dozen to appear in battle infoboxes (e.g.).

To answer your question, the flag arguably adds functionality, not information—allowing the identification of country of origin at a glance. All encyclopedias use graphic design for these kinds of things, and although it is not my choice, I don't think a single flag is egregious.

Can you point out an example AFV or weapon article where a flag in “place of origin” causes any of these problems with nationality and anachronism? —Michael Z. 2008-12-28 17:23 z

Easily. The very second one I looked at. M6 heavy tank shows the wrong flag (see here for details). Flags do not really belong in an encyclopedia for adults; we prefer to use words here, hence the thought and wide consensus that went into WP:MOSFLAG. If this project wishes to diverge from the project-wide consensus, I would need to see compelling reason to do this. I have not seen this so far. --John (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

John, your argument doesn't make much sense. If we prefer to "use words here", why is it a requirement for FAC for an article to be properly illustrated with photographs? Why do people still include visual aids? Because an article has an incorrect flag shouldn't mean that all flags should be pulled down; it means that it's better to use your time to fix the flag, than to argue about it. WP:MOSFLAG does include guidelines for use of flags in tables, including infoboxes. In fact, directly quoted: The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables (especially of sporting and other statistics), and have subsequently found widespread usage in infoboxes. The guidelines just say not to use it in the text. It then says: If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. Neither of these are a problem in regards to what we're currently discussing. I don't see the problem. JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jon, I am sorry you do not see the problem. We use photographs to illustrate articles it is true. A flag is not a photograph however. The MOSFLAG principle is that decorative flags are to be avoided as they overemphasize nationality over other attributes, and are prone to anachronism. Maybe if you think it important to retain the flags, you can describe what exactly a flag and a country's name adds to just having the country name. Put it another way, how is a single flag in an infobox (a use strongly deprecated by MOSFLAG) anything beyond decorative (and potentially misleading, as in the case I highlighted)? --John (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said that a flag is an image; you are just putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that your point that Wikipedia is for "adults" who want "text" is wrong, and provided an example of why it's wrong (images and the use of tables as visual aides). I directly quoted relevant passages that have suggested the use of flags in infoboxes. The use of a flag allows the user to see the "nationality" of the vehicle in question; the infobox serves to offer information at a passing glace. With that in mind, it becomes obvious that the flag is not just "purely decorative". JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

John, you've pointed out where technically the wrong flag was in place, but what is the problem? For one thing, at 22 pixels wide, the 1912 and 1960 US flags are not distinguishable—either one suitably, and identically, identifies the USA.

I also don't see how this places “unneeded emphasis on nationality”—this is not at all like the biography example in the guideline, where a person may be associated with ethnicity or country of birth, citizenship, residence, etc. Not only is the information provided in an AFV infobox unambiguously the country of origin (not exactly nationality), but this is one common way for reference sources to organize AFVs. Even private ventures are associated with a country, since military materiel is controlled.

And what is “all kinds of problems of anachronism”? Wrong flag is solved by placing the right flag.

Yeah, I'm against inserting flags just because we can, and I would choose not to place this one. But I don't see a lot of demonstrable problems with doing so, and I think it's an acceptable compromise to achieve consensus, seeing as in some other applications (e.g. battle boxes), the consensus and guidelines favour many more flags in the infobox. —Michael Z. 2009-01-02 06:40 z

So we can improve articles with edits like this one, and be able to back it up by citing an unambiguous written S.O.P. —Michael Z. 2009-01-02 06:51 z

Jon, I think you have misunderstood the guideline. It does not suggest using them in infoboxes, quite the contrary. Michael, I believe the text string "United States" adequately identifies the country. The criterion for inclusion in articles is not whether there are "demonstrable problems" with adding something, but whether there is a demonstrable benefit from adding it. I do not see this and neither does the project as a whole. Using flag icons in a long list is one of the accepted reasons for using flags, so that edit would not be considered a good edit by most wikipedians, though I have no problem with it personally. --John (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was hoping to work toward a consensus, but the disagreements mount. While a single flag on the page may help identify a country at a glance, an alphabetized list of countries decorated with a parade of flags is terrible—the icons are no help in finding a particular country, the garish visual clutter is distracting to the reader, and a simple list may be expanded to occupy as much as a screenful of space. In something like a mixed list of athletes, flags may help convey the proportion of medal winners from different countries, but in a list of countries the flags are worse than useless. —Michael Z. 2009-01-02 21:25 z

I am sure we still can achieve a consensus. Whatever consensus we do achieve should be informed by the project-wide consensus established by the input of many editors at MOSFLAG I think. Wouldn't you agree? --John (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I started this thread on this page; to generate some guidelines specific to the AFV articles and infoboxes, which would be compatible with the rest of Milhist. But the only way to reach consensus in such a big group is if everyone is willing to compromise. That usually means that almost no one gets exactly what they want. —Michael Z. 2009-01-02 23:10 z

I'm sorry, but you and I must be reading different guidelines; or, you just seem to be ignoring what I directly quoted. I will also quote this: If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. The use of a flag to demonstrate the country of origin of the tank doesn't make the information unclear, ambiguous or contreversial. On the contrary, it makes the information clearer (this is the point that you seem to be ignoring). Obviously, your use of "project as a whole" is self-termed, because two members of the project do not agree with you (at least two; more than two, sinc we're not the editors who started inserting flags in the first place). JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One more quote: 'They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon. However, since not all readers can do this, the icons should be accompanied with names and/or the use of sortable tables. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is little point in quoting selected snippets of that policy to me. I had a hand in drafting these guidelines, as did dozens of other editors. When I speak about the project as a whole I am speaking about Wikipedia as a whole. If this sub-project wishes to establish a different local consensus I would need to see good reason for this. This I am not seeing. The key question which we haven't seen answered yet is this. In an encyclopedia aimed primarily at adults who are confident readers of English, how does a single flag in an infobox like United States offer more functional information than the text United States? --John (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not looking for a different consensus. As far as I know, everyone discussing this is happy with MOSFLAG and MILMOS#FLAGS.

We're looking to interpret these very broadly stated principles (“help the reader rather than decorate”), which are open to all kinds of interpretation, and generate some concrete S.O.P.s (like “put a flag icon in this infobox; don't put flag icons in that list”).

John, I think I have answered the question several times now—the flag in the infobox enhances its “quick reference” function by allowing the country of origin to be determined at a glance at the page. —Michael Z. 2009-01-02 23:13 z

I'm sorry, but with the greatest of respect I still strongly disagree, as does the great majority on the project as a whole. Those of us who are confident readers can easily read a country's name in text just as quickly without the little flag. Perhaps this idea may have more merit and attract more support at the Simple English Wikipedia, which is designed (unlike this one) for those who are not confident readers of English. --John (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, because I have to call you on that. If you don't agree that we should support this, you're perfectly welcome to state your opinion. But if you are implying that graphic design or the use of a symbol serves no function except for a semi-literate audience, then I'll tell you that you are wrong.

And how do you know that the great majority disagrees? (and disagrees with what, exactly?) In three weeks of discussion here, no one else has disagreed about this. —Michael Z. 2009-01-03 03:31 z

For one, Wikipedia is not aimed towards adults; it is aimed for middle school children and high school children, as well (it's one of our policies to write articles within a prose level readable to these age groups; just ask at FAC). Two, I quote the policy because you seem to be ignoring it, despite the fact that you claim to have hand written it (everything you've claimed has not been supported by WP:MOSFLAG. Because you disagree, doesn't mean that that is consensus within Wikipedia... obviously it's not if there are people who disagree (that isn't consensus). JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate, United States conveys the same information as United States and the usage highlighted in MOSFLAG is what I would call acceptable Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Country_can_sometimes_be_omitted_when_flag_re-used Gnevin (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gnevin for backing me up. Basically we already have a project-wide (i.e. Wikipedia-wide) consensus not to use flags in this way. If this sub-project wishes to establish its own norms for some reason, we would need a lot stronger arguments than "Wikipedia is ... aimed for middle school children and high school children" or one or two users' personal preferences. This is why we have a Manual of Style; we want the articles to be reasonably consistent in presentation and formatting across the entire project, for the benefit of our readers, who are not predominantly going to be baffled by a country's name in text. --John (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but your argument is going to have be based on more than ignoring ours (and then going off on tangents and avoiding the fact that you have already been proven wrong on many instances) and continuously repeating the same thing. United States and United States convey the same information, but in a different way. United States is a visual representation that makes sense in an infobx; it allows a reader to just glance over it and receive the intended information. It's used in the same fashion that it's used in articles about battles (where the contestants normally have the flag next to them). Again, I don't see this "project wide consensus", other than what you claim. The use of flags in this case does not fall under any of the "inappropriate uses". It does, however, fall under: They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ignored your argument as you haven't presented any coherent ones that I have seen, merely stating that you like the flags and asserting (without any evidence) that flags will help the middle school readers this encyclopedia is supposedly aimed at (which is news to me). "United States" is merely decoration, and adds nothing informational to the text string "United States". The only exception to this guidance, as you correctly say, is in long lists and tables. An infobox is not a long list or a table however. There may however actually be a coherent argument that battle infoboxes should have a flag, the flag under which the participants in a battle fought, if this can be verified. An AFV is not a battle however. Most AFVs (and weapons in general) are not produced or designed by national governments (which have flags), but by private companies (which do not); do you see the distinction? If you don't see the project-wide consensus which I assure you exists, maybe you should take this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) and see if we can attract a wider participation, as I feel we may be moving in circles here by now. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it's true that tanks are designed by private companies, they are funded by national governments and most of the time it's the national government which decides the characteristics of the tank. Furthermore, that "private company" does not have the right to export the tank without the express agreement of the national government, making the tank the property of the national government, not the tank. In that sense, tanks do have nationality. So, the M1 Abrams is expressly an American tank, while the Leopard 2E is both German and Spanish (sale of the tank is based upon consensus between the German and Spanish governments; not Krauss Maffei). And, in regards to infoboxes, they are in a way a table (they are a visual aid with information provided in the same format in which it would be displayed in a table; it just uses a different wikicode). JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

List_of_football_(soccer)_players_with_100_or_more_caps is a long list which the MOS refers too not in the tanks example where several countries may be using it but is no where near the numbers of countries needed to be helpful. The fact is the MOS is a guideline and indicates community wide consensus . Objects do not have nationality! Gnevin (talk)

Gnevin, you referred to specific guidance in a guideline earlier, which is helpful (but I don't agree with your interpretation):

*In this infobox, flags of participating countries are first given with their names. Following this, the flag alone is used to identify the nationality of military commanders.

What does the linked example show us? That in a list of five items, flags are an acceptable way to show nationality. That even when there is only one nationality represented in a list, it is acceptable to use five identical flags to show nationality. Personally, I find the flags more useful in a mixed list like the “commanders” infobox field in Western Front (World War II) (but not so much in the “belligerents” section). Do you think the guideline supports including flags in minimal cases like Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands and Battle of Tassafaronga?

Regarding nationality, I agree with Jon Catalán: AFVs are strongly associated with their country of origin, they are typically organized this way in reference books, and as weapons, they are designed and built with the express permission and typically at the behest of their country of origin. Their origin is permanently their country, unlike the “nationality” of a ship, e.g. Soviet–Ukrainian–Chinese Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag (would you support the use of the Chinese flag there?). —Michael Z. 2009-01-04 20:01 z

The example is poor Battle_of_the_somme ,Battle_of_the_Bulge or Italian_conquest_of_British_Somaliland are better . MOSFLAG is a guideline ,a thus is flexible Technically the examples you show above could be fine without flags, h owever for the sake of internal consistency its better to have these flags that are not 100% needed so we can have the usage for commanders when needed Gnevin (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But if we recognize that consistency is good, then we are agreeing to allow a flag in hundreds of articles where it can be called “merely decoration, and adds nothing informational to the text string”. So apparently we can't apply John's criteria absolutely strictly. This is why we need to agree on some ground rules. —Michael Z. 2009-01-06 18:56 z

What do you think of this User:Gnevin/sandbox1? I can't figure out the code at the moment so it the proper version would look better Gnevin (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. I really like that the factions are linked just once, so that the commanders' names are mildly emphasized by their linking. It could be simplified a bit, I think. Omit the “Commander · Allegiance” legend, and simply enter them in plain English: “Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah”, “Shimon Peres, Israel”. Abbreviations are perfectly justified if they can fit on one line: “Hassan Nasrallah, Hez.”, “Shimon Peres, Isr.” (is that the correct abbreviation?). —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 04:20 z

Or, even simpler, put the allegiance in parentheses, as we do for unit names; e.g. "Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah)" to mirror "George Patton (4th Army)". Kirill 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But compare, also, Italian War of 1542–1546, where some of the allegiances are more complicated, either because the country names are unwieldy, or because a precise allegiance cannot be easily determined. Kirill 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey John, what information is added by the flags in any of the examples I just linked? What information do they add in long tables which a text string like “United States” wouldn't add? —Michael Z. 2009-01-04 20:08 z

For what it's worth, I rather like the flag icons in infoboxes- they're a handy instant visual guide as part of an overview, IMHO. Having them in the main text is just silly, of course. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that if tanks didn't have "nationality" then there would be no point to that field in the infobox, don't you guys think? JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ParaData and Copyright

Now then, I've been searching long and hard for a photo of Eric Bols for a while. I've finally found one here: [8] at the ParaData website. I'd upload it like a shot, since it's under PD-Gov as it was taken by a govt employee in 1945. But the website states that it had copyright over the photo and it can't be reproduced without permission. So, how do I reconcile these two things? Any and all help would be appreciated! Skinny87 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as has been pointed out to me, I don't know if it is a government picture. But still, any thoughts would be nice. Skinny87 (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on the year of publishing. Since this photo was taken by a govt employee in 1945, it is taken before the crown copyright rules came into effect in the British Commonwealth in 1949. In addition, it is likely my guess that this is simply a copy of a British Archives picture. Similar to how NAC works in Canada, WWII Pictures are considered Public domain, since they are not bound by the Crown Copyright laws. So, yes, you can use that picture, as it's before the 1949 laws. Hope that helps. Cam ^(Chat) 21:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can prove that the photo is in the public domain, ParaData is committing copyfraud by falsely claiming copyright, and can be safely ignored. Parsecboy (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so just look for it somewhere else that is PD, and you can use that instead. That also works. Cam ^(Chat) 17:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

After some perusal of their image archive, I've decided to send ParaData a message informing them that they are committing copyfraud (for example, they're claiming copyright on File:Operation Tonga.jpg, which is clearly in the PD). Let's see how (or even if) they'll respond. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd certainly be interested to know what they respond with, Persec, because not only will it impact on the Bol picture but also my interactions with them when I research my PhD material; if you could let me know on my talkpage specifrically I'd be greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a concept of copyfraud as such in UK law. But I'm also not sure how well the site owners understand copyright law because they state in their terms and conditions that "Any infringement risks prosecution to the full extent of the law" - and since copyright violation is an infringement of a civil right, there is (almost certainly) no question of prosecution. Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Military History Project IRC Channel

I went ahead and registered a channel on freenode.net (same server Wikipedia uses), if anybody is interested. I saw that WP:Roads had one, and I had been thinking of it for a while. It's located at #wikipedia-en-milhist ^connect. If anybody needs instructions on how to use IRC, I can offer help. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah nice. I shall frequent it. Rather then wait for anyone to ask I shall justprovide instructions here. Go to http://www.mibbit.com/chat/. Type in your name under "nick" (Delete the name that's already in there). Under channel type "#wikipedia-en-milhist". From the dropdown "IRC" menu at the top select "Freenode" (That's the server the wikipedia channels are on). Then click go and viola, you're in the channel and can start typing.--Patton123 15:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be set up properly, and noone in there at the moment...--Patton123 16:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in there now. Someone closed my window last night. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ChanServ is now always in the channel, so the topic will always be up (there is always someone in the channel). All MILHIST coordinators should have op status once they join and whatnot (I just have to give it to you). We now have two "regulars" (well, I hope they're regulars :P ). JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ack! I forgot about this! Sorry Jon...I'll be in there more now that I remember. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm always willing to try something new.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Request Article Creation and Research Help

Hi. I have been working on Sailing and Fighting Instructions for sometime now. Now that I have moved more of wikipeding time into fighting Vandalism, I was wondering if members of this project could finish the articles for me? There are a few sources for information, but not a lot I must say. Thank you for your help if possible! Renaissancee (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt we have the manpower or the willpower to do that, but if someone does eventually come along then great.--Patton123 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to structure the material and provide at least some sources for anybody to work on this. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

coup d'état

I don't understand why articles relevant to coup d'état are concerned as parts of military project. Personally, even coup d'état is done by military unit, but its issues are mostly involved with political. In addition, military is just a tool of state and for committing coup d'état, military unit is deployed for this purpose, isn't in? Thus, from these points on view, I doubt why coup d'état is in this project, or if there is a military unit involves with an event, this event will be concerned as a part of military project, regardless, the main issues of the activity is about what. --Brandy Frisky (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A coup d'état by the military fits quite clearly into our defined scope, which is "any article related to historical or modern-day warfare or military affairs"; this is no different from any other aspect of military participation in politics (e.g. the military-industrial complex). Military history is more than just, say, the history of warfare; while overthrowing a government may not be a military's usual role, it's nevertheless a part of that military's history which needs to be documented in the same way as any other aspect would be.

(Obviously, if a coup doesn't involve the military in any significant way, then it's probably not in scope; that's why we usually don't cover things like palace revolutions and so forth.) Kirill 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A coup d'état by the military, usually leaves the military in control of the state. --Ranger Rudy (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for John S. McCain, Jr. now open

The A-Class review for John S. McCain, Jr. is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for James Newland now open

The A-Class review for James Newland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Civil war now open

The peer review for Civil war is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Timothy Bloodworth now open

The A-Class review for SS Timothy Bloodworth is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On dasher, off dasher

This isn't a huge issue, but... I notice there's use of both Hs293 and Hs-293. For the sake of consistency, is there a preference? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• To further complicate the issue, the article itself uses a space. See Henschel Hs 293. -- saberwyn 03:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hs 293 (i.e. space) seems to be the norm with RLM designations (see RLM aircraft designation system, although the missile in question would also be designated 8-293.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Port Chicago disaster now open

The A-Class review for Port Chicago disaster is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Please could anyone with expert knowledge help out with a raising date question for World War II for this formation at the British military history task force. Buckshot06(prof) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing now open

The A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Princeton

Hi,

I intend to start working on the Battle of Princeton which is, at the moment, in shambles. It will be a rather large task and I was wondering if anyone would care to help me, especially if you have a copy of Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer. I have some other good sources, such as the Winter Soldiers by Richard M. Ketchum, General George Washington by Edward G. Lengel and 1776 by David McCullough. Anyone interested in helping either respond here or on my talk page.-Kieran4 (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilcox on Patton

I have been trying to facilitate a discussion at Talk:George S. Patton#Wilcox dispute summary and resolution. I think additional experienced eyes on the matter might be useful. Thx. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD proposal

A renaming of Category:Tanks of the post-Cold War period to Category:Modern tanks has been proposed here. I think that some input from this project is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Commented, thanks for letting us know. Cam ^(Chat) 06:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

date ranges

I hope no one minds my boldness in adding a section on what I believe is a common problem in MilHist articles. I've been doing a lot of date auditing over the past few days, and the date ranges for battles et al. have required a good deal of fixing to make them clear and attractive, not to mention compliant with WP:MOSDASH. Please let me know if there are issues. Tony (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

After a quick look (going out my door, sorry), that looks great. Thanks! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, all looks good to me. Kirill 06:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Battles of the Mexican–American War

User:SRE.K.A.L.24 has nominated Battles of the Mexican–American War for a featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards)} at 10:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Pollack's - Arabs at War

Hello,
I have found on google books that K. Pollack writes :

"[At the first battle of Latrun], [t]he Jordanians broke the attack by noon, inflicting as many as 2,000 killed on the Israelis.",

Kenneth M. Pollack (2002), "Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness 1948-1991.", University of Nebraska Press, p.277.

He has a reference (note 12) but I don't have access to these notes of the book.
Does someone have the book and could give me the information about the source ?
Thank you ! Ceedjee (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just cite that book and page - no need for the other book. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well. Not that easy. The information is false.

There were 72 israeli deaths at the 1st battle of Latrun.

The higher numbers are part of what Anita Shapira calls the myth of Latrun that has been forged by the collective Israeli memory.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

...oh. That makes life more difficult. You might try WP:MHL#LIBRARY... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that does present you with a few unique problems. Cam ^(Chat) 07:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the book. The sources are: Trevor Dupuy's Elusive Victory, El-Edroos, Hashemite Arab Army, Chaim Herzog, Arab-Israeli Wars, Shmuel Katz, Fire and Steel, Netanel Lorch, The Edge of the Sword, Edgar O'Ballance, Arab-Israeli War. I have Dupuy's, Herzog's and Lorch's books, and they don't give the number of 2,000, so I suppose it's one of thew others (the footnote is for two pages of text). -- Nudve (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nudve. Would you mind taking a look at Battles of Latrun#The Arab Legion takes control, especially nb3? When I looked at Pollack's book (don't have access to it now) it appeared to be the type that would make clear the insufficient information in that section. Buckshot06(prof) 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you want clarified? -- Nudve (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) The Arab Legion, like many British-inspired military forces, probably called it's battalion-sized units 'regiments'. Nb3 is waffly on this, and Pollack should clear it up one way or another. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 14:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added some info about this. This article seems to be under construction, as well as in the process of being translated from French. -- Nudve (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you very for the support ! :-)

About the issue between regiment and battalion : in the Arab Legion they had regiment but -I assume to help the reader to understand and to make comparisons- some historians talk about battalion because the Arab Legion had their size and because battalion is the usual name of units of that size and function...

Ceedjee (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Lee Clark

I'm not too familiar with the US military, so can anyone determine if Cecil Lee Clark should deserve an article on Wikipedia? It is also currently unsourced. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the unsourced article content, Lt-Col Clark doesn't appear to meet the notability standards set at WP:BIO or the important standards for biographies of living people. I think that the article should be nominated for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about deleting it and would prefer if we could assess his contributions to military manuals. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This strongly appears to have been written by Lt Col Clark himself; check the picture credit. Everything is totally unsourced; it could be db-advert-ed in half a heartbeat. Buckshot06(prof) 10:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the impression that the article was written by Lt Col Clark or someone close to him - the personal photos are a bit of a giveaway. This isn't necessarily a problem if the person is notable, but being one of the authors of two field manuals isn't much of a claim to fame as these kind of works aren't attributed to individuals and this may not be possible to verify - I can't see an acknowledgments page in the version published at Globalsecurity.org (ditto the claim that he appears under an alias in Not a Good Day to Die). Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, the article was created through the articles for creation process. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Although looking at the related discussion there doesn't appear to be any appreciation of how one might establish notability with respect to military, naval or air farce personnel. It might be worth some discussion over there about what thresholds to set, or establish a process of consultation.

ALR (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it meets notability, he's an SO1 and the US military is littered with them. When you consider the staffing process there are probably a good few dozen, if not more, who have contributed to the two manuals referenced. I also agree the points above that this reads like a self publication.

ALR (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I invited Fastroper101 who almost exclusively edits on Lt Col Clark to present his POV here. If we decide to remove him, we have to follow his contributions and remove this military personal from a number of articles. The one point, I'm not sure about, is how great his part in the manauals was. In case we can verify that he was one of the top editors, we could accept it as notable. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that: the notability criteria are based around the subject of the article receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If lots has been written about Clark and his role with the field manuals then he's notable, but if not he isn't, even if we can verify that he worked on them. I work for the Australian government and have contributed to large documents which have been published, but the contributors names don't appear anywhere on them (as is normal for government documents) as they were published on the responsibility of my minister and the department where I work - the same appears to apply to most military publications. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, would that mean that I'm notable enough to have my own article? Most SO2 (Major and equivalent) and SO1 (Lt Col and equivalent) will have contributed to official documents of some kind. As an acting SO2 in 2001 I wrote three with some input from others; communications security related. I really think that notability can only be established if his contributions were in some way ground breaking and accordingly been discussed elsewhere in order to demonstrate independence from the originator. For what it's worth the current US COIN doctrine isn't particularly ground breaking; still seen as being at war.

ALR (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, reasons accepted. Go on and delete. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Prodded [9] --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, we also had a little discussion about this guy over at WPAFC because I couldn't decide if he was notable. See WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2008#Wrestlers vs Soldiers. Martin 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for William Bostock now open

The peer review for William Bostock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Help for Heroes political issue

There is currently an issue with the article Hero (Mariah Carey song) where I am involved in a discussion about an Irish political video being included in the article. More opinions welcome at Talk:Hero_(Mariah_Carey_song)#éirígí Alternative Video. (Posted here due to scope of issue). Regards, Woody (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, as the user involved is an IP, Hero song seems an appropriate place to centralise discussion as it was where it was first discussed. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for AH-56 Cheyenne now open

The peer review for AH-56 Cheyenne is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! unsigned comment added by User:Climie.ca on 2 January 2009

Thanks for the input! -Fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Patton123 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

17th ABN

I have to sleep now, but I have an anon i.p.editor editing 17th Airborne Division (United States) addiing in false info, such as the division participating in airborne ops (Torch, Husky) and other battles it never did, or even could have as it was training in the United States. Could a few people watch the article and revert any further vandalism? I've requested they discuss on the talkpage but they haven't so far. I'd be very grateful; I'm going to revamp the article tomorrow anyway as I realize I made a few errors when I wrote it a few months ago. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted edits by the IP, and rollbacked edits made to the Husky article. That IP should be warned, and then blocked. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just given them a first and last warning, and would be very happy to implement a block if they do this again. Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Persistent little bugger, they vandalized Torch and Husky articles as well. I'm fairly sure I've met them before, under a different IP address; I had a similar case of vandalism a few months ago with 17th ABN. Thanks everyone! Skinny87 (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If they turn up again with a new IP address they can still be banned if they repeat this vandalism. I've watchlisted the article and will keep my eye out. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WWI Casualty Figures

My girlfriend is doing some research for her MA Dissertation on WWI British casualty figures, but the official figures she has only extend from October 1916 for some reason. Does anyone know where she could find casualty figures for the period 1914 to late 1916? And does anyone have any idea why the official figures wouldn't start from August 1914 when the conflict began? Skinny87 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The History of the Great War might be worth a look as a starting point if she hasn't tried it. The Australian official history is online, and the medical series includes figures for the British Empire across the whole war at [10], though I don't think that this is quite what she'd be looking for. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's some fairly extensive notes on information sources here. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The general WWI histories all provide accurate and full casualty figures (Willmott & Keegan immediately spring to mind for their individual World War I "tomes") Cam ^(Chat) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon now open

The peer review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Bailén now open

The peer review for Battle of Bailén is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator candidacy: Climie.ca ("Cam")

A member of the project, Climie.ca, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Climie.ca's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Military historians of the year"

With the start of the new year, it might be good to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project contributed most. 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! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

---

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

---

Nomination and voting

Please try to keep nomination statements to twenty words max. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Abraham, B.S., for his remarkable and highly consistent series on Australian Victoria Cross winners, boasting 2 FAs and 6 A-Class articles in the past year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Excellent work on VC recipients, a huge amount of work goes into making these articles consistent, which Abraham does unwavering enthusiasm. Woody (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Perseus71 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Durova^Charge! 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bellhalla based on his exceptional ship articles that he has written/expanded, and the record four ACMs that he has been awarded since the award was introduced. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as nom. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support as someone who has to calculate his points totals in WP:MILCON. ;) Woody (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Seems like he's always got an article at ACR or FAC Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, more ship articles at A-Class and FA than I can count. – Joe Nutter 23:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support, as another poor soul who has counted points at WP:MILCON...and Parsec? I think that he does. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cla68, for his extensive contributions to Featured Articles related to the Pacific Front of World War II, including the construction of a massive 18-article complete featured topic on the Guadalcanal Campaign. Cam ^(Chat) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as nom. Cam ^(Chat) 06:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Fantastic work on Guadalcanal etc. Binksternet (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support featured topic is very hard to achieve. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - For the work on Guadalcanal alone he deserves the award. Skinny87 (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Excellent work on a quite large FT Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. His work for the Guadalcanal campaign topic was magnificent. Mairyweather (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. Very good work for Guadalcanal-related articles. – Joe Nutter 23:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support, eighteen?!? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Truly impressive featured topic, something to aspire to. Woody (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dreamafter A good contributor that has worked extensively at getting articles made and brought up so that they may be shown, see the contest. TARTARUS ^talk 23:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Durova for contributing 32 featured pictures (25% of total) and 4 featured sounds (66% of total) to the project. She's one of the most valued editors we have in terms of featured content to this Wikiproject. Enigma^msg 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Cla68 (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support of course, the sheer number of featured pictures that Durova produces is impressive. Each image needs a huge amount of work to restore them, a mammoth effort. Woody (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ian Rose, for his contributions to aviation articles, particularly to biographies of the CAFs. Much revered for his work in this area, Ian has written 3 FAs, 1 A and 2 GAs during 2008. - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• JonCatalán, primarily for his extensive contributions to FAs, but also for his work as a Co-ordinator. During 2008, Jon wrote 12 articles under the MILHIST scope that went on to pass FA, all of which had also passed as A-Class for this project. In addition to this, he has also achieved a FT, a FP and has been active in his role as a Co-ordinator. - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also created/promoted Portal:Tank and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force. Dhatfield (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support (in spades). Albrecht (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support 12 x FA says it all Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - An excellent editor, and friendly and helpful to boot! Skinny87 (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Per Jim and Skinny Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Awesome work. Dhatfield (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Woody (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Support – Joe Nutter 02:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - go Mac! --Kampfers (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Support --Staberinde (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Support UberVash (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Support –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nick-D, for his active contribution to a broad sweep of Australian-themed articles, and in particular his fine stewardship of Military history of Australia during World War II, while continuing to perform WP Admin and MILHIST Coord roles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Good all-rounder with loads of clue. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per nom and his actions on the WWII talk page. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support – Joe Nutter 02:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Erikupoeg (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Saberwyn for his excellent and tireless behind the scenes work on Australia military history articles (including recategorising all Royal Australian Navy ships to more logical categories), playing an important role in bringing two articles to FA standard and many other contributions to the project. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Cla68 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support For FA-class HMAS Melbourne (R21) in particular. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Skinny87, only an active editor for 8 months, Skinny has made significant contributions to the areas of World War II battles/engagements and airborne warfare. During 2008, he wrote 3 FAs, 1 A and 5 GAs as well as being active in the GA review process. - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support A impressive start Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Quite an impressive resume for someone as new as he is, also an excellent team-worker. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - Huzzah Skinny! --Kampfers (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support -- Staberinde (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support UberVash (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• TomStar81, for his excellent contributions (a) this project as a coordinator from before 2008 until November and (b) the articles. Though many of his FACs have come prior to 2008, he has been attempting to put them through FARs or PRs at least once every year to ensure that they still meet FA criteria. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Cla68 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Dogged determination through battleship articles. Binksternet (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support He has forever improved our project. – Joe Nutter 23:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, (as nom, I'm late)...have you seen his Iowa-related articles? Wow. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support, for valour under heavy fire. Dhatfield (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, Woody (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Tony the Marine (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Woody Very active content editor, who still finds time to make a real contribution to the unglamorous backroom administration of the project. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. TARTARUS ^talk 23:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. – Joe Nutter 23:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• YellowMonkey. Primary editor on 22 FA's in 2008, the most of any editor in en.Wikipedia. At least 12 of those articles fall under military history. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. As nom Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Cam ^(Chat) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, duh. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
7. A very impressive body of work. Parsecboy (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Durova^Charge! 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support – Joe Nutter 02:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support – Harland1 (^t/_c) 11:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Ynhockey. Took on a tough assignment writing Israel-rated articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support -- TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Winter Storm

I want to work on this article a.s.a.p., but the current article (Operation Wintergewitter) is named in German. On the other hand, Soviet operations are in English. Understandably, I believe that the article title should also be in English (or Operation Winter Storm). Unfortunately, that page is taken as a redirect to a disambiguation page. Can I have an admin help me out and/or opinions on the move? Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest updating the article with its current name and at the same time put a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move Operation Wintergewitter to Operation Winter Storm. The other article for the dab page has been deleted, so the dab no longer necessary. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All done. Article is now at Operation Winter Storm, with Operation Wintergewitter redirected to it. The redundant redirect has been deleted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

I have a question for you military historians...

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is the article the covers for the most part the events around the Operation Cast Lead that Israel launched. Besides the usual drama around the I-P conflict articles, there has been, pretty much since the beginning, a lot of contention around the title. The title as it stands is a compromise title that no one really likes, but we can't seem to agree on a title, even if we have made progress in other areas of the article.

Basically, there is a fair number of editors that support Operation Cast Lead as I title, which was how it was created. In the very beginning of the article it was rather quickly changed, and then I WP:SNOWBALLed (over opposition) it to something else, then it was protected. This led to a few days discussion, and when the ground attacks were evidently going to happen, we changed to the current one after thorough consensus. Surveys have been inconclusive for any alternative so far, and I am afraid we are at a stalemate.

I have argued, rather strongly, that Operation Cast Lead is not neutral, is not supported by RS, and it doesn't meet WP:MOS#CODENAME. Someone argued that a lack of a better alternative meant we could ignore WP:MOS#CODENAME, which I agree to in principle, but I think there are alternatives, and we are just not exploring them. I have argued as an example to follow, Invasion of Grenada (aka Operation Urgent Fury).

So my question to you guys, as experts or hobbyist in the matter, what alternatives would you use? Or do you think this case warrants ignoring WP:MOS#CODENAME? I do not say necessarily that any opinion here will change my mind (I am rather stubborn on neutrality :), but a good argument from uninvolved editors whose primary focus is military affairs, I think would go a long way. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the current title is the most neutral and in-line with MilHist Style Guides on naming conventions. This also seems to be the norm for modern warfare article (2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden, 2003 invasion of Iraq rather than "Operation Iraqi Freedom" etc). Cam ^(Chat) 07:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The common name for the event should be used. From what I've seen in the Australian media, that's something like the current title - 'Operation Cast Lead' is rarely used. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cam. Operation Cast Lead doesn't speak for any operational codenames the Palestinians may have for their defense, although there is a precedent with Operation Barbarossa which could be argued (although, I'd support a rename of that article, as well). JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although in those cases, it all comes down to common names. I've heard "operation cast lead" used once in the Canadian media, and that was by a leader of a zionist group writing in The National Post. Operation Barbarossa is the common name for those operations (no one says "1941 German invasion of Soviet Union"), while 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is the (most) common name for this current conflict. Cam ^(Chat) 07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article Fall Weiss, or the German invasion of Poland, is actually Invasion of Poland (1939). JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We're getting off onto a bit of a tangent, but (at least from my experience), historical works don't generally use Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb, Fall Rot, etc., but they do frequently use Barbarossa. I would agree that the current title is similar enough to what is most frequently used in the media. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are various reasons for using the operational title for a battle vs a title that is neutral for both sides. For example, Operation Ke was over before the opposing side (the Allies) realized what it was really about. In this case, however, the two opposing sides, Israel and Hamas, appear to be fully engaged with each other and thus, a neutral title such as exists currently is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That was my point when I used Operation Barbarossa as an example; Operation Barbarossa doesn't take into consideration the countless operational names of Soviet counterstrokers during the 1941 period. This isn't about Operation Barbarossa, and perhaps I should open a separate discussion (not that I am really interested in pushing the matter), but it was just an example. It was to avoid having people claim precedent by saying that Operation Barbarossa should probably not be used as an example to support "Operation Cast Lead". JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The descriptive one is more common in any case, which I support. I have never heard OCL on the BBC/ABC/SBS news etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kaiapit now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kaiapit is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Extended quotes from sources

What are the guidelines on including big chunks of text from sources? I’ve just moved one from Fort Wagner to here, but I’m not sure if it shouldn’t just be deleted. What’s the thinking on this? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK to use direct quotes that can be up to 10 lines long. However, it has to be made evident that this is a quote and what the source is. Anything longer than that quoted as one piece is highly disturbing for the reader. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd see there being two aspects; policy and implication. Policy is quite clear and there are tools to help make clear what is quote and what is editor contribution, the implication is more difficult.

I see extensive use of quotes as frequently demonstrating weakness in evidence or argument. If the statements being supported are credible then it should be reasonable to finesse the wording to minimise the need for overquoting. If it's not possible to do that then the statements being made are either not supported by the evidence or trivial.

ALR (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the removed section from Fort Wagner would be better served by being quoted in full on Wikisource, certainly not deleted as it seems rather interesting.

ALR, in many cases quotes, i.e. what someone said, often are the evidence. A leavening of good quotations can also make an article far more readable and lively than endless cited, paraphrasing. Yes they should be used in conjunction with other sources rather than on their own, but I'd hardly dismiss them as wrong or trivial. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving it to Wikisource would be a good idea. I think the issue is the overuse of quotations; the Fort Wagner article with the quote is 9kb; minus the quote, it's only 3kb. That's a little excessive, in my book. If there are specific lines that illustrate important points, that's perfectly fine to include them, but not the whole block. Prose should heavily outweigh the amount of quotations, not the other way around. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterise what I suggested in that way, I specifically referred to overquoting and excessive use. A skillful analyst should be able to represent the evidence in such a way that there is no need to replicate that evidence. Whilst I agree that judicious use of quotation can be beneficial, excessive use is frequently an indicator of weak analysis.

I will acknowledge that my personal preference is for a concise, pithy treatment of the topic and quotation doesn't really support that.

ALR (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Joachim Peiper

Hi folks there is a bit of an edit war going on at Talk:Joachim Peiper over which photograph to use of the subject can we have some opinions from the project thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Most of it seems to have already been resolvedCam ^(Chat) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship now open

The peer review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The ed17's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, The ed17, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of The ed17's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon now open

The A-Class review for M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Bugle" logo design competition

Do you have design skills? Can you help Milhist with a logo for "The Bugle", our newsletter? The logo needs to be eye-catching, incorporating both a graphic bugle motif and the newsletter title, "The Bugle". Fame and honour (a mention in the newsletter plus a barnstar) guaranteed for the successful design. Submit entries here please. Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good news for war image collectors

The US army has just released 147 images from the Korean war into the public domain. The images are available here.

They have also released 40 videos (see this link).

←Spidern→ 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Yarmouk now open

The peer review for Battle of Yarmouk is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Grand Port now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Grand Port is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bounty Hunters

Although there is hardly any activety at the board at the moment, I would propose to you that the special projects department adopt as priority any article within our scope that has a bounty (see WP:Bounty) on it. If we can meet the demands of the person who placed the bounty than wikipedia stands to pocket change from the effort. That would make us look good, and may inspire the other projects to adopt a similar aproach. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I count three that's in the purview of this WP.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If I can find sources on the U.S. Invasion of Panama (I have two) at my university, then I am willing to work on that one. We'll see. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Same. I'll look into the college and university library (both of which I have unrestricted access to). Cam ^(Chat) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

$250 for WWI?!?!? I will get to work right away Roger...--Patton^t/c 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's currently a bounty of $250 each on World War I and Alexander the Great, both within our scope. Shall I set up special projects pages immediately – say at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Special projects/World War I and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Special projects/Alexander the Great – so we can get cracking? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Also, lets add a bounty tab to the template {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} so that other can track these articles when they appear. If I am right about this and it does catch on it will be a big help to both our project and Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(@ Patton) I should be able to help with the maritime aspects of WWI... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've transferred a few things from the WWI Talk Page (notably our established consensus for a new layout for the page - which needs a huge rewrite) to the new page. Cam ^(Chat) 07:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fred Moosally now open

The A-Class review for Fred Moosally is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear test videos

I just added a number of videos of various nuclear tests (example). I've grown tired of adding them, but there's a lot more public domain videos of tests here. If someone else was interested in adding more, there's info I found useful at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files and Wikipedia talk:Creation and usage of media files#How to use ffmpeg2theora. You basically download the video, convert it to .ogg, upload it to commons, and add it to the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Col. Alexander Scotland

Gentlemen, I have commenced in a subpage a draft of an article on Col. Alexander P. Scotland OBE, an officer of MI19 during the Second World War who gained prominence as commandant of the "London Cage" prisoner interrogation center. I generally focus on film articles, and I became interested in this person because he was the centeral character of one of my favorite war movies, The Two-Headed Spy. What began to fascinate me is that it appears that this supposedly "true" story was entirely fictional. I have a copy of Scotland's book on order, and meanwhile a draft is at User:Stetsonharry/Draft. I am new to military history and have limited knowledge of web resources. If anyone has any suggestions (such as, for example, if there is a database that would tell me why he got the OBE, and his dates of birth/death), I would be grateful. Thank you. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added what I could find to the talk page of the draft, including some details of military career, including his WWI service, and confirmation of OBE (only gives a very general reason for the award). David Underdown (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's really outstanding. Thank you so much. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Alan Vasey now open

The A-Class review for George Alan Vasey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST editors in WP:CUP

There are several WP:MILHIST editors who are taking part in the 2009 WikiCup. I'd like to remind them that the competition began on 1 January 2009. I'm sorry if I miss you, but these are the ones that I know of insofar: Bedford (currently 16pts.; tied for first place in Pool F), Cam (currently 36pts.; second place in Pool J) & the_ed17 (currently 5pts.; third place in Pool F). Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

...and JonCatalán, in first place of Pool A with 134 points. :) Thanks and good luck to you too! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

...Bedford, when in heck did you get in my group? :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A day or two ago; I was on the waiting list. I plan to do as well in the Cup as I did in 2007 T&A.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image donation of the Bundesarchiv to Wikipedia Commons

Hi,

Today I sent an email to the Military Archives of Ávila, Spain, in an attempt to establish a dialogue in which I could persuade them to transfer any number of images to Wikipedia Commons and allow us to use them throughout the project. This is a very amateur way of carrying the idea out, but since I moved to the United States in August 2008 I, unfortunately, cannot make a more direct approach (visiting the archives in Ávila; I did this with the El Goloso museum of armored vehicles in Madrid, but that was just me being allowed to photograph their collection of vehicles). I would like information on how the dialogue was established with the Bundesarchiv, and the steps whoever led the program took in order to achieve the spectacular results. Although I think that less people would enjoy photographs of Spanish history than photographs of German history (especially the Second World War), the contribution would be immense in regards to the quality of Spanish articles. It may also spur interest in the development of articles on modern Spanish military history, not only on the English Wikipedia, but more importantly on the Spanish Wikipedia (which has failed to even completely translate the articles I wrote on Spanish tanks).

Thank you for any help,

- JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The bad news is that the email the Spanish Ministry of Culture has on their website is no longer in use. There is no good news. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I tried one that seems more up to date. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The project was done entirely by Wikimedia Deutschland - the German chapter - as far as I'm aware; you'd be best off contacting them directly - info@wikimedia.de? - and seeing if they can help you figure out how to pitch it. Shimgray | talk | 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking inclusion in MILHIST

An editor has added the MILHIST banner to the talk page of the article Roof knocking, but the article's creator continuously removes it. The article, in my opinion, is clearly within the scope of the project. I'd appreciate any help in persuading the creator to stop reverting the addition. Thank you! The conversation is here. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for B-52 Stratofortress now open

The peer review for B-52 Stratofortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin move Wikipedia:Peer review/B-52 Stratofortress/archive2 back to Wikipedia:Peer review/B-52 Stratofortress as it is still ongoing. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at the PR instructions, that is how it works now. It is all automated and this is entirely normal and correct so it shouldn't be moved. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I will revert Parsecboy. It is meant to be at archiveN. Woody (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't mean to gum anything up :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! I think all is back to normal now. Having it at an archive page while still active is counter-intuitive I have to admit. ;) Regards, Woody (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well that's the opposite of the instructions for moving manually at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review#Peer_review. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the opposite of almost every other review process on wiki, but that is a result of the current automation procedure. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Bostock now open

The A-Class review for William Bostock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class medal

How do I get a MILHIST A-Class medal for Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Bob Chappuis, and Elmer Gedeon?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the oversight; you've been added to the list of candidates! JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I'll follow Tony's suit: do I become eligable for a second one for Clarence Smith Jeffries, George Ingram and John Whittle? Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I get one for Neil Hamilton Fairley, Edmund Herring and Admiralty Islands campaign? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure another coordinator will set it up for you (I have to go to work now). :) On that note, perhaps there should be a tally kept up on the coordinator's talk page (keeping track of promoted ACRs by reviewer, and then delete them and start over when they reach three). I don't know how often coordinators have missed ACRs, but it has happened to me as well (to provide an example; Panzer IV, Third Battle of Kharkov, Tanks in the Spanish Army & Arena Active Protection System (although this has been the most recent ACR, and so doesn't really qualify anyways)). It would make sense; the closer of the review can simply update the tally. What do you all think? JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)