Military history WikiProject announcements and open tasks watch · edit · discuss The October newsletter is now available! The Henry Allingham World War I International Contest is starting on 11 November! If you would like to participate, sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Several important discussions are ongoing: Notability for military biographies Combining several task forces Featured article candidates  Arrow (missile) • Xa Loi Pagoda raids • Battle of Bardia • Battle of Morotai • 7th Infantry Division (United States) • The Battle of Alexander at Issus • North Carolina class battleship • Battle of Villers-Bocage • Castle • USS Congress (1799) • Winter War Featured article review  Military brat (U.S. subculture) • Soviet invasion of Poland • Jarmann M1884 • Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Featured list candidates  List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories Featured list removal candidates  List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality A-Class review [Attention needed!]  Helmut Lent • Dutch 1913 battleship proposal • Walter Peeler • Dennis Gorski • Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 • Lebaudy Patrie • Design A-150 battleship • Battle of Yarmouk • List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS Good article candidates  Full list... Peer review  Battle of Polygon Wood • List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross • Siege of Jerusalem (637) • Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning • USS Constitution • Battle of Triangle Hill • Tiger II • Battle of the Nile • British Army during World War II • RNLB Mary Stanford • HMS Graph (P715) • Walls of Dubrovnik Special projects  Operation Great War Centennial • Operation Majestic Titan Articles needing attention  ...to referencing and citation (23,953) • ...only to referencing and citation (7,737) • ...to coverage and accuracy (13,234) • ...to structure (5,980) • ...to grammar (1,255) • ...to supporting materials (6,113) • ...to technical criteria (645) • ...to tagging (11) • ...to assessment checklists (23,523) • ...to task force coverage (280)

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News Showcase Style guide Announcements and open tasks  → Articles needing attention  → Popular articles  → New articles  → Nominations for deletion talk The Academy talk
Departments Assessment talk  → A-Class FAQ / B-Class FAQ  → Assessment requests Contest talk Logistics talk Review talk  → Review alert box
Special projects Great War Centennial talk Majestic Titan talk
Internal organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active / Inactive  → Banners and userboxes Awards talk Stress hotline talk Portals talk Project banner talk Project category
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge talk  → Military award talk  → Military conflict talk  → Military memorial talk  → Military person talk  → Military structure talk  → Military test site talk  → Military unit talk  → National military talk  → War faction talk  → Weapon talk  → Command structure talk  → Operational plan talk  → Service record talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces
General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military land vehicles talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk
Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Lebanese military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Pakistani military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk
Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk Cold War talk
edit · changes

Shortcut: WT:MILHIST

Contents 1 Task Force housekeeping 1.1 Summary 1.1.1 Taiwanese military history and Chinese military history 1.1.2 Australian military history and New Zealand military history 1.1.3 Lebanese military history and Ottoman military history 1.1.4 Military science and Military technology and engineering 1.1.5 Romanian military history and Balkan military history 1.1.6 Indian military history and Pakistani military history 2 Notability Military Biography 2.1 Poll 2.1.1 Support creating a new guideline 2.1.2 Oppose creating a new guideline 2.1.3 Results 3 Infobox: how to display casualties 4 The Art of War in the Western World, by Archer Jones 5 Asian Americans in World War II 5.1 References for Asian Indian Americans 5.2 Image for Korean Americans in World War II 6 some eyes needed 7 London Visit to Brookwood Cemetery 8 Pyrrhic victory in the infobox 9 FAR notification 10 Looking for a London Gazette citation 11 A 'Pointy' Challenge 12 Peer review for Battle of Polygon Wood now open 13 Featured article candidacy for 7th Infantry Division (United States) now open 14 Hundred Days v. War of the Seventh Coalition 15 Featured article candidacy for Battle of Morotai now open 16 Manx VC 17 John Baskeyfield 18 Military history image nominated for Featured picture status 19 WWI biplane identification 20 Featured article candidacy for Battle of Bardia now open 21 Eastern Front (World War II) infobox 22 GA reassessment of Vilnius Castle Complex 23 A-Class review for Walter Peeler now open 24 Featured article of the day Werner Mölders 25 A-Class review for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal now open 26 Command Photo 27 A-Class review for Helmut Lent now open 28 FLRC for VC by Nationality list 29 Battle of Antietam request for comments 30 Distinguished Service Order 31 New WikiProject proposal within our scope 32 Featured article candidacy for Xa Loi Pagoda raids now open 33 Featured article candidacy for Arrow (missile) now open

[edit] Task Force housekeeping

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?  Roger Davies ^talk 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weighing in finally on these...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Summary

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

[edit] Taiwanese military history and Chinese military history

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

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

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

[edit] Australian military history and New Zealand military history

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Lebanese military history and Ottoman military history

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

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

[edit] Military science and Military technology and engineering

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

[edit] Romanian military history and Balkan military history

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

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

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

[edit] Indian military history and Pakistani military history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Notability Military Biography

Should we work on a set of guidelines to set up for what makes someone, based on their military service, notable enough to warrant an article? In the past I have seen the following bantered about (however none of it has been formally set down such as WP:NBAND):

• Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer
• Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valor, such as the Medal of Honor
• Individual was notable for an event regarding a military related activity/event that was widely covered by multiple third party reliably sourced verifiable sources.

Perhaps there should be more criterea set forth, such as multiple awardings of their nation's second (and possibly third) level award/medal for valor? Either way I look forwrd to the comments that this discussion brings up, and hope we get a WP:MILBIO out of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome the creation of such a set of guidelines, but would suggest the single awarding of a second or third level award (Military Medal, Silver Star etc) not make someone notable without any other achievements, lest we get bombarded with every winner in military history, I'll also link this AfD where consensus showed that a Silver Star winner, without any other significant achievements, was not notable. Of course, any such guidelines will have to be based off the need for WP:Reliable Sources. Skinny87 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, what I was thinking was that if someone is awarded a second level award, they would need to be awarded it at least twice to meet notability standards. To expand on that, if someone is awarded a third level award, they would have to be awarded it at least 3 times in order to meet notability standards. These awards, would have to be awarded for valorous actions, therefore say awardees of the Distinguished Service Medal, and its equivalent in the U.S. and elsewhere, wouldn't meet notability because it is a non valorous medal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore I would also like to propose another criteria for military biographical notability, enlisted servicemembers who hold/held the position of Sergeant Major of the Army, and its equivalents in the U.S. and elsewhere (that is Senior Enlisted Advisors at the Branch/Service/Joint/National level of command). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposal:

• Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer
• Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour, such as the Medal of Honor
• Individual was notable for an event regarding a military related activity/event that was widely covered by multiple third party reliably sourced verifiable sources.
• Individual made a material contribution to the science of war/doctrine/tactics that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
• Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war, verifiable by multiple, reliable sources.
• Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing, verifiable my multiple published references to his/her works.

Farawayman (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that we also include what is found on WP:MILMOS#NOTE, minus the statement "or a significant portion of one". I have seen Brigade Commanders woes unit saw combat be deleted as not meeting notability. What do you think about my proposal to include multiple secondary level medal/award for valor awardee, and senior enlisted advisors, as being notable?

I like the WP:MILMOS#NOTE criteria of (a.) People who commanded a substantial body of troops in combat, and (b.) Holders of top-level command positions (such as Chief of the General Staff). However, I do not agree with 2 x 2nd level award, 3 x 3rd level etc. It complicates things. A person who has a 3rd level award plus 2 bars should qualify under my bullet 3 above! Air aces is more complicated, because they did not receive valour awards for kills.... I'm not too sure how to manage that! Farawayman (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also flying aces should be included as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Are they all notable? Also, I'm not convinced that all flag officers are notable; see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Deputy Surgeon General, which covered a three star with an unremarkable peacetime career. Would we really need all the world's flag officers from all the peaceful portions of history? Buckshot06(prof) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have contested that. Oh well, to late now; I should pay more attention in the future. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Buckshot - revised proposal:

1. Individual was notable for playing an important role in a significant military event OR commanded a substantial body of troops in combat— all of which were widely covered by multiple, reliable third party verifiable sources.
2. Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer OR was a holder of a top-level command position (such as Chief of the General Staff) AND complies to the criteria of 1 above.
3. Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour, such as the Medal of Honor
4. Individual made a material contribution to the science of war/doctrine/tactics that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
5. Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war, verifiable by multiple, reliable sources.
6. Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing, verifiable my multiple published references to his/her works.

Fighter Aces would qualify under terms of #1 if achievement was sufficiently notable. Farawayman (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding the AND criteria for #2, above, makes it redundant. I would rather return it to Flag officer or top-level command position. Buckshot asks if we would we really need all the world's flag officers from all the peaceful portions of history -- I would reply 'yes'. --Ejosse1 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think we've normally gone by the GNG and required significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. I can understand why it's proposed that certain individuals might be notable solely because of their position, but that's presupposing that the sources will exist to write about them. In many, if not most, cases, they will, but I'd rather stick with what we currently have at WP:MILMOS#NOTE and judge each case on its merits. I can see the value of expanding the examples, or even creating a specific section, to clarify what probably isn't notable (and hopefully prevent AfDs like Skinny's linked to above), but I think it might be a mistake if we go down the route of saying that, no matter what, certain people are automatically notable. For example, it isn't so much that someone holds a certain medal that makes them notable, but what they did to be awarded it (and hence what we can source from what was written about it). EyeSerene^talk 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with eveserene on this one. If we establish such requirements, it also looks like only those people who meet those criteria are "notable" for military biography. This eliminates a lot of people who didn't have such credentials but fall into the category of "military biography"...The one i can think of off hand is Joan of Arc, but there would be others whose sole claim to notability is a military issue, but they didn't command anything, they weren't flag officers, or whatever. If the distinction is to determine notability based on what is written about them, that should be sufficient.

Look, this isn't acceptable. We need some kind of guidelines, even if MILBIOS just has something added to it about reliable sources always coming first. Otherwise things like the Edson AfD will happen again and again, and this project will still have no authoritative guideline to point to when the writer of an article on a Silver Star-winning, non-notable otherwise individual, inevitably kicks up a fuss during an AfD. Skinny87 (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd normally avoid this but two comments. Joan of Arc would qualify under #1 in Farawayman's classification, as would a great many past military celebrities. However, I would like to see something reflecting contemporary status, even as a secondary criterion. For example, Sgt. Ewart at Waterloo, in capturing a French eagle, achieved great celebrity and deserves an entry whereas others who done so previously were less remembered perhaps do not. I also feel that authors of famed military memoirs or other significant artistic achievements connected to their military service should also qualify. Monstrelet (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why a WP:MILBIO cannot exist, as an addition to the standard rules of Notability, if anything those covered under MILBIO should at minimum already meet general notability guidelines (also known as GNG). Furthermore, I don't see why all flag/general officers shouldn't warrant an article, even if it is a stub, and to expand on that, their Senior Enlisted Advisor counterparts. Being a flag/general officer means that the subject has already been recognized as a significant individual within a countries military; also, if the most senior position in a nation's military, say Monaco for example, is a Colonel, than the person holding that most senior position should warrant an article as well, and falls under point #2, in the previous list. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly create a WP:MILBIO if that's the way consensus is going. However, you've acknowledged the importance of the GNG but then seem to be contradicting yourself by suggesting all flag-rank officers are automatically notable. I wonder if there's some confusion about an individual's real-world significance and their Wikipedia notability? The two aren't the same. In Wikipedia terms, notable individuals are only notable because they've been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Winning a medal or holding a rank may be of significance, but unless the sources exist to produce a verifiable article about it, our writing it into a BIO guideline won't matter. Milhist doesn't exist in a vacuum, and we can't design our own notability criteria which contradict core Wikipedia editorial policies like WP:5P. EyeSerene^talk 08:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone is arguing that the individuals need not be verified by reliable third party sources, however I think what some of us are advocating are a set of standards by which those article that have been deleted in the past, even though they do meet general notability guidelines for a biography, are deleted because the are not seen as notable enough. A perfect example was the Army Deputy Surgeon General article stated above, which is highly notable within the U.S. Army medical community but that others do not see as notable outside of it. Theoretically such articles should survive on meeting general notability guideleines alone, however even if well references we have seen articles deleted in the past that might have otherwise been saved if a WP:MILBIO had existed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New proposed WP:MILBIO:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if he/she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the individual. In particular, the following types of individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify:

• Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour/valor.
• Individual was awarded their nation's second level award for valour/valor multiple times (such as Distinguished Service Cross).
• Individual was promoted to a rank that would be considered a flag/general officer.
• Individual held the position that is the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or department/ministry their off (such as Chief of Army Staff).
• Individual held the position of Senior enlisted advisor for a Capital ship, or unit of Division designation and greater.
• Individual was notable for playing an important role in a significant military event OR commanded a substantial body of troops in combat. Substantial body of troops shall be a Capital ship or a Division and greater.
• Individual made a material contribution to Military science that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
• Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war.
• Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

Furthermore, if one or more of the criteria set above is meet and verifiable by multiple reliable sources independent of the individual, they shall be considered notable. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Edited slightly to simplify the language and clarify applicability to older topics:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
5. Held the position of senior enlisted advisor for a substantial body of troops; or
6. Played an important role in a significant military event; or
7. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or
8. Made a material contribution to military science that is undisputedly attributed to them; or
9. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
10. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to a capital ship, or a division or larger formation, and their historical equivalents. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hot damn, now that's what I've been looking for. That's exactly what we need, especially since it's also still based on the need for reliable sources and the like. Thanks Kirill! Skinny87 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the disambiguous page for the DSC, the second level award in the Commonwealth is the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, whereas in the U.S. it is the DSC/NC/AFC. Furthermore, an idea, is there an article/template for all nation's secondary award/medal for valor?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Skinny87's remarks. I have numbered the criteria to make referencing easier. Farawayman (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link, to a second level medal/award. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is heading in the right direction, but a question that springs to mind is "how rigid are these guidelines?" I assume articles will be always assessed on a case by case basis (although this should probably be incorporated into the wording above), but I think there are too many qualifications that will cause confusion: for example, how will it be established whether someone "Played an important role in a significant military event" or "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat"? An example is Lionel Sadleir-Jackson, who commanded British troops in northern Russia in 1919. He doesn't seem to clearly qualify under any of the above guidelines (he never commanded a division), but in the context of the North Russia Campaign he is quite important. Does he qualify? My concern is that the project is limiting itself too much by having guidelines that are too strict - will they be used in Afds as an absolute decree or as a starting point for discussion?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say as a starting point for discussions. If the individual meets general notability guidelines for a biography article, then regardless if they meet any of those that are listed, then the article should be able to stand. If anything the requirement that "they have received significant coverage in multiple independent" (that reminds me we should add the word verifiable (done)) means the should already meet said requirement. If anything I think this serves as more of a backstop, for those articles that show that they meet one or more of the criteria listed, but allows the article to be saved by meeting one of the criterea set forth via a a single verifiable reliably sourced reference. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The WP:MILBIO shortcut is taken, by the Military Biography task force. Perhaps it could be given five shortcuts for each of the five branches, those would be WP:SAILOR, WP:MARINE, WP:COASTIE, WP:AIRMAN, and WP:SOLDIER. Or we can find a different shortcut or reuse WP:MIL#NOTE, and then add it to the page WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BIO#MIL, perhaps? WP:MIL#NOTE can't be reused, since that's just a section link off of the core WP:MIL shortcut. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well each of the other professions have a named shortcut, that is common to the profession. Unfortunatly, there is no single common name for servicemembers of multiple branches from different countries which is common throughout. Thus why I proposed multiple named shortcuts. But I can completely see the reason for a single shortcut, for simplicity sake. How about WP:MILITBIO?

Also how do we make this official? Does there need to be a consensus polling on this? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a fairly major initiative that will affect most task-forces, it might be worth writing up a summary (perhaps in a new thread or sub-thread of this one) stating the wording of the suggested guidelines and identifying any areas that need further discussion. It looks to me like there's general support for some kind of guideline, but the details still have to be settled: the wording; the location/shortcut; the level of prescriptiveness etc. To get as many eyes as possible on it, perhaps we could spam a link round the task-forces, and mention it in the next edition of the newsletter. Personally I'd rather avoid polling if possible - a discussion such as this has been, with comments rather than support/oppose !votes, tends to be more informative :) EyeSerene^talk 09:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that proposal other than #5: senior NCOs don't receive all that much coverage and I've seen a few articles about the senior NCOs in US Army divisions be deleted as a result of AfDs, so they shouldn't be assumed to be notable and articles on them should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, as senior NCOs have just as much time in service, and often just as much prestige due to their position (as a senior enlisted advisor of a significant command) and service, as a general or flag officer of that command. As the proposed guideline indicates, as long as the individual can be sufficiently referenced to meet WP:NN notability requirements, then the article should stand on that alone. If anything the exclusion of #5, from the current WP:MIL#NOTE may have been the reason why those articles were deleted in the first place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

'Prestige' is, by itself, not relevant to Wikipedia notability; what counts is the availability of reliable and independent sources. Senior NCOs don't normally receive much coverage beyond military-published sources. The AfDs were decided in reference to WP:BIO; one example (from memory) was that no-one could find any non-US Army published sources on the current (or very recent) senior NCO in the US 1st Armored Division. As this guidance can't override WP:BIO, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to include a clause which asserts notability on the basis of anything other than the expected availability of in-depth and independent reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that prestige is not relevent, as for the basic part verifiability and notability is at the most basic, what counts here. As long as secondary or tertiary source can be found to support, even if it is from the organization's (which would be secondary) which the NCO is a part of, then Notability should be achieved. And in its present wording the proposal doesn't assert notability based on expected available sources, but due to the criteria itself. However, even if the subject falls under those listed in the current proposal, it is still subject to notability guidelines, and base bio guidelines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me correct myself, rereading the current proposal, it does say that those should have sufficient coverage. Therefore, I say, that as long as there is verifiable reliably sourced references can be found to support of the criterea set forth, then the individual who is the subject of a biography article, should be considered notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree EyeSerene, the more eyes on this proposal the better. But that being said, there is no reason why this initiative shouldn't be able to produce a good guideline for us to add to WP:BIO. Why don't we spam link this to all the task forces? Futhermore, the reason why I posted this discussion here rather then the TF that I am active in, is because it effects all TFs under this WPP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion would be that we should extend the current guidelines to be automatically notable those who have achieved the highest rank in a nation, everyone else on the standard bio together with the current milhist guidelines Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but as the originator of this discussion, I respectfully disagree due to the fact that there is not a current military criterea in WP:BIO, and the present WP:MILMOS#NOTE is insufficient when it comes to biography articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a word of caution about assessing notability automatically based on 'highest rank'. I believe that in some nations there is actually some fluidity in what the term highest rank actually means. For example technically the highest rank in the Australian Army is Field Marshal, yet it is rarely achieved (only twice, I think, if we don't count the Duke of Edinburgh, and probably really only once if we ignore Birdwood, whose Australian rank of field marshal was honorary). Basically what this means is that many Australian officers who rise to be Chief of Army, or even Chief of the Defence Force, while not achieving the technically highest rank, achieve the highest rank possible for them to achieve. Also, I think a similiar situation exists in the US Army with the rank of General of the Armies technically being the highest, but only having been bestowed twice (again, not sure of this figure, so apologies if I am wrong). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to be exclusionary. However, my opinion on the matter is that anything that is not outlined above, should fall under general BIO or notable guidelines, whereas, those listed so far, should only require one or two verifiable reliably sourced references to establish notability under our WPP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Field Marshal is not currently awarded so General is the highest awarded rank, In more general terms, there are far more exceptions to the rule in assessing notabilty, lets keep guidelines that can be interpreted and not go for an exclusive approach as some projects have adopted. Common law v Roman law Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is limiting notability of flag/general officers to being only the highest ranking officer, but rather, including ALL flag/general officers, the highest lvl military command position, not necessarily, rank. Therefore, although only a Colonel, the Head of Monaco's military would be given a lower verifiability requirement due to their position (maybe one or two econdary or tertiary reliable source(s)). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed change to the current proposal, that the criteria listed above when verified by two reliable sources secondary or tertiary references, establish automatic notability, and that for those not on the list that notability be established through the standard bio requirements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Let us take the temperature of the room, say over the next 14 days (until 3 November), to see who supports and who opposes establishing a more significant biography notability guideline then the current WP:MILMOS#NOTE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Support creating a new guideline

• --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• --Farawayman (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Largely ambivalent because I think it's already covered by the WP:GNG, but if clarification is felt necessary I see no harm. EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Horrorshowj (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose creating a new guideline

• Developing a guideline is a very big project, and it isn't needed as WP:BIO is working fine for articles on military people. What is needed is some guidance on how it's works in practice, including indicators that the subject of the article is very likely to be notable. There's no need to take this beyond the level of WP:MILMOS or an essay, and there's very little chance that this would be accepted as a guideline without a strong case being made for the gap it's filling. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I'd support expanding the essay on notability in WP:MILMOS, but I think as Nick states above, a stand alone guideline is probably not necessary, or likely to be accepted as it would always fall (in order of precedence, for want of a better term) behind the wider community guidelines of WP:N and WP:BIO. I definately agree, however, that further guidance is needed on who is or is not notable, based on some of the AFDs that have occured of late so for mine, expanding MILMOS would make the most sense I feel. Having said all of this, I'm not sure I have the time to contribute much in this regard, so my vote is rather redundant. Sorry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Outside view: not necessary and too restrictive. WP:BIO is sufficient. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: I fear that the guideline would lead to a rush of stub articles on obscure peacetime brigadier-generals as someone scours the Army Lists for anyone who qualifies and does not have an article. I would prefer guidance on who is not notable - perhaps by saying that rank or awards do not of themselves create notability, and that independent narrative sources are required for notability - not just lists, medal citations or contemporary press coverage. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Nick-D. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose a guideline, though perhaps someone could do an essay from the criteria above. Buckshot06(prof) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:BIO hasn't failed thus far, so why fix it? An essay tailored to military biographies would serve to answer the proposal. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose not needed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let the guidelines present work for now. If a glut appears, bring it up again. This is a can of worms we really do not want to get into unless absolutely essential to the survival of the project. You only need to see the inanity that passes for featured articles in flavor-of-the-day entertainment to see what I mean. Some here-today-gone-tomorrow "star" is permanently ensconced while someone we by our participation in this project hold some value gets told, sorry, no room. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not just to pass along information per se, any more than the purpose of passing along information is an end to itself. It is to pass along values to another generation. Let us not limit ourselves simply because fellow editors have an interest in XYZ in our field instead of ABC. Because that's exactly where this sort of thing goes.Reedmalloy.--65.185.127.109 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. A stand-alone guideline certainly is not necessary at the moment. However, I do agree with AustralianRupert that expanding the essay on notability in WP:MILMOS would make the most sense and is all that needs to be done. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Results

It appears that there is presently an insufficient number of supporters to have a project wide guideline for Military biographical article notability. That being said, we have a sizeable number of supporters and a significant amount of work done that could lead to a future guideline, if we can ever reach a consensus on creating it, and/or at present an essay which we could add to WP:MILMOS.

Now the question I pose to all involved is, now what? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just received October's Bugle so only just learnt about this debate! And it's over!!! So, just a few comments, FWIW. What is the problem that needs to be solved here - space running short? Seems like a solution looking for a problem. Judging by much of the above, fixed criteria are likely to cause boundary problems, while case-by-case assessments are likely to open much argument - one nation state's national hero is another's nonentity - perspective was one reason that MILHIST abandoned importance ratings. What if top-level awards are thrown around like confetti for propaganda reasons and it's known that some actions were better recognised than others? We can easily weed out real nonentities that lack support as and when they arrive, or form summary lists when info is short or one-dimensional. Otherwise, we could expend much effort on article trawls and arguments that could be used improving articles. In addition we are in danger of similar efforts on all aspects of military history, eg, is this action in this revolutionary war notable, or this military unit, or that ... whatever. My main criteria has been "Is it interesting (to me) and/or does it illuminate an aspect of something else? That serendipity is the glory of wiki!. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my verbosity, but here's an addendum to the above: the Victoria Cross (UK's top award) for some time was not awarded posthumously. This might apply elsewhere thus eliminating some v notable people, if criteria are very tight. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Me and thee. I have some strong opinions on this. Issues affecting the project must be disseminated in a timely manner to all members.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we take this forward as either an addition to WP:MILMOS or as a notability essay (with a note explaining that it was developed by this Wikiproject). There appears to be support for Kirill's suggested wording (though I still think that #5 is unlikely to guarantee that someone will meet WP:BIO), but just not as a new guideline. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should replace the content of WP:MILMOS#NOTE with Kirill's later edit of the proposal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That certainly merits examining; after all the work you and others have put in on this, I don't think it should be allowed to die away without a proper conclusion (and it'll only come up again). There does seem to be general support for something less formal than a guideline; an essay or MILMOS addition or whatever, so perhaps it might be worth writing that up to allow any late-comers to have their say? We could then maybe spam it round the project via bot, or make an announcement in the next newsletter (which is still some time away). Setting a time limit for closing the discussion, after which the consensus viewpoint will be enacted, might also be helpful. What do you think? EyeSerene^talk 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my question is the MILMOS a guideline or an essay? If it is in fact a guideline, then that already goes against some editors view here that we should not establish a Military biography guideline regarding notability. However, as presently written what we have created doesn't stop the article from having to meeting WP:NN; so I don't see what the conflict was to begin with. And if it does, then perhaps the compromise is that it should be written to include it, which would satisfy many of the objections to it as it presently stands as of Kirill's last version. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As the MILMOS page banner states, MILMOS is a guideline and essentially a sub-section of WP:MOS. However, I see your point - on the face of it, some have objected to creating a new guideline but support the addition of an essay to MILMOS (thereby apparently creating a new guideline). However, the relevant section of MILMOS {WP:MILMOS#NOTE) already has a disclaimer that the section is an essay, so technically outside the more formal scope of the rest of the page. Replacing MILMOS#NOTE with Kirill's version, and creating a new header template to make it clear that although it's still an essay it has consensus within the project, would seem to be a logical solution and one that's in line with opinion so far. I have no firm views on whether this needs further discussion; my above was motivated by the additional comments from editors who felt they'd missed the boat. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since discussion continues, I'll add another two-penn'orth. I really think that hard and fast criteria could be a problem. Under them, a nonentity at a Ministry who happens to be a Brigadier or junior Admiral would qualify, whereas important, interesting or iconic figures might not. Examples: Frederic John Walker (not sure if the DSO was the 2nd ranked award at the time), Rodger Winn, Robert W H Everett, etc, etc. These might qualify under significance, but if so, I suspect that so will many more. So perhaps boost the relevance of significance (and add public prominence - since that will interest readers) and reduce that of rank. On awards, the VC is indisputedly tops in the UK, but in some countries awards are issued in ranks, eg, the Iron Cross and additional, superior degrees were added on top over time - how is this to be assessed? Some awards are awarded not for valour but for merit, why not include these? I'm sure that there are other issues, which is why I have reservations. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another case: David Irving. I'm sure that he's not "... recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing". Folks at 137 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

These criteria are those needed to support an assumption that someone is notable on the grounds that sufficient reliable sources are very likely to exist to meet WP:BIO. They don't mean that other people aren't notable regardless of their coverage in reliable sources, so there's no danger that Frederic John Walker and the like won't be considered notable. The problem with reliance on public prominence is that it's hard to define in ways consistent with WP:BIO - if it means the availability of sources then there's both no problem and no need for new guidance, and if it's on the some other criteria then it will be hard to establish a fair method. I agree that reliance on rank is probably the weakest of the proposed criteria - there are no shortage of obscure very senior officers in modern militaries and senior NCOs don't have much prominence outside their service and rarely interest journalists or historians (rightly or wrongly). Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the multiple otherwise non-notable general/flag officers and senior NCOs, I think they'd be similar to some criterea set forth in WP:NMG, in that many bands or musicians are not notable outside their own field/subject, however are considered notable enough within that field/subject to warrant an article. In that sense, although outside of the military subject those general/flag officers and senior NCOs are relatively non-notable, within the subject they are notable, and thus may warrant an article if sufficient verifiable reliable sources can support the notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Any chance that I will receive a response, or does my last post provide sufficient inclusion of those two points which was in question? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that you'd responded. Given that we're not developing a guideline or equivalent, I think that we need to stick very carefully to a conservative interpretation of WP:BIO and limit the guidance to people who we're sure will have received significant coverage in sources which are unrelated to the organisation they're a member of, so senior NCOs are out. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Therefore, what you are proposing is as follows:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or
6. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or
7. Made a material contribution to military science that is undisputedly attributed to them; or
8. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
9. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to a capital ship, or a division or larger formation, and their historical equivalents. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.

and what is being removed is

# Held the position of senior enlisted advisor for a substantial body of troops; or

Do others share this opinion or disagree with this opinion? I for one disagree with the opinion, as I believe that within the scope of their own military organizations that they are notable within their own sub-culture, just as those relatively minor compared to the overall scheme, but important within that subculture listed in WP:NMG are. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox: how to display casualties

I have a question for the community; looking at this article it seems rather useless in explaining what to put in each section of an infobox. However we have this one that covers each section, is this latter article essentially the "rulebook" in regards to this?

Either way I’m looking for what the communities’ consensus is on what to display for casualty figures. This article states that a casualty is “In military usage, casualties usually refer to combatants who have been rendered combat-ineffective, or all persons lost to active military service, which comprises those killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by physical injuries, disabled by psychological trauma, captured, deserted, and missing, but does not include injuries which do not prevent a person from fighting.” The definition mostly coming from source.

To finally cut to the chase should we have casualties broken down between killed, wounded, missing, and those captured or should we have a single figure (or range) with a note supplying the details? Alternatively should killed, wounded and missing be listed as one figure and displayed separately from those captured?

Somewhat extreme examples of what am talking about:

• Everything listed, complete breakdown within the infobox
• Single figure (or range if approbirate) with a note detailing the breakdown of casualties
• Killed and wounded listed as one figure and captured as a seperate figure (if we look only at the Allied side of the infobox onlu)

What is everyone thoughts?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Template:Infobox military conflict is definitive rule or not, but either way, it's nice to keep consistent standards, so this is a debate well worth having. Personally, regardless of what the military definition of casualty is, I feel someone being rendered combat ineffective by injury, combat ineffective by capture and the death of an individual to be three different things. I also think casualty can be taken to mean different things to different people. Some do see it as anyone rendered combat ineffective, some see it as meaning killed, some see it as injured and others as injured or dead, but not captured. I haven't mentioned MIA, as quite often we are dealing with events sufficiently past to know where people originally considered missing have gone, although obviously this is not always the case.

As I said, it's good to have standards, but do we need to limit ourselves to one 'definition' of casualty when we often have the ability to separate these 3 factors? Unless we wikilink the definition of casualty in the infobox to make sure everyone understands which definition we are using, there is room for confusion. And I believe doing this would be overkill when, as I said, there is room to dsiplay all 3 in the infobox. My preference would thus be to keep the three things separate in the infobox if possible (but within reason - see below).

So, to cut to the chase, I would include KIA, WIA and POW (and MIA if appropriate) separately in the infobox (if known). There should be a losses section in the article detailing nationalities, inconsistencies and other (material etc..) losses. Other relevant losses (eg. captured Generals) would also be included in such sections. There should be some limits though, and the infobox is just meant to summarise what is in the text. Seeing as there doesn't seem to be a casualties section in the Korean War article, I would move all the info into a new subheading, and in the infobox just leave the grand totals for KIA, WIA and POW in the infobox (with a note to scroll down). There is also no losses section in the El Alamein article, so personally I'd create one from the various notes, list the KIA, WIA, MIA (unless where they went can be established), and POW in the infobox, along with a total of material losses. A breakdown of nationality, type of material etc.. can then be included in the losses section. There are always some issues to negotiate though. Which way should a wounded man who is captured be listed? I'd say POW overrides WIA, and anyone listed as WIA is assumed to have left the battle on the same side from which he joined it.

Just my opinion. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two things I'd like to say here.

Casualties are notoriously difficult to nail down. When you have really good sources, you can see numbers of deaths rise as some of the wounded die, while the missing tend to fall as they turn up.

While we know what casualties are, casual readers have a tendency to misunderstand and misinterpret casualties as deaths. So we should always attempt to provide a breakdown if we can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hawkeye7. It is rare in earlier periods to have a detailed breakdown of casualties - sources often only speak of killed and this is often rendered as casualties in secondary accounts. Concepts like "missing" are relatively recent, reflecting access to records of pre-battle states which may not have existed and are even less likely to survive. It is therefore pretty impossible to use a consistent definition over time unless on a lower common denominator (KIA) basis. Better to break down the figure by casualty type where we can. Monstrelet (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong i am all in favour of breaking down the casualty figure but just not in the infobox. So i agree with Ranger Steve, to an extent, that when there is huge ammounts of information we should have a Casualty section that deals with that information.

As for precise figures, i am fully aware that wars beyond the 20th Century can be much harder to nail down figures and looking to the Classical era figures that all over the bloody place. However am mainly looking at this from a more modern sense (i.e. 1939 to now) where on the whole we have the secondary sources that nail down the losses sometimes to the man or to a round about figure.

If i provide Operation Epsom as another example; here i had access to VIII Corps records provided by a secondry source published by VIII Corps staff. So i have a complete breakdown of killed, wounded and missing/captured for practically every formation involved in the operation from the British point of view whereas the secondary sources provide only a rounded figure for the German losses and it doesnt really seem complete. So in this instance are we suggesting the best appraoch would be to provide the rounded figure for the German losses and a complete breakdown within the alliedside of the infobox? To me that would look to clutterly and not be providng quick information per what the infoboxes are for.

Just my two pennys worth.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Hawkeye managed to put across a far less complicated version of what I was trying to say! It is true that casualty figures can increase as sources improve (I would tend to err with the figures as they stand at the end date of the battle as listed in the infobox if that accuracy can be achieved). It is also true that pre 20th Century battles will always be harder to get right, but I believe that for battles where we have the information to separate the different casualty types, there is space to do so in the infobox. If we can dedicate several lines to the commanders and units in a battle, I see no harm in using 3 or 4 lines to separate those who have been injured or captured from those who made the ultimate sacrifice. This (to me) seems the minimum amount of detail I would put into an infobox to simplify more information in the main text. For Operation Epsom, personally I would once again take all the info in the notes and add it to the main text.

The 2 main battles I've done - the Battle of Arnhem and the Liberation of Arnhem are I suppose, examples of what I would try to achieve in other battles. In the Battle of Arnhem, an accurate breakdown of Allied losses by unit can be provided in the main text, along with some descriptions of other factors (high rate of loss of officers). A summary fits into the infobox and doesn't appear to be too much info there, alongside the info in the other fields (Interestingly it is very hard to nail down WIA figures, most of them having been left behind in the evacuation, and no definitive figures for escapees who were wounded seem to exist). Anyway, German figures are far less complete, and that is sourced in the text. The summary may not look as balanced in the infobox, but I don't believe it suffers in any way as a result. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Art of War in the Western World, by Archer Jones

I've created articles under my personal page for the author Archer Jones, seeUser:Gautier_lebon/Archer_Jones and his book The Art of War in the Western World, seeUser:Gautier_lebon/The_Art_of_War_in_the_Western_World. Are these suitable topics for inclusion in Wikipedia? If yes, are there any suggestions to improve the articles, apart from exanding the summary of the book, which I will do if people feel that the topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several works about the Art of War in Western Europe or in the Western World, most starting with the Greeks and ending with the USA. You could write an article about this phenomena because I don't know if each work about this topic is notable enough for an article. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good comment. Of course I haven't read all books on that topic, but Jones takes a different approach, using actual campaigns as examples to illustrate his theories on strategy and weapons systems. See the very brief description at User:Gautier_lebon/The_Art_of_War_in_the_Western_World. Critics seem to agree that this work stands out from the rest. In that light, is it worth including?--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to meet the notability criteria by containing references to reliable sources which are independent of the subject of the article and provide in-depth coverage of the topic. The guideline for people is WP:BIO and that for books is WP:BK. From what's currently in the draft articles, I'd suggest that neither Mr Jones or his book warrant inclusion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to the notability criteria. Reviewing the criteria for academics, I believe that Prof. Jones meets criteria 1, 4 and 5, whereas meeting any single criterion is sufficient for inclusion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Americans in World War II

[edit] References for Asian Indian Americans

I am looking for assistance in finding references regarding Asian Indian Americans during World War II. During the 1940 US Census "Hindu Americans" were the fourth largest group of Asian Americans after the Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos. So far I have not found significant sources which to create a paragraph for Indian Americans in the article Military History of Asian Americans. If anyone would like to assist, they can place references they find on the article's talk page. Thank you in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it's only been a couple days, but I haven't gotten any responses from other editors, even after posting a similar request for assistance on other talk pages relating to the references I seek. Therefore, I have written to the U.S. Army's Center of Military History. Hopefully in a week's time they can point me in the right direction, otherwise I will have to skip that paragraph, and write a paragraph for Korean Americans and move on to the desegregation of the military and the Cold War. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image for Korean Americans in World War II

I am looking to see if anyone has access to any public use images of Korean Americans serving during World War II, which would be inclusive of the 100 plus who served. I would much rather use a group image, rather than one of a single individual. Furthermore, I have never uploaded an image before onto Wikicommons, and have not found an appropriate one there either. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] some eyes needed

The FAC of castle has entered a deadlock over the definition of castles. The article cites a number of scientific works defining castles. This definition doesn't cover the common English use that includes for example Japanese castles or castles of Eastern Europe. A minor issue is that it doesn't cover Central Europe, an economically not that important region, and Italy is mostly missing and that's one of the most important regions. The situation won't move forward because supporters for both sides flog to the standards, so I would appreciate suggestions for a solution for an otherwise well written article. The review is here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] London Visit to Brookwood Cemetery

Anyone in London from the Task Force? I plan to visit for the day Brookwood American Cemetery in Surrey, 35 miles outside of London, on 1 December. This little-known American cemetery is one of two in the UK, and it's the smallest, with less than 500 graves. If you want to join me, just let me know. I plan to take notes and lots of photographs to build up an article. There is also a quite larger Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery next to it with not one but two Cross of Sacrifice monuments. Of course a pub visit would be in order too! -- K72ndst (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think technically there are two different CWGC sites there, most significant are the two memorials to those who died in the UK in each of the two world wars whose burial place is not known, or is marked by a family headstone, rather than a CWGC one. Tehre are some burials as well. David Underdown (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I am most interested in visiting the CWGC cemeteries. The first one I visited was last year in Normandy, the Bayeux War Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery, which is an article I started and took all the photos for. I have a list of VC winners to look for in Brookwood. If anyone has a particular grave they are seeking to get photographed, post it here. -- K72ndst (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Having actually looked at the info on the CWGC website, I see I was misrembering slightly, the cemetery does indeed contain the largest CWGC cemetery in the UK in addition to the memorials. I've visited a few of the Belgian cemetries in the past, including one of the German cemetries there, had a completely different feel to the CWGC ones, enclosed by pine trees and with headstones in dark stone, (and generally on massed graves), it seemed rather foreboding, in contrast to the light and airy feel of the CWGC cemeteries. \hope the visit goes well. David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrrhic victory in the infobox

I think this is against our MoS? See Talk:Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#Pyrrhic_victory.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That also gets added to Battle of the Alamo a few times a month, and I keep removing it. Is there a guideline somewhere that covers this so that I can point other editors to it? Karanacs (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the doc on {{Infobox military conflict}} says about the result field:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section").

I couldn't find anything in WP:MILMOS on the subject. I'll note that the inverse problem sometimes happens in Battle of Bunker Hill, which is labelled as a Pyrrhic victory; the victors allude to Pyrrhus in their writings about it.

On the other hand, I have no idea how to reliably differentiate decisive victories from mundane ones, and there are single-issue anon editors who routinely add "decisive" to articles on my watchlist. Magic♪piano 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This and (especially) this archived discussion might be informative. EyeSerene^talk 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

After an extended wrangle over mentioning tactical & strategic outcomes at Attack on Pearl Harbor, I've been persuaded the infobox isn't the best place to try & settle the degree of victory. I can only agree with the suggestion here: "see Aftermath". The multiple uses of "decisive" immediately run afoul, to name one example, of IJN doctrine; "pyrrhic" has become somewhat devalued over time, so any victory where winner's losses are heavy can be so described (& may be, by non-specialists, which is bound to lead to reverts). As said, there's no perfect solution... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notification

I have nominated Military brat (U.S. subculture) 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for a London Gazette citation

I'm expanding the article on Oliver Philpot and I'm trying to find the Gazetting of his Military Cross. According to the National Archives it was gazetted on 23rd May 1944 but I've been through all the Gazette and the supplements for that date without finding it. Can anyone help?

And on the subject of the Wooden Horse is there a reason why Michael Codnor, a Royal Artillery officer, was in Stalag Luft III? The only conjecture I have is that he was an Air Observer shot down at some point? Likely or not?

TIA NtheP (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been an error on the date, it waas 16 May 1944. I've found that the last middlename and surname often get run together in the Gazette index, particularly whe the name is split over two lines as in this case. A search on SpurlingPhilpot came up with the MC straight away. Searching on service number is usually pretty effective too. David Underdown (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd tried a service number search but it dodn't come up with anything but then the Gazette has it wrong in this citation. All other references give it as 77131 - this one had 88131. NtheP (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Having now had a look at the recommendation, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=7692868 I see that as well as the fairly anodyne official recommendation/citation for the MC by MI9, the file also contains Philpot's complete account of his capture and escape as given during his debrief, complete with a sketch of the famous vaulting horse, and how the worker and spoil bags were carried within it! David Underdown (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A pity we can't use that sketch in the article. Looked at the MC gazetting again to see that one of the other recipients in the same issue was Hank Wardle who escaped from Colditz with Pat Reid. NtheP (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered that in addition to the bits of the recommendation relating specifically to Philpot being available at the url I mentioned above (the full contents only being available, in general, on payment of a fee of £3.50), the whole documents, including recommendations for several other RAF personnel for escapes/evasion and secret missions can be obtained free at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=8306624 - and in fact the whole of WO 373 (War Office/MOD files relating to recommendations for Honours and Awards from 1935 - 1990) can be obtained freely as part of the Digital Microfilm Project http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/digital-microfilm.asp - this way is generally not searchable by name. To search by name you can go to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/wo373.asp but by this means the pdfs can only be viewed for a fee. David Underdown (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A 'Pointy' Challenge

Fellow MILHISTers, I come to you with something of a unique challenge. I am currently volunteering at the Eastbourne Redoubt, which contains the regimental museums for the Royal Sussex Regiment and the 4th Queen's Own Hussars. When working on the latter's display on the Crimean War, the assistant curator and myself came across an old sword in a display case which is unlabelled and has no apparent records for how it came to be there. As such,the curator has asked me to upload some photo's to the 'net and come to you all for assistance. The pictures are [here], [here], and [here]. Absolutely any help would be appreciated here, and any WP:OR is perfectly okay. Much appreciated, Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks very much like the 1821 pattern light cavalry sword, which continued to be in use during the Crimea War. If so, it's probably the troopers' version: the officers' versions were heavily engraved and had channels (blood gutters) running up each side of the blade. Is there a manufacturer's stamp? Sometimes they have serial numbers crudely punched into the steel. I would have thought that the sword curators at the Royal Armouries would be good people to ask.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Roger, that's a real help; I didn't think I'd be getting a reply. No, there don't seem to be any serial numbers or other identifying marks, although I'll upload some more photos on friday when I can get them. No manufacturer stamp either, which seems odd, so I'll check it again. But once again, thanks so much - at the very least that's enough to put on the exhibit label for the sword. Skinny87 (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just found this link, which may be helpful. As a further thought, it may be a "service" sword for actual use rather than for ceremonial purposes. This might explain its lack of ornament.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like a light cavalry trooper's sabre as used in the Charge of the Light Brigade (pattern 1822, not 1821 though! [Struck; sources are confusing on this - they confused me anyway!]) EyeSerene^talk 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Battle of Polygon Wood now open

The peer review for Battle of Polygon Wood is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy for 7th Infantry Division (United States) now open

The featured article candidacy for 7th Infantry Division (United States) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hundred Days v. War of the Seventh Coalition

Have we misnamed this article? While the overlap is significant, these terms surely refer to fundamentally distinct topics. We seem to be equating Bonaparte's Imperial restoration with the military effort he pursued against the Coalition powers. An article on the Hundred Days should describe in more detail the Empire's diplomacy, ministries (Carnot, Bigonnet, Fouché) constitution (l'acte additionel), etc., instead of treating social and political themes as mere preludes to the Waterloo campaign. The War of the Seventh Coalition article, in turn, could take a broader look at military operations. Put another way, Hundred Days refers to a period in French constitutional history, which happened to coincide with the War of the Seventh Coalition. Albrecht (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Beyond this, Minor campaigns of 1815 ought to be renamed to something more consonant with our practices and existing material (for instance the series on French Revolutionary campaigns, i.e. French Revolutionary Wars: Campaigns of 1797). The other theatres could be defined as "minor" in relation to the Waterloo campaign, but surely that's not their defining characteristic. (N.B. These same proposals languished on the Napoleonic task force for a year or two without comment, so I'm throwing it out here as a precaution before making these moves myself.) Absence of comment on this topic will be taken as consensus. ;) Albrecht (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy for Battle of Morotai now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Morotai 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) 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Manx VC

While I've been tidying up an article for GA, I've found a solitary ref that Robert Henry Cain is the only Manx recipient of the Victoria Cross (here). It seems something worthy of inclusion on his page, but it isn't an amazingly authoritative ref. Soooo... I was wondering if anyone else might have a better reference than this, or alternatively knows of another Manx recipient? On a related note, while I was looking through List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality I noticed that Cain is listed as an English recipient of the VC, but Channel Islanders are listed separately. I'm not an expert on the legal status of crown dependancies, so does anyone know if Cain should be listed separately (from English recipients) in the same manner as Channel Islanders, or does the Isle of Man have a slightly different status that would counter this? Cheers for any help, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And having gone through the Channel Islander names out of interest, I'm slightly concerned that some of them seem to be Irish, Scottish or even South Africans. Is there any qualifying factor for Channel Island nationality other than going to school there that I'm missing? (ie where did these nationalities come from so I can see what Cain counts as). Ranger Steve (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a general problem with trying to split these down below "British" to some extent. Some fo the categorisations of Irish can also be tricky. I certainly can't see any reason why IoM should be treated differently to Channel Islanders. David Underdown (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'll add it soon. I am becoming more concerned about this featured list now though: just skimming through I've identified at least 3 examples of repeated names under different nationalities, and as I've said above there are several instances where the nationality doesn't seem to be supported in the article or confirmable with a reference. Does anyone know of a definitive list of VC winner nationalities, or how the nationalities in this list were ascertained? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, found a better ref by the way. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Often there are justifiable reasons for categorising someone under more than one nationality, parentage, where living at the time they joined the armed forces, nationality adopted later (and best known as) etc. Then there are cases like George Prowse who for years was presumed to have been born in England, but has now been discovered to actually ahve been born in Wales. However, his parents were both English and living there only temporarily, he spent his childhood and early teenage years in England, but returned to Wales to work, and married a local, before volunteering for the Royal Naval Division in WWI. David Underdown (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That’s fair enough. I do understand the logic in multiple nationalities, but surely then the lists are flawed if it allows 2 entries for one person? It’s one thing having 2 relevant nationalities listed for one entry, but quite another to have 2 entries under different nationalities in a comprehensive (and featured) list. Shouldn’t it be one entry per person with multiple nationalities listed? (Although I accept that might affect sorting). Here are the problem people I’ve found with just ten mins of random clicking:

• Henry D'Arcy - listed twice, once as a New Zealander, once as a South African.
• John Frederick McCrea - listed twice, once as a Channel Islander, once as a South African.
• Herbert Stephen Henderson - Listed as a Rodesian, but then found in the List of Scottish Victoria Cross recipients.
• George Nurse - listed as a Channel Islander, but listed as Irish on the linked List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients.
• William Bruce (VC) - listed as a Channel Islander, but then found on the List of Scottish Victoria Cross recipients.
• Lewis Halliday - Listed as an Islander, but then features in the linked List of English Victoria Cross recipients
• Hastings Edward Harington - As above.
• Allastair Malcolm Cluny McReady-Diarmid - As above.
• Euston Henry Sartorius - Listed as an Islander, but also on the List of Victoria Cross recipients of uncertain nationality.
• Reginald William Sartorius - As above.
• George Mullin (and other Americans) - listed as American but also found on the List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients (this is noted, but then if they’re considered Canadian why list them as American in the first place?)
• Filip Konowal - listed as Ukranina/Canadian, but then listed separately on the linked List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients

For the Channel Islanders, it seems the only factor giving many of them Channel Island nationality is the fact they went to school there. And this was honestly just ten minutes of random clicking. Took me longer to write this out! Several other biographies have no mention of the nationality they are given in the list. I accept this isn’t necessarily the list’s fault, but then surely the list should have a ref to back it up, if the biography it links to can't do so. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see the logic in having a person with perceived "dual nationalities" listed under two sections, but if that is the agreed format then it should be made clear in the lead and a note should be appended to each entry that is listed twice, explaining where else they are listed and why.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Woody is the guy who's done most of the work on the VC lists. I think some of them are rather hang-overs from lists on the VC Reference project, which was migrated here en masse in the early days of Wikipedia when referencing standardsweren't so well established. David Underdown (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly noticed some slightly garbled information in the existing VC articles - a few people being listed as members of units which didn't exist at the time of the event, etc. I think "check the footnoting and discard any odd claims" may be the best approach here... Shimgray | talk | 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you some information that is incorrect, hopefully only units might have an issue, then please update it. I found that I had to create a huge number of redirects whilst making these lists, particularly for the units. I tried to ensure that the name listed in Arthur is the unit name in the lists, but this only happened for the later lists and not the earlier nationality ones. I will have a run through soon to try and check. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this for quite a while, mainly since a discussion came up on the talkpage. Nationalities can be arrived at from several different directions, at the moment, I am not sure which one is used for this list, hence why I pretty much abandoned it. This was left over from the reference project and I cleaned it up, but as you can see from the names above, the confusion surrounding nationalities abounds. I think we need to come up with a comprehensive definition for these lists and then carry it out across the lists and recipients articles. We need to decide whether it is the place of birth, the place of service, the place of schooling, the nationality that they considered themselves to be. I know of one recipient (can't remember which one, but serves an example) who was born in England, served in a British unit and then moved to Australia and stayed there until he died. He considered himself Australian, but he was English and served in an English unit. How do you categorise that and enforce it in a list? Regards, Woody (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In talking to an international audience I count 91 Australian awards. In talking to an Australian audience I say 96 Australian awards made up of 91 members of the Australian forces and five Australians serving with South African and British forces. Australia has been consistent over the years in its count of 96 and I always make the point that five of the 96 Australians served in South Africa and Britain forces. The figure we never use is 80 Australian born recipients which deletes 18 foreign born recipients and adds two Australian born members of the British Army who are not counted among the 96.

I have three recommendations.

Firstly in a general list give the nationality of force in which the recipient joined. The difficult questions are how to count the RFC and RNAS before 1918 and the HEIC before 1858 or 1859. My preference is to count RFC and RNAS as RAF and count HEIC as a separate category. However, RAAF attached to the RAF (Middleton) is counted as an Australian. British Army attached to Indian Army are counted as British but British officers of the Indian Army count as Indian.

Secondly, if you a doing a county list such as Australia define who is included. For Australia I include all members of the Australian forces plus Rogers, Dartnell, Pearse, Sullivan and Edwards, All five were veterans of the Australian forces and four were Australian born.

Finally depending on what you trying are trying to achieve expand on your definition by footnoting individuals. For instance George Bell Chicken was for many years counted as HEIC and not as a civilian. I count Lt W J English as South African forces and not British Army.

Since the first Australian "Victoria Cross for Australia" was awarded this year, I now say 97 Australians have been awarded the Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect I would suggest the opposite - the VC is awarded to an individual, not a unit, and so it should be the individual's nationality before the army he is fighting for. But that's just an opinion. On the subject of this list, a thought has occurred to me. It seems the sort-ability function is redundant because this list is A) a nationality list anyway, B) missing half of the recipients. Thus if I sort the list by battle for instance, I only get 1 of 5 Arnhem VC's and 3 of 12 Rorkes Drift VC's. The rest are in sublists and I have to go through each sublist individually to see if there are any more recipients from the same battle there. A sortable list such as this can only work if all entries are included. Soooo.... if the sort-ability were discounted, it wouldn't be a problem to reduce names to single entries and include several nationalities.

Alternatively, add a new cat for "Army served with" or something along those lines as Anthony suggests and ruthlessly decide each participants nationality. To keep the sort-ability list, re-instate all of the entries currently in sub-lists (no need to delete those list's though as they're worthy lists in their own right), so that you then have a full list VC winners that can be listed alphabetically, by conflict, by battle, by army served with and by date. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that the VC is awarded to an individual, not a unit. However, we should rethink the present situation which you well describe as “ruthlessly decide each participants nationality”. Perhaps the way to go is to follow the tradition of the War Office 1953 Alphabetical List of Recipients and the 1963 VC book by Sir John Smyth Bt VC MC where there is a consolidated table by country with the exception of the UK where the breakdown is by service. We can be dogmatic and classify every VC recipient to one country or service with footnotes such as Rawdon Middleton was an Australian although attached to the RAF and the Robert Hampton Gray was a Canadian although attached to the FAA.

William Rhodes-Moorhouse should be listed as RFC or RAF not New Zealand and Lanoe Hawker should be similarly listed and not Australian. Having one consolidated list you can then have country lists and count recipients twice or three times. I cannot think of an example but a hypothetical Canadian born officer of the British Army attached to the Indian Army could be listed in the Canadian, British Army and Indian Army lists. William Rhodes-Moorhouse whose grand mother was a New Zealander could be listed in the New Zealand list. However, Lanoe Hawker would not appear in the Australian list despite his father being an Australia who served in the Australian forces in South Africa and whose brother was a member of the Australian forces on the Western Front and who said Lanoe Hawker always considered himself to be an Australian. And Australia does not list two recipients who were born in Australia as Australian recipients. I think a VC nationally list should be country driven because Wikipedia is not prescriptive but descriptive. The Australian list will have different criteria for inclusion or exclusion than a Canadian, New Zealand or Manx list.Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Several thoughts have come to mind over the last few days. The first is that, rather than change the lists significantly, an easier method might be to change the titles/lede prose. Instead of List of Scottish Victoria Cross recipients (for example), could it not be reworded as List of recipients of the Victoria Cross of Scottish descent or something along such lines to clarify the reason for inclusion in the list. This way people can be included in multiple lists sorted by nationality for good reason. In many ways the contents of the list aren't wrong, because of the mixed descent many people have, but it is important to ensure that the title describes the contents accurately. For example, the List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross is currently using a racial descriptor in the title for what is essentially a military unit structured list (men in Gurkha regiments/formations), which strikes me as inaccurate.

A second idea involves British recipients of the Cross. I imagine there are several examples of people without a clear nationality within the big 4 of the British Isles, but George Prowse is one and David Lord would appear to be another. He was born in Ireland to Welsh parents and appears in books both about Irish and Welsh VC winners. The CWGC list him as British though, and I wonder if it might be an idea in future to fold the Scottish, Welsh and English lists (and possibly Irish) into one, with subsections for English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and British/mixed for those that we just can't separate.

Thirdly, and I hate to say it, but I just don't think the List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality is cutting it as a Featured List at the moment, especially when an editor believes that discarding info and carefully checking the footnotes is necessary. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality/archive1, regards, Woody (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Baskeyfield

I originally put this on the Stoke-on-Trent page, but haven't as yet had a reply. Broader cross section of of the world here of course, but you never know, I might get lucky and one of you might be from Stoke-on-Trent!

I'm currently in the process of improving the article on John Baskeyfield who was born in Burslem and has a statue erected in (I think) Festival Park, Stoke-on-Trent. I thought it would be nice to get an image of the statue (seen here) for the article, and was wondering if anyone who lived local to the area might be able to take one. No major rush, but if you happen to pass it with your camera one day a couple of shots from different angles might be nice. Any help would be much appreciated, especially if anyone knows anything else about him. Cheers,

Ranger Steve (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Military history image nominated for Featured picture status

The historically important engraving of the destruction of Godesberg 1583 by Frans Hogenberg has been nominated for Featured picture. See Here for the nomination. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way of getting a higher resolution scan of that? I opposed it on Commons on technical grounds and am abstaining on this project (different featuring criteria). Really wish we had a better digital file: 10MB or larger in uncompressed TIFF format. It's a subject that deserves to be featured. Durova³⁶⁹ 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WWI biplane identification

Here's a chance at our first featured picture of a German WWI biplane. The bibliographic record doesn't tell much. Other material from the same album suggests this could have been part of Hellmuth Felmy's squadron.[1] Felmy's plane is identified as an "Albatross", which would be the Albatros D.III, but this has more bracings. One editor thinks this is the Hannover CL II, citing Warplanes of the 20th Century by Christopher Chant, p. 18 and this online image, which unfortunately is a side view. Would like to get more feedback and sources, then submit to the Library of Congress research staff for vetting. Durova³⁶⁹ 19:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an expert, but it doesn't look anything like the images of the Hannover CL II to my mind. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You can see why this question needs more eyes. :) Durova³⁶⁹ 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. It looks a lot more like the Aviatik C.I, but the top wings look slightly longer than the lower in that photo. Could perhaps be the Rumpler C.I? Ranger Steve (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm leaning more to the Aviatik now. Notice the struts at near right angles to the planes, the odd flap on the top wings and the line of the tailplane (all of which to me make me certain it isn't the Hannover II). The only thing, like I said, is the length of the top wing.... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly an AEG C.IV based on the struts and the shape of the trailing edge on the ailerons.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks convincing, but the nose is a slightly different shape. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you come to an agreement please provide sources. The librarians will need a reference. Durova³⁶⁹ 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection of the offsite photo, it isn't a Aviatak - different struts around the cockpit. But if it's an Albatross, I wonder if it's one of these. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From Grat and Thetford's German Aircraft of the First World War, all of the major two seat Albatross's seem to have different wing trailing edges, without the scalloped ailerons and with a much larger cut out on the upper wing for the gunner - both of which point to the AEG.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Offsite someone sent this link.[2] I'm no expert on what to look for. Opinions? Durova³⁶⁹ 06:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nigel that this is a good contender, but the nose looks slightly different to me. On the image in question, it seems to come to a point at the prop, whereas on the AEG it seems more bulbous. It's also lacking a small blister right next to the prop, and the small vent looks like its in a slightly different place. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to muddy the waters, but the Rumpler CIV is a possible see http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rumpler-C-IV/1182636/M/ . Also the later CVII.Monstrelet (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's the Rumpler. The nose shape is wrong; the Rumpler has a pronounced stagger which isn't in the photo up for ident. I'd say it's more likely an AEG. NtheP (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This might help http://www.nzmr.org/german.htm It's Felmy sat in a very similar looking plane - note the camouflage pattern. Here's another view showing Albatroses at Huj(both DIII's) - http://pixdaus.com/?sort=userlast&name=starboardside Monstrelet (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/ac/pic-detail.asp?aircraft_id=424&sCurrentPic=aeg-civ_2.jpg&sCurrentDescriptor=Front left side view of an AEG C.IV at rest For sure, analyzed the structure, mathematically with tools and instruments... even the engine matches it have the same twist ! 116.71.61.56 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC) iDangerMouse :) Yes my wikipedia is unblocked officially !

http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/B01838 Date made: c 1917

Physical description: Black & white Summary: A.E.G C.IV aircraft, being assembled at the German aircraft depot, during enemy occupation. This was also used. iDangerMouse 119.155.4.247 (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Popping in to say that this will need a consensus before I submit a suggested correction to LoC or restore it. Might be better to go with something else for a featured picture drive? Durova³⁶⁹ 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice find. I think that's pretty conclusive. Those canvas hangers could easily be the same pair as in the picture of the Albatroses. Incidentally, at least one man appears in the picture of the Albatroses and the mystery AEG (the guy in the white boots, white shirt and dark scarf)which suggests the pictures were taken around the same time. One of the canvas tents appears in the right background. Monstrelet (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The image captions say they were taken in different years, although one might have been late 1916 and the other early 1917. Same location, probably same military unit. Fwiw, if consensus is hard to develop with the Huj biplane there's a different one here (which has the advantage of being a rather dramatic crash scene). Same question: what in heck is the make and model? Durova³⁶⁹ 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

An Albatros DV or DVa. It probably carried some squadron or personal art in front of the cross, which has been cut away as a souvenier. On the Huj pictures, I would be surprised if those two photos were taken a year apart, unless that guy didn't change clothes too often. The AEG assembly photo was clearly taken at a different time - the ground appears muddy and none of the workforce are in shirt-sleeves.Monstrelet (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, do you have a source for the Albatros DV or DVa identification? There's too much difference of opinion on the first image, but might be able to do something about the second. Durova³⁶⁹ 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this http://cas.awm.gov.au/technology/RELAWM04806 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstrelet (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy for Battle of Bardia now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Bardia is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Front (World War II) infobox

There are currently several discussions going on at Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) about which countries should be displayed as belligerents in the article's infobox. Editors are invited to participate in these discussions. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of Vilnius Castle Complex

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Vilnius Castle Complex/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Walter Peeler now open

The A-Class review for Walter Peeler is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article of the day Werner Mölders

I am happy that the article was nominated for featured article of the day. Nevertheless I am surprised that the article is attracting so much vandalism. Thank you to all of you that keep reverting. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I have heard in offline discussions, Molders was under attack from 4chan... Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal now open

The A-Class review for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Command Photo

I have the new command photo for LTG William B. Caldwell, IV and I can't upload it who can I send it to so that his page can be updated Ntma (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you upload it? Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think uploads are restricted for new users. They may need to wait a week or so before they become enabled. Leithp 07:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted "confirmed" flag so should be able to upload now. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Helmut Lent now open

The A-Class review for Helmut Lent is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FLRC for VC by Nationality list

I have nominated List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Woody (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Antietam request for comments

At Talk:Battle of Antietam#Tactical Victory, two editors on separate occasions have questioned the use of words in the following description of the battle's "Result" in the article infobox: "Result Tactically inconclusive; strategic Union victory". While I would like to know enough about the battle and military terminology to be able to answer the questions definitively, I feel as though Military History Project members and well-read editors who watch this page should participate in the discussion. It is possible that a different "Result" description is needed. Note that the description has existed in that form mostly unchallenged since January, 2006 or a period of over 46 months. Please make your comments at the article talk page linked here. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• A third editor changed the infobox, removing the questioned phrase, as I was posting this topic. Comments are still requested. Sswonk (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguished Service Order

Last night, the original Distinguished Service Order article was moved to Distinguished Service Order (United Kingdom), and Distinguished Service Order converted to a disambiguation page citing WP:ODM project naming conventions. However, hundreds, if not thousands, of articles link to Distinguished Service Order, expecting it to be the article relating to the UK/Commonwealth award. Either all these references need to be fixed, or, as I have suggested DSO (UK) should be moved back, and the disambiguation page should be at Distinguished Service Order (disambiguation) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please comment on the relevant talkpages. David Underdown (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been moved back per WP:DAB. EyeSerene^talk 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject proposal within our scope

A proposal has been made to establish a "Battles of Prophet Muhammad WikiProject". Since the topic falls within our scope, interested editors may wish to comment. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to create a task force for this, let alone a project, when a working group would do just fine. This is the exact sort of thing I had in mind when I suggest the idea, after all. 76.211.107.188 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with IP editor on this one, this should fall under WP:ISLAM, or if under us those battles would fall under the respective area where they occured, most likely under ME TF. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if there are editors interested in developing all these articles to a high standard a standalone project might be appropriate, especially given the intersection of military and religious issues in all the articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Early Muslim military history task force has to deal with war&religion all the time. We have the prophet Mohammed, the Ridda wars, the Muslim conquest, lots of conflicts between Sunni and Shia Muslims like the Fatimid dynasty&Abbasid dynasty, militant reformist movements like the Almohad dynasty and the crusades. This continues to the modern struggles like the Wahhabi&Saudi or Islamic fundamentalism. To say it bluntly, there will always be somebody in Islam making a connection between war&religion (in Christian and Jewish context such ideas are also documented).

I would like to understand, how exactly this project should improve the work on this topic. If we know that we can for sure find a suitable solution, but founding whatever project without a concept is none. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy for Xa Loi Pagoda raids now open

The featured article candidacy for Xa Loi Pagoda raids is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 15:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy for Arrow (missile) now open

The featured article candidacy for Arrow (missile) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 15:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)