Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Please use this page to start discussions that either affect the project as a whole or several task forces. For discussions about individual existing task forces, please use that task force's talk page instead.	Shortcut: WT:MILHIST
	Skip to table of contents • List and scope of task forces • Add new section

Military history WikiProject announcements and open tasks watch · edit · discuss
A discussion about the structure of firearm articles has begun. The Cold War task force has been created. The May newsletter is now available!
Featured article candidates  Unification of Germany • Ba Cut • Helgoland class battleship • Siward, Earl of Northumbria • Maiden Castle, Dorset • Battle of Corydon • Albert Kesselring Featured article review  A. E. J. Collins • Lord's Resistance Army insurgency • Krag-Petersson • Kammerlader • Krag-Jørgensen • Attalus I Featured list candidates  List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I Other featured content candidates  U.S. 7th Infantry Division A-Class review [Attention needed!]  Kaiser class battleship • 7th Infantry Division (United States) • List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross • British Army during World War I • History of the United Kingdom during World War I	Good article candidates  Full list... Peer review  Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 • First Battle of Charleston Harbor • Operation Badr (1973) • Montana-class battleship • I Corps (United States) • 45th Infantry Division (United States) • 24th Infantry Division (United States) • List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy • List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy • German battleship Bismarck • British Army during World War I • Unification of Germany • Army of the Tennessee • History of the United Kingdom during World War I • Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson • Military career of L. Ron Hubbard Special projects  Top Ten • World War I Centenary Drive Articles needing attention  ...to referencing and citation (22,108) • ...only to referencing and citation (7,271) • ...to coverage and accuracy (11,600) • ...to structure (5,539) • ...to grammar (1,145) • ...to supporting materials (5,748) • ...to technical criteria (553) • ...to tagging (15) • ...to assessment checklists (23,573) • ...to task force coverage (269)

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News Showcase Style guide Announcements and open tasks  → Articles needing attention  → Popular articles  → New articles talk  → 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
Project 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

Contents 1 Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Full 2 Disambiguators for military biography articles 3 Peer review for Charles Lindbergh 4 Proposal: Cold War task force (c. 1945–c. 1989) 4.1 Scope? 5 Date unlinking bot proposal 6 List of Axis military operations on the Eastern Front of World War II 7 "Eastern Front"? 8 Definition of 'officer' in categories 9 James Mouat 10 Belligerents 11 Template help 12 Lord's Resistance Army insurgency at FAR 13 Cool3's administrator candidacy 14 A-Class review for History of the United Kingdom during World War I needs attention 15 Call for American Civil War buffs 16 Vandalism 17 Comments needed on structure of firearm articles 18 ???? 19 Fall of Saigon: What is a belligerent? 20 Double Images 21 Peer review for Operation Badr (1973) now open 22 Proposed modification of Firearm article structure 23 Peer review for First Battle of Charleston Harbor now open 24 A-Class review for Kaiser class battleship now open 25 Talk:USS Goldsborough (DDG-20) 26 Imperial War Museum Images 27 Are subsections in firearms articles okay? 28 Loads of PD-1923 Civil War images 29 Peer review for Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 now open 30 Tucker class destroyer turbines 31 General/Admiral Stars rank articles 32 FAR for A. E. J. Collins 33 General, Admiral, etc.

[edit] Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Full

I just noticed this, but Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Full has exceeded its template include size. I don't think too many people use it anyways, but it should be fixed for those who do? Comments are appreciated, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no real way to fix it, though, given that the task force templates grow and shrink unpredictably. Given that it's not really used—anyone interested in the task force lists just goes to the task force page anyways—I'd suggest simply getting rid of it.

The alternative, I suppose, would be to change the lists from transclusions to simple links; then, we could bring them back into the main template rather than having a separate one. I'm not convinced it's worthwhile doing this, though, since, as I've said, I don't think anyone really gets to the lists this way to begin with. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So, any thoughts on which approach would be more useful? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the template is redundant really - as you say, the TF list page duplicates the additional information, and that page is well-linked from the navbox and various other places. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; I've deprecated the full version and redirected its component templates back to the main announcement box. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguators for military biography articles

User:Pdfpdf recently proposed that John Wilton (Australian Army officer)‎ be moved to John Wilton (general), largely because most other articles in category:Australian generals use that form of disamiguation when it is required. I, and User:Skinny87, opposed on the basis that the current form is more informative, and better describes what makes him notable (as I see it, Wilton and most others of a simialr status are ntoable army officers, because they've reached 2 star rank, rather than being notable generals which seems to me to imply someone more on the Wellington, Napoleon, <insert top national general of choice> etc). Pdfpdf coutners taht outside articles related to British generals where this has become pretty much the standard format, most other articles on generals use simply (general) as the disambiguator, and finds the alternative rather cumbersome. Curiously even in Australian military bios, for those from other services (RAAF officer) and (RAN officer) do seem to have become more or elss standard, rather than (air officer) and (admiral) which would be the equivalents to (general).

Does the prject as a whole have a view on which is preferable? Does it matter if these disambiguators are not uniform? David Underdown (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point at the moment there is only one John Wilton (general) what about John Wilton (Australian general) which would join both proposals ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(First, I must say that I think David has summarised the situation quite well. In general, I agree with his summary. But not necessarily the conclusions he draws from it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm. Yes. But what about ALL of the other articles "xxx (general)"? Please inform me if I've missed something, but my understanding is the the "(general)" is there to disambiguate. To date, this has "done the job". Where it hasn't "done the job", it has been augmented. "(Australian general)" is the one of the alternatives that have been used, but only when "(general)" was not ambiguous. For example, as I said at Talk:John Wilton (Australian Army officer),

"6) (general) is usually an adequate disambiguation. If not, (Australian general) seems to work if/when needed. The only exception so far is John Raymond Broadbent (1893-1972) and John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006); "Australian Army officer" would NOT have helped that one!"

So yes, "John Wilton (Australian general)" will do the job. But so will "John Wilton (general)". In my (no doubt biassed) opinion, it just seems to be adding yet another level of complexity.

(I also have other objections, but they are even more subjective ... )

If you've managed to get here, thanks for your indulgence. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to further muddy the waters, why not use "John Gordon Noel Wilton" as the article title, and avoid the need for a clumsy disambiguator? Leithp 15:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Because that doesn't seem to be the approach suggested by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). David Underdown (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The (unofficial) standard for British Army officers is to disambiguate as (British Army officer), no matter what rank the officer reached. See Category:British Army generals. A high level of consistency has been reached with these articles, and in my opinion this is an extremely good thing and should be extended to all countries. After all, the officer's profession was Army officer, not general, which is merely the rank he reached. To me, disambiguating by rank seems very odd - John Smith (lieutenant), John Smith (captain), John Smith (major), or whatever seem strange, so I see no reason for generals to be a special case. Added to which, "general" actually covers three or four (depending on the country) separate ranks. As to disambiguating by full name, this has already been discussed a number of times and the general conclusion has been that articles should consistently use the name by which the individual was known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that "standard" is unofficial, but more relevantly, it is (so far) limited to British pages. (I don't really want to copy the discussion at Talk:John Wilton (Australian Army officer) to here, so I'll refer you to that page.)

Yes, I have heard that point of view expressed by other British WP military historians; I don't share it, and I don't agree with the argument. (Again, refer to the Wilton talk page.)

Your reasoning is coherent, but (in my pov) irellevant, and your examples are red herrings (in my pov).

"general" actually covers three or four ... ranks. - Yes! In my pov, that's its advantage! "Fred Nerk (general)" is a very concise way of saying "Fred Nerk (very senior army officer)".

In my mind, the more logical extension of your argument is to use "Fred Nerk (soldier)".

As I said on the Wilton talk page, the point of the suffix is to disambiguate; "(general)" is a more concise and more effective disambiguator - there could be numerous "(soldier)"s or "(officer)"s with that name, meaning that, as a dismabiguator, it is neither particularly useful, nor particularly effective. And it is excessively verbose.

But most of all, if you look at the statistics/data on Talk:John Wilton (Australian Army officer), you'll see that almost ALL soldiers bios on WP (with the exception of UK) do NOT use the UK convention. In particular, Wilton is the ONLY Oz general NOT called "(general)".

I could go on, but that's probably enough for one session. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else (co-ords?) have a view on this? David Underdown (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that John Wilton (Army officer) or John Wilton (Australian Army officer) would be better than using the rank unless we have more than one John Wilton in the Australian Army! Alternate would be to use dates John Wilton (1910) no need to argue then if it was a profession or rank. MilborneOne (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all officers are notable for what they did in their most senior ranks, especially those that were further promoted in peacetime. It would be odd to refer to someone chiefly notable for, say, galantry as a lieutenant as (general), just because he reached taht rank twenty years later. My article Alexander Cavalié Mercer would be a case in point if anyone else of the same name happens along (admitedly unlikely: he was known for his action as a captain at Waterloo, and he is known as "Captain Mercer", but became a general just before he retired in the 1860s. If we called him Captain, what of individuals who are notable as they cross several ranks? Come to think of it, as David Underdown pointed out above, I may need to rename the article in the light of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) - I should drop the first name, as he was known as Cavalié Mercer. I'm sure I've seen other military biographies that don't adhere to the convention, eg Allan Henry Shafto Adair and Jean De Dieu Soult. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I heard an interview this morning on the ABC where the Oz Prime Minister was interviewed. He said a lot. And he repeated it. (At least twice.) And NONE of it bore ANY relationship to the questions that the ABC interviewer was trying to ask him.
The above lack-of-discussion of any of the relevant points raised reminds me of that interview. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to chime in on this as well. I work a lot with Medal of Honor recipients and there seems to be a wide variance in how those pages where created as well. Here are some examples (John Smith, John J. Smith, John John Smith, John Smith (soldier), John Smith (U.S. soldier), John Smith (Medal of Honor recipient), etc). John Smith is a bad example because its such a common name but in many cases the names are not common and they still have a long disambiguation title that I believe is unnecessary and in some cases I have moved the article or if the article needs to be created I will change the link (usually on a list page) to something less descriptive if the name isn't already taken.--Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The equivalent for UK/Commonwealth personnel would be VC and GC winners, and here (VC) and (GC) seems to eb well established (of course the fact that these are well-established postnominals, which is not something the US uses helps). Since in most of these cases the person's notability rests on the fact that they received thier nation's highest available decoration, this form seems appropriate (they are a handful of VC recipients-and I don't know if any of these would actually need disambiguation anway-whose subsequent career would make them notable as an army or naval officer even if they hadn't won the VC, but most people would probably still be trying to look them up because of their VC anyway). David Underdown (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Charles Lindbergh

I wanted to let you know that I submitted the Charles Lindbergh article for peer review. Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We are still solicting reviewers for the Charles Lindbergh article so anyone who wishes to review and comment would be greatly appreciated.--Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Cold War task force (c. 1945–c. 1989)

There's been some discussion on my talk page about a new task force covering the Cold War (say 1945 to about 1989). This has been raised several times in the past but has not attracted much support. Is there sufficient support for this now? Normally, we'd be looking for a minimum of six editors to sponsor it. If you're interested, please say so below.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have more than enough support now; assuming nobody comes up with any serious objections by then, I'll create the infrastrucute for the new task force tomorrow morning. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 22:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The task force has now been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Cold War task force. One minor issue to keep in mind is that, due to naming, some of the categories are being shared between the new task force and the (inactive?) Cold War history WikiProject. Once the task force becomes fully active, we may want to propose merging the standalone project into it to eliminate this redundancy. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. JayLeno175 (talk) 2:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC) - can't see any obvious reason not to, seems conspicuous by its absence now someone mentions it...
3. D'accord--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
4. BillClinton1000 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
6. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) - We should inform Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War of this development though; I am sure some of their project members would appreciate a heads up from us if we do this. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
7. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC) - an obvious taskforce to establish.
9. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Skinny87 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scope?

What would the scope of this task force be? Any war-related thing that happened in the Cold War...? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

This task force covers the period of global military tension that existed between the end of World War II in 1945 until about 1989. The scope includes not only the main confrontation – between the USA/NATO and the USSR/Warsaw Pact countries – but also operations in other theatres, such as South East Asia, and Central and South America, as the superpower protagonists sought to extend their spheres of influence.

 Roger Davies ^talk 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Prehaps replace 'operations in other theatres' with something that mentions proxy wars?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a Q at the Cold War notice board. At the moment the entire Cold War project seems to be a subset of the MILHIST one, according to the stats, even if directly tagged, meaning that things like anti/pro-communist summits/laws/referndums to ban communist parties etc will be in there. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Date unlinking bot proposal

The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not this topic again!!--Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Axis military operations on the Eastern Front of World War II

User Mrg3105, though operating under the hat User:Shattered Wikiglass, has just removed all the Soviet operations from this page, removed a merger suggestion with an extensive list of Soviet operations, and changed the name to make the article a list of Axis operations only. Should we be aiming at a single list of all operations on the Eastern Front, Axis and Soviet, or separating them? What do people think? Buckshot06(prof) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, not him. I'm staying out of this this time... Skinny87 (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Axis-only list is fairly lengthy so I'm not sure that they should be merged. Especially if you were to list all of the forgotten offensives from Glantz's self-published books, of which I only have volume I. I'm more bothered by his pedantic remarks about the Soviet lack of an "Eastern Front" and his bad grammar. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think having the German and Soviet terminology separate isn’t all that bad an idea. Certainly, the German list should lose all the advertising for Glantz. The key for the Soviet list is to correlate the Russian nomenclature with the (often rough) equivalent for the German operations. The reason I say this is that the German names are far better known among English-speakers than the Russian. It looks like someone has made an attempt at this, but it needs better clarification. An alternative approach might be to employ a vertical timeline table correlating the one with the other. This would remedy mrg3105’s wholesale translation of the original article structure to a Glantz-inspired Soviet one; however, it wouldn’t be easy to do in Wikipedia, I’m afraid. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think seperating them is a good idea. Although I believe he should have got some comments or something from other editors prior to removing large chunks of the list. --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted the move. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably worth reminding everyone that discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator on an editor behaving disruptively in articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted. User:mrg3105 was subject to these restrictions.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I only wish you could have gotten around to dealing with him sooner. I hold mrg3105 responsible for ruining La Grande Armee. All the list cruft and section moving he did played a major role in turning it from A-list to start class. He is further proof that not everyone can, nor should, be allowed to edit articles.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Eastern Front"?

I've been reading about the August 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria. When I look at WP articles about the "Eastern Front" and "Soviet Operations", they don't seem to pay much attention to the fact that WWII continued east of Europe after 9 May 1945.
I supposed I'm a bit surprised by this. What do others think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the patchy fighting which lasted for a few days after the German surrender, or the Manchurian campaign? The Soviet operation in Manchuria is normally considered to be totally separate to the war against Germany. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Are you ... " - As I said, the August 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

"The Soviet operation ... " - I'm puzzled. Why would anyone think that the August 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria had anything to do with the war against Germany? I'm afraid I don't understand you.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what Nick is trying to point out is that by traditional usage the "Eastern Front" was limited to the western USSR; the Manchurian invasion is generally included in the Pacific/East Asian theatre. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed; that's the point I was alluding to. Who's "tradition"? Writers in English? European writers? Other writers?

I can't read Russian, Chinese or Japanese; Does anyone know what the Russian, Chinese and Japanese refer to these two fronts as?

And for that matter, what do writers of English refer to the Manchurian front as?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "Eastern Front" is a Western tradition, drawn from the German usage, "Ostfront". Less frequently employed terms include the "Russo-German War", "German-Soviet War", "Soviet-German War", and "Axis-Soviet War". The reason for the predominance of "Eastern Front" is due to parallelism with similar usage for WWI and because German sources being chiefly the only ones available in the West until specialists like John Erickson and David Glantz began obtaining deeper access to Soviet sources. The Soviets called the conflict in this area the "Great Patriotic War" or "Anti-Fascist War"; the term "Great Patriotic War" is mostly used to refer to the USSR’s western theatre, but can also be used to include operations against Japan in the east.

The "Soviet invasion of Manchuria", which has been the term most used in Western sources, is known to the Russians as the "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation". Again, thanks primarily to Glantz, it has also recently become popular to refer to it as by its codename, "Operation August Storm".

As to what the Japanese and Chinese call these, I have to confess that I do not know. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I recall, the Chinese refer to the Western and Eastern fronts as "Western European Battlefield" and "Eastern European battlefied", and the entire theatre as the "European battlefield." For the Pacific War, it's referred to as the "Pacific Ocean battlefield". The war against the Japanese is often called the "Anti-Japanese war" or the "Eight years of resistance war" (i.e. 1937-1945). The Soviet invasion of Manchuria is commonly referred to as the "Soviet invasion of the North east." However, my Chinese isn't the best, and all the translations are quite literal. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you! A very comprehensive answer. (I had wondered where "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" came from.) I've recently got hold of the so-called "Japanese Monographs"; it will be interesting to see what they have (had?) to say.

Glantz seems prolific on the topic, as you say, from the soviet side. Did Erickson write anything about the Manchurian campaign? I saw one of the Eagle Rock "Battlefield"s about Manchuria, (can't remember the title - guess it must have been series 4 #3), but I don't recall Erickson's name, and John Erickson (historian) seems to only mention European-related campaigns ... Cheers (and thanks), Pdfpdf (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Erickson was the trailblazer in getting access to Soviet archives because they respected his balance, honesty and respectful treatment of Soviet contributions. He really only treated the German-Soviet front as far as I can recall. Glantz benefitted greatly from this opening up and initially focused on the Eastern Front as well. He’s only one of a very few Westerners to have delved deeply into Soviet operations in the Far East. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of 'officer' in categories

Should categories such as Category:Royal Navy officers, and their sub-cats, be restricted to only commissioned officers? On a literal interpretation, no, but in the military/naval world the distinction between having a commission and not is crucial. I was a little surprised by this edit [1] - the subject of the article was still only a midshipman when WWI ended - but I haven't found any discussion of the matter, let alone consensus. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was working on the basis that Midshipman at the time was a commissioned officer. If that was not the case then my edit was incorrect and should be reverted Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Definately agree that should be restricted to only commissioned officers or there is no point in the category Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically middies were subordinate officers rather than actually having a commission, that said, for categorisation purposes here on Wikiepdia it seems most sensible to include them in the officer category, in general they were treated as such, and by the period we're talking about were virtually guaranteed to be commissioned. David Underdown (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also include Warrant Officers in the officers category or else create a seperate category for them. Either one is ok with me. Regarding the midshipman thing we could create a category for midshipment and cadets who never got commissioned and went on to be notible for something.--Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Warrant Officers are classed as other ranks in the British/Commonwealth and would probably be insulated if categorised with officers! MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Our own article on Other Ranks says warrnat officers are sometime excluded from that description. However, I don't generally think they should be included in the officer category though, although you might make a case for a different category for some of the early 19th century naval warrant officers, such as Master, Surgeon and Purser to be included in, they had the privilege of the wardroom along with the connissioned officers sensu strictu, and their modern-day equivalents are commissioned, whether there are enough of them who were notable to actually create a category I don't know. David Underdown (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) From the "Explanation of terms" section in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, 1913 Volume I. Page ix. "OFFICER—Commissioned, warrant, and subordinate officers, but not to extend to petty and non-commissioned officers except when the words "Superior officer" are used." --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 15:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on that, and what it say at Warrant Officer#The demise of the Royal Naval warrants, perhaps there is actually a case for including pre-1949 Warrant Offficers in the officer category (but no other warrant officers). David Underdown (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is to clarify the officer issue for British related military articles thats fine but the US classifies it differently so I would recommend leaving the US categories of XXX officers be. --Kumioko (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a major problem with including Warrant officers in the "Officers" categories concerning British services. My opinion, as a Brit, would be to only have commissioned officers, Midshipmen and officer cadets (Because they become commissioned Officers), in those categories. If you want to place Warrant Officers anywhere, perhaps we should make a specific category for them. NCOs are never referred to as Officers and to do so would cause great offence, and therefore should not be added to an Officer category. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's correct - there's a significant distinction between being awarded your rank by the sovereign and being awarded it by the service. I agree that the distinctions blur for naval WOs, but that might be an argument for splitting the categories more meaningfully into commissioned/non-commissioned officers. EyeSerene^talk 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say commissioned, noncommissioned and warrant officers because there is also a big difference between a WO and an NCO. --Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The original point of this thread concerned a question by Philip Trueman, essentially asking whether a move by Kernel Saunters of Jack Broome from Category:Royal Navy personnel of World War I to Category:Royal Navy officers of World War I was valid. Strictly speaking it was correct. Now, had an officer been a Warrant Officer, being placed in that category would have been correct as well because at that time a Warrant Officer in the Royal Navy counted as an officer. You can create whatever categories you want for other services at other times, but in this instance it's correct. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; perhaps Kumioko's suggestion for three categories would be the best way of providing a 'one size fits all' solution. EyeSerene^talk 19:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While I suspect only the fairly knowlegable will even notice, I do have a concern over noncoms being listed as "officers", since the general public (even smart people) don't consider them "officers". Cat 'em as such may generate confusion better avoided. (I also suspect the confusion will be pretty limited in #, too...) My C$0.02. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Kumioko. There should be a split into commissioned, noncommissioned and warrant officers. This has long been the tradition, albeit the use of warrant officers seems to be slipping away. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James Mouat

Copyvio tagged on a VC winner. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 June 23 --Pdfpdf (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Belligerents

Hi folks. I hope I'm in the best place to ask this question. I figured this place would be setting the standard for military articles so it seemed a good start. If not please redirect me. I have a query about an inclusion in the infobox at the Battle of Arnhem; its the Dutch Waffen SS in Belligerents. I added it to the infobox as I think it follows the guidelines on the Template:Infobox Military Conflict page - that is:

This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding.

However, I realise that it's probably gonna attract some interest, hence my raising it here sooner rather than later. My thought is that this is a genuinely interesting example of Dutch nationals resisting the Allies in their own country, and a reminder that Nazi Germany wasn't a belligerent made up entirely of German nationals. It's a little bit more than the usual attached nationalities that would be found in a large conflict too. For instance, there was a 12 man Dutch commando unit attached to the British forces at the battle, but that seems too small a unit to list - in the Axis example both Dutch formations were battalions - fairly sizeable units. I do realise though that technically the 2 units were allied to Germany's armed forces and most of the high level officers will have been Germans, but one was not officially part of the Waffen SS and may not have technically been part of the Wehrmacht either. I'm not really sure what their official legal status would have been, but they don't seem to fit into the nationality listed directly above them (that link takes you here, where the map doesn't include the Netherlands).

So, that's my quandary. I'm happy to take it out if there's a consensus not to include it but I thought this might be a question worth posing to some people who have probably seen it all in infoboxes!

I've just finished the bulk of the article itself as well and I'd welcome any comments on how to improve it further. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience we don't normally include minor combatants in the infobox unless they play a significant part in the battle. For example, even though Soult's Polish lancers pretty much destroyed a British brigade at the Battle of Albuera, they don't appear in the infobox; on the other hand, the Polish defence of Hill 262 during the battle of the Falaise pocket was significant to the battle's outcome and merits an infobox mention. As far as I'm aware the Dutch Waffen SS didn't play any significant part at Arnhem, so I'm not sure they should be in the infobox (though obviously there's always room for debate!) EyeSerene^talk 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting example Eyeserene, thanks. The Dutch contribution to the battle obviously wasn't as great as the German input. One battalion (which had 6 companies I believe) was heavily engaged at an LZ and severely disrupted the arrival of the 4th Parachute Brigade before being routed themselves. The other battalion was involved in the blocking line established south of the river to prevent the Poles reaching the Arnhem road bridge. They became engaged from 21-25 September. One might make an argument that the engagement at 4th Brigade's landing was important, but I accept it might be a bit tenuous.

That being said though, their contribution to the battle was definitely greater than the Canadians (not that I'm saying their contribution wasn't important, but they were only involved for one night of the final day), who I included based on the infobox and talkpage at Operation Market Garden. You could probably argue against the Dutch Resistance's inclusion there as well...

At the risk of ruffling a few feathers, I'd say I can see arguments for the Poles being included in the Battle of Albuera infobox, but based on the reader understanding side rather than quality/quantity of contribution. I'd have thought the fact the Poles were involved could be neatly summarised in the infobox rather than trawling the article - especially seeing as there is one in the image, but no indication of his loyalty in the belligerents. (I do accept the Marshal disarming him is listed in the commanders box, but that just seems a bit... murkier if you take my meaning. It's not quite as clear as if the nation was listed.) Just my 2 pence. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We open lots of cans of worms as soon as we start recognising minor contributions, especially of national contingents within national or multi-national armies. It quickly gets ourt of proportion and over-emphasises the minority contribution. Hardly an army through history has not had contingents from other countries, integrated to greater or lesser degrees. Often the soldiers' nationalities don't match the nationality of the unit to which they belong. The fact that there were Polish lancers in the French army doesn't mean it is no longer a French army in the ordinary sense of the term - and many of them would not have been Polish. A case in point is Peninsular war where someone has regularly been adding a Polish flag icon and a Polish officer who was no more than a brigade commander in the infobox. Cyclopaedic (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very important point: I've always taken the belligerents section of the infobox to be a place to describe the nations that contested the engagement: i.e. the national interests that were represented by their soldiers, rather than the point of origin of the soldiers themselves. Another example is the presence of Gurkha soldiers in British Army that fought in the Falklands War, yet I don't think that anyone would seriously suggest that Nepal be included as a belligerent in that infobox. However at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle the Indian forces engaged were not part of the British Army but part of the British Indian Army and thus represented a different government that should be included in the infobox in that instance. In this particular case, the Dutch SS soldiers were (please correct me if I am wrong) in the employ of the German government and thus were representing German interests, not Dutch national ones, while the Poles in Normandy were representing their government in exile and should be included seperately in that particular infobox.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy or right answer, except to fall back on WP principles of general usage and treatment in academic writing. The Indian Army example illustrates the difficulty: it was officered entirely by British officers, was completely integrated in the British chain of command, and Indian Army officers could be promoted to higher ranks in the British army. British units would form part of nominally Indian divisions, and an army including Indian divisions would still have been regarded at the time as a British army. It was not commanded by an Indian government, but came directly under British command. that is not to diminsh the huge contributions and sacrifices of Indian soldiers, but it was not a separate power. But then nor were the Poles in Normandy or at Arnhem - they were Polish nationals organised into separate units of the British army. I don't know the answer - there must come a point at which it woud be churlish and offensive not to recognise the contribution of a particular nation, but it has to stop somewhere. Otherwise for Waterloo we would have flag icons for a dozen German states in Wellington's army alone - and would Brunswick count, but not the King's German Legion who were part of the British army? I have noticed a WP tendency for British armies of WW1 and WW2 to be renamed as "Empire" or "Commonwealth" for similar reasons, in defiance of both contemporary nomenclature and common usage. I think at least an element of independent command and freedom of action is required before national commanders and armies are recognised in infobox summaries. It is much easier to give a balanced picture in the text with appropraite weighting. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your summary at the end, but I don't think you are correct in your comments about the Indian or Polish forces - although both were integrated within the command structure of the British Army neither was actually part of the British Army, any more than the First Australian Imperial Force or Canadian Expeditionary Force were.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there probably isn't an easy answer to this, sorry for raising it! I do like Cyclopaedic's summary as well, although I fear that might mean that it would be neccesary to remove the Canadians from the Allied side. They were attached to XXX Corps and fully under their command when they made their contribution. Jackyd also has a point, but I've got to admit (with the greatest of respect) I prefer to think of nations as the nationality of the people, not necessarily the ideal they subscribe to. There might be the danger that national interests, rather than nations, could see a return to the idea of Commonwealth rather than individual commonwealth countries. I seem to recall various talkpage discussions a few years ago about that and I have no desire to open that can of worms again! But on reflection, there is a subtle difference. Commonwealth countries had independent governments, but the Dutch didn't (I believe they were governed by an occupying party or something along those lines, but I admit to not knowing a huge amount about this).

Saying that I've noticed that Template:Infobox Military Conflict now refers to combatants rather than belligerents. This might change things! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it's conflict on a slightly different scale, but how about something along the lines of the Albanians in the infobox here? There are a few links to Dutch contribution to the Axis that could be used. I'd like to get a consensus, mainly because there are a load of articles I'd like to start on in time about the fighting on this front that involved Dutch SS regiments more significantly than German ones (as far as I can tell at the moment). I just think its fair to recognise the contribution of a body of men (almost as numerous in number as the Polish at Arnhem) I guess. Maybe a dedicated article on the Dutch Axis participation would help? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem unreasonable, although I really do think we need to be careful about opening the door wider for endless edit-warring over every minor contribution (which, let's face it, is an old and ongoing problem in some areas). The infobox is meant to be nothing more than an at-a-glance overview; the detail should be in the article text. However, if you really feel you can justify its inclusion, be bold ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template help

We're having serious problems with the Infobox Military Conflict template (see Talk:Yugoslav wars). Its a really unique situation. Here's the problem: we've got one war, the Bosnian War, which was three-sided at first, and then became two-sided as two of the three factions allied against the third. The Infobox Military Conflict has three columns for the first phase, but we've been trying to find a way to depict a three-sided war turning into a two-sided one. Possibly by merging two of the three columns after a horizontal line divides the phases of the conflict? Its really been a long standing innacuracy, and we all know people only really look at the infobox :P. Could someone help, or point us towards someone who could cook up a custom template? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've produced the effect you're looking for using the secondary row fields in the template. The syntax is a little limited at the moment—only the first two columns can be merged, not the last two—but it's enough for what you need. You'll probably want to add some sort of internal date header to clarify when the sides change; see War of the League of Cambrai for an example. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Superb, thanks so much. xP --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lord's Resistance Army insurgency at FAR

I have nominated Lord's Resistance Army insurgency 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.Cirt (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Cirt. Have commented. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cool3's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, Cool3, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Cool3's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for History of the United Kingdom during World War I needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for History of the United Kingdom during World War I; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Call for American Civil War buffs

American Civil War buffs, please ping me via email. Have uncovered something else along the lines of the MILHIST project history entry where the Library of Congress updated their records because of an image restoration. The new finding isn't vetted yet, so keeping this offsite to avoid OR territory. It has something to do with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. If that's your area of interest, please contact me. Durova^Charge! 06:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Is it possable to block 203.97.220.19 all of his edits have been vandalism mainly in MILHIST ben (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not now, I'm afraid. It's an IP address (and therefore perhaps used by different people) and the last vandalism was days ago. For the quickest response, the best place to report vandalism, while it's happening, is it at WP:AIV.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've watch listed their talk page and will block them if they get further warnings, but as Roger says it's too late to implement a block now and WP:AIV is the best way to get a quick response. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments needed on structure of firearm articles

I need some assistance at the MP5 and SG 550 articles - these articles contain extremely long, rambling "design details" sections with no subheaders, and are prohibitively confusing and unapproachable for the average reader. I have been attempting to implement subsections for better organization of these pages but a single user seems to have determined that adding subsections ruins the article and makes it disorganized and he is reverting my edits.

I have been struggling to get feedback and support for article changes but not getting any responses on either side. Please look at those pages and their talk pages (discussion at the bottom). You can view sandbox versions of the articles in which I've implemented the structure I feel is appropriate at User:Some guy/MP5 and User:Some guy/SG 550. Thank you. Some guy (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As a casual reader of such articles I'd say you're definitely right to make the changes to them that you are making. There is way to much detail to wade through and not enough breaking up into easy manageable chunks. I know a little bit about guns and I find it hard work, I can't imagine how difficult the articles would be for someone with absolutely no idea about them. The infobox for MP5 is so big as to be unreadable! Isnm't there anyway to break that down a bit as well? Ranger Steve (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ranger Steve on this. I have a limited understanding of the way in which weapons work and practical experience with technical aspects from using weapons in the army, however, I also had trouble understanding the MP5 article before it was tweaked by Some guy. I believe that the edits that Some guy made to it were helpful and improved the article (I haven't looked at SG 550 yet). I think in writing weapons articles the audience has to be kept in mind. Without having anything to back this up, I'd hazard to guess that the majority of people reading Wikipedia weapons articles have no or only very limited practical knowledge of most of the weapons systems discussed. Agree also on the point about the infobox. Perhaps the solution might be a specifications table in the article itself, where all the variants are listed with their various charactistics, and keeping only limited information in the infobox on the side. Just a suggestion (and one that hasn't been fully thought through). It would probably need consensus to have this added. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback! I am unfortunately facing an editing crisis where two different users are reverting my attempts to structure many articles, with little-to-no discussion and using weak justification such as "muddying the waters" and "arbitrary". Please look at Steyr AUG, which has one of the worst design details sections, and M1 Garand which has a disasterously long history section. Your opinions at Talk:Heckler & Koch MP5 and Talk:SIG SG 550 are needed and would be greatly appreciated. Some guy (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit]  ????

What does it mean when a bot adds   after a link? ben (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• & n b s p ; is a code for non-breaking spaces; essentially, the bot is keeping a phrase togather by adding this between to words so that the computer servers will treat the phrase as one word and not break part the phrase on the basis of lines. 75.31.185.160 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Saigon: What is a belligerent?

One user is trying to quote some legal stuff to say that the US was a belligerent. Personally, I do not consider an evacuation by an army that is not doing the shooting/bombing to be combat/belligerence. Opinions please YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted its inclusion and commented on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the U.S during the Fall of Saigon was a belligerent. By then the U.S was more concentrated in evacuating the remaining soldiers and personnel out of South Vietnam than actually protect a city that is being overrun by enemy soldiers.--Coffeekid (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

He reverted again. That's 4-1 now YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR beckons! ;-) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to go there; I just blocked the account for 24 hours. He's been edit-warring for several days now and has so far refused to discuss anything except by edit-summary. That is totally inexcusable behavior, especially for a user who's been around since Sept. 2008. Hopefully this will give him the wake-up call he sorely needs. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Double Images

I've copied this discussion here because I haven't had a single response at the village pump, and seeing as it's military someone here might be able to advise. I've noticed there a 2 versions of the same image floating around. One is here and the other here. From the research I'm doing I'm fairly sure the second (ie. British caption) image is correct, and this would seem to back it up. Unfortunately the first (ie. Polish) version is linked to a few pages. Is there an appropriate forum to discuss this sort of issue, or is it a case of bringing it up on all the article's talk pages? And how do you go about getting a pic deleted?

Cheers in advance for any advice, Ranger Steve (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the photo's record on the Imperial War Museum's database is pretty conclusive. This should be discussed on the talk pages of the article's where its claimed that they're Polish troops, however. As both images are on WikiCommons you should seek the 'Polish' photo's deletion there (or possibly a redirection to the correctly captioned, and higher quality, photo if Commons does that) via the 'nominate for deletion' link on the left of the image's record there. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A reply within the hour - much quicker than the pump! Cheers Nick, I'll get onto it. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Operation Badr (1973) now open

The peer review for Operation Badr (1973) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed modification of Firearm article structure

A user has requested comment on history and geography for this section. Within 30 minutes of placing this tag, the page will be added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography . When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. This tag will automatically be removed after 30 days.

A user has requested comment on maths, science, and technology for this section. Within 30 minutes of placing this tag, the page will be added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology . When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. This tag will automatically be removed after 30 days.

I am having trouble with a couple of users reverting my attempts to restructure and organize existing firearms articles with additional subsections, as this is apparently considered "muddying the waters" (please see discussion above). Many firearm articles such as M1 Garand (history section) and Steyr AUG (design details section) have incredibly long sections (over 1000 words easily) with no subsections. This is unacceptable for readability purposes; it will be far too difficult for an average, non-firearms expert reader to navigate and understand these articles. Please look at WP:MTAA and Help:Section size policies.

Therefore I am just throwing in some ideas for subsections I feel are appropriate when the article text calls for them. Please comment on these and suggest improvements or modifications. Most of these subsections should be considered "if applicable."

The article can be structured along these lines:

1. History
   1. Development
   2. Operational use/Service use/whatever
   3. Postwar, (if applicable to a firearm that is inherently associated with a specific war, such as the M1 Garand or Thompson M1)
   4. Evolution (if there is a lot of text about how this firearm evolved or was incorporated into new firearms)
2. Design and details (I feel it is important to place more accessible elements of the article higher up, as suggested in WP:MTAA
   1. Features (the features that the user of the firearm interacts with, such as sights, magazine, fire selector, etc)
   2. Accessories
   3. Ballistics
   4. Engineering (details about the manufacture of the weapon if they do not belong in the history section)
   5. Operating mechanism (description of what happens mechanically when the gun is fired (this should be clearly marked as most readers will want to skip it)

1. Variants.
   1. Subsection for each clearly distinguisable/distinct variants (so MP5A2 and MP5A3 might not be given separate sections, but MP5SD is)
   2. Civillian variants
2. Civilian use. A general description of the use of the weapon by non-military, non-government, and legally entitled groups.
3. Cultural impact, if any. A general summary of the weapon's impact on culture, complying with the guidelines on popular culture.

I also strongly feel that organizing an article to suit its specific contents is far more important than maintaining the same organization across all firearms articles. There seems to be a lot of difference in the structure of the different featured firearms articles. Thank you for your time and input. Some guy (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Added a note about this discussion to the Weaponry TF talk page. EyeSerene^talk 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Added a note about this discussion to the Firearms talk page.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Might want to consider that you also have variants that are considered their own weapons and come up with ideas on how to deal with that (FN FAL -> British L1A1 SLR, FN MiniMi -> M249 SAW) --Narson ~ Talk • 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say these could be given separate subsections for each variant, as already more or less seen at the M249 article. Do you have any comment on the rest of the suggestions? Would you support implentation of these subsections? Some guy (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this could be a good idea for a lot of firearms that currently have quite messy and overly technical layouts. I'd prefer to see a clearer distinction between development and evolution though (purely from an editors point of view - what goes where?) I guess development could include background and the creation of the gun and evolution would cover marks (SMLE Mk III, Rifle no4 etc..). I imagine that was probably your intention anyway? Its nitpicking, but I'd also prefer attachments over accessories (which just sound toy like and plasticy to me!). Why don't you knock up a sandbox version of MP5 (which I notice really needs it) to see how it looks? On a final note, I'd say this wouldn't necessarily work for all firearms, mainly the ones with a lot of history to them (but I'm happy to be proved wrong). But at least its a good template to start an article from. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, in your 'attachments' over 'accessories' preference, where would items issued with the weapon go (like cleaning kits, cases, etc.)?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Some guy has started a dozen separate discussions on varous talk pages, article edit wars, requests for comment, etc. to try to browbeat his notions through. If there is going to be a meaningful discussion HERE, may I suggest, Some guy, that you cease the other discussions, cease edit warring, cease your disruptive behavior and martyrdom, and engage in THIS discussion only? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree to having the discussion only HERE.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point Berean, I knew there would probably be something that wouldn't fit the category (I should have thought of something as obvious as cleaning kits!). Just musing on that point... would it be worth having two sections - 1 for accessories that come with a weapon as standard (cleaning kits, bayonets as standard), and another for optional extras (needs a better name) like the M203 grenade launcher or non standard bayonets? Or is that too much detail? Might be.... Ranger Steve (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You could be right about that. One 'optional extra' that fits into the latter case for the MP5 article would be the the coveted briefcase (video). I'm surprised that this hasn't been added to the article especially since H&K made it. Not sure what to call that..an attachment? ..an accessory?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Again I think accessories is a good subsection or seperate section name that would normally cover all attachments/accessories/add-ons/etc appropriately, and if necessary we could always create an article-tailored subsection regarding a specific type of accessory/whatever. I forgot to say that as far as history vs. evolution, for evolution I was thinking about how later firearms that weren't exactly variants benefited from this design; a good example is the AK-47 article could have a short evolution section discussing the weapon's... evolution into the AKM and AK-74. Some guy (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's too much and lumping everything into accessories is the best option. Any comments on my changes at the MP5 article? Some guy (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to explain to Nukes4Tots here and his friend that personal attacks directed at the editor rather than the edits are not very persuasive or appropriate but that has not gone well. I have actually started discussions on four pages - I started out with the MP5 article and then the SG 550 article because they needed the work and I believe in approaching articles individually, but Nukes and Kaolorka have been reverting my edits due to "no consensus" so unfortunately we are forced to discuss the situation here just to add subsections. They were demanding I go to WP:GUNS, and I did, but that page gets no traffic and I realized that firearms structure isn't even covered there and moved here. Of course I agree to have the discussion here and I will not accept "blame" or any kind of absurdity for having the discussion be split up; it was a confusing situation that they forced me to escalate to project-wide consensus at the wrong project, of course I started dicussions in the wrong places. I did file RfCs to actually try to get the consensus they are demanding.

As far as sandboxing the edits, I already did that, and then due to complete lack of discussion inserted the changes myself (you can see a version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heckler_%26_Koch_MP5&oldid=299756648 ) and got general agreement with the changes before I was reverted. Obviously I feel subsections are critical.

Nukes, I'm impressed you actually participated in a discussion that wasn't directed entirely at me. I hope you can take the next step and acknowledge everyone else's opinions. Some guy (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk about narcisism, NONE of this was directed at you... it's directed at your EDITS. Until you can separate the two things, you're going to have a hard time accepting any consensus. Stop taking this personal. Show me one comment I've made that has been directed at YOU? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior is clear for others to see. Some guy (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)One point that's being missed here is that Firearms are not strictly covered by WP:MILHIST. They are also covered by WP:GUNS. Any consensus here should not subvert the ability for civilian guns or firearms used by Military, Police, and Civilian alike to also fit within the structure of the consensus. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I see any problem with that. I don't know how this structure would not apply to any specific group; as I said subsections should be considered "if applicable". Some guy (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I would imagine that both military and civilian firearms would have reasonably similar article layouts. Some sections might be broken down differently (e.g. military guns might break down the history around particular wars, whereas civilian guns wouldn't have such a reference point); but most topics are going to appear whether the firearm is military or civilian.

(From a logistical standpoint, WP:GUNS has traditionally adopted the relevant sections of WP:MILMOS for general use even if the discussion behind them happened to take place here. Is there a desire among members of WP:GUNS to maintain separate guidelines for military and civilian firearms?) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he's just trying to make the process more difficult (withdrawn, edit conflict before I could change it; apologies). Some guy (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from any more comments about other editors here. The point of this discussion is to consider article structure, and any personal differences you may have with others involved are rather off-topic; if you really wish to pursue personal grievances, there are appropriate channels, but I would suggest forgetting the whole thing and focusing on improving the articles instead. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get this in but you edit conflicted me so now it's broken up. Sorry. Anyway, There's no reason to distinguish between civilian and military firearms for structure guideline purposes; in fact this would only create needless conflict and edit wars about whether a particular firearm was considered "military" or "civilian" (or police or government or...). Many military arms including rifles and submachineguns have civilian variants. Pistols in particular will have a lot of overlap between military and civilian use. Some guy (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, ignoring for the moment the question of whether there are to be two guidelines or only one, do we want to suggest different structures depending on whether a firearm is (primarily) military or (primarily) civilian? In your original proposal, we have:

1. Operational use/Service use/whatever
2. Postwar

1 is really only relevant for firearms which have seen official service (whether with military, law enforcement, or otherwise), although it might be extended to cover any use. 2 is only relevant for firearms which have seen military use (whether as formal service weapons, or as weapons informally adopted by a military force). Effectively, we seem to have three different potential structure types:

• Military firearms used in combat (include both #1 and #2)
• Non-military service firearms, and peacetime military firearms (include #1, but not #2)
• Non-service firearms (include neither #1 nor #2)

Is this at all close to what you had in mind? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is there is no need for specific guidelines about this type of circumstance because it is most appropriate to specifically tailor the article to suit its own contents; but in a broader sense, I don't think there is a big need to distinguish between civilian and military weapons here. I didn't name those subsection proposals entirely appropriately; I'm sorry. I am trying to do a lot, making most of the suggestions myself, and I sometimes get caught in phrasing traps unintentionally. I don't want to make the section guidelines nearly that complicated. As I said before sections should be considered "if applicable" and obviously postwar doesn't apply to guns that aren't inherently associated with a specific war. Operational use/service use/whatever doesn't have a specific name because I wasn't sure what the best name was and I would appreciate it if someone could help me come up with something that doesn't connote military or non-military usage. Some guy (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been searching the project archives and found what appears to be the basis for the current structure guideline. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military_history/Weaponry task force/Archive 4#Firearms article structure guideline request. I think this might be valuable for reference. It appears to be substantially the same now as it was two and a half years ago. I notice that there were suggestions it be used as a "recommended article structure" and "not a hard one-size-fits-all rule that articles must follow". Some guy (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) If I might make a few observations: Firstly, I'd suggest the "Evolution" section be either dropped completely or moved to the end of the article. It's contentious and very debatable- I mean, did the M-16 evolve into the M-4 carbine? Did the AK-74 evolve into the AKSU-74? Is the Jungle Carbine an evolution of the Lee-Enfield No. 4? I'd also lose the "Postwar" section for military firearms, as it's not really relevant and anything in the "Postwar" section should be covered by "Civilian/Police Use" IMHO. I would also suggest avoiding an "Operating Mechanism" section unless it's either very unusual (Such as the Straight-Pull action on the Ross Rifle) or the gun in question is part of the action's namesake (eg the Martini Falling Block action used in the Martini-Henry rifle). Anything else should be covered by a wikilink to Bolt-action, Semi-automatic, Lever-action, etc; e.g. "The Winchester Model 1873 is a lever-action rifle manufactured by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company in the late 19th century... (and so on)". The idea of an "Accessories" section bothers me too, as I can just see it turning into a "List Of Aftermarket 'Tactical' Accessories for [Gun]". Obviously, things like the M203 Grenade Launcher for the M-16 rifle would be an exception to this, but again, I think that can be covered in a single sentence with a link elsewhere in the article. Ballistics, as I understand it, is more a function of ammunition than the gun itself (a .303 rifle, for example, will have different ballistic data when fired with a Mk VI cartridge than the standard Mk VIIz cartridge, which is different again from the Mk 8z cartridge). The thing to bear in mind is that we're not The Complete Guide To Everything You Could Ever Want To Know About Guns; if we start getting too technical we're going to "turn off" casual readers, which is somewhat counter to the whole "making information accessible" thing that Wiki is all about, IMHO... Commander Zulu (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As for evolution, you can have circumstances where the article discusses new firearms that were developed from the technology used in the firearm covered by the article. This would only be necessary in articles with very long history sections. How exactly is postwar not relevant? See Thompson M1 which would be associated primarily with WW2 but there are several paragraphs at the end of the history section about Korea and Vietnam, which is not civilian use. Operating mechanism needs to sectioned because it is beyond most reader's interest or comprehension; see SG 550 and MP5 for articles with overly long descriptions of the mechanical firing process which need to be subsectioned.

We can have standards about what is included in the accessories section. There is no reason to assume it will turn into a list of aftermarket acessories, and they could easily be removed. Many firearms articles (MP5, SG 550, Steyr Aug) have multiple paragraphs about accessories. Ballistics appears in the AK-47 article but I don't think it's essential. I think you may be missing the point of adding subsections, which is that articles such as the those I mentioned in the previous paragraph are clearly striving to be in "The Complete Guide to Everything You Could Ever Want to Know". The articles are already too technical. Subsections make the text far more accessible and understandable for the average reader; just read the responses of every user besides Nukes4Tots and Koalorka at this page and the talk pages at MP5 and SG 550. Some guy (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "evolution" sections is that they're basically an open invitation to Original Research. Pretty much every bolt-action rifle in existence except the Lee-Enfield and the Mosin-Nagant is based on the Mauser action, but I'd hardly say it's reasonable to state the the Mauser Gew. 98 "evolved" into the Weatherby Mk V, for example. My earlier comments on "Postwar" use stand; just have the article divided into "Military" and "Civilian/Police" use. World War II was a long time ago and I think it's beginning to lose its usefulness as a "Historical Measuring Stick". I mean, so what if the M1A1 Thompson was still being used after WWII? Why not just have in the Military Use section "The M1A1 Thompson remained in service with the US Military until the end of the Vietnam War."

Also, I think you're overlooking another big issue: We're dicking about here arguing over the layout of the firearm articles when we should be trying to get them up to FA or A class standard. There are very, very few FA- and A- class firearm articles and I for one would rather see more effort made into upgrading some of the more important ones we have than worrying about minutiae such as whether the Tommy Gun article should have a "Postwar Use" section in. Commander Zulu (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am not dicking about anything. I think the article structure needs to be improved in order to have good articles. I hope you are not suggesting we delete most of the Thompson's history section and replace it with that vague sentence. I don't think "WW2 was a long time ago" is acceptable to trivialize its importance; it was a World War. If you don't want to debate specific articles here, would you concede that article structure should be tailored on a case-by-case basis? I don't think there should ever be a structure guideline that every article has to adhere to exactly. Some guy (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Considering that the current structure guidelines section already says "The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss" I think it is most appropriate to bypass this process that will make the structure guidelines too complicated, and just add a little note saying that subsections are acceptable and may be tailored to suit specific article contents. I think we can allow editors to be rational and add subsections as they deem appropriate and these can be honed in each article through the evolution of the article, same as any other element of any article on Wikipedia. However I am willing to continue this discussion if that is desired. Some guy (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You're missing my point. I've been around the WP:MILHIST project for several years and have both an FA and a number of A-class articles (all firearm related) under my belt. I'm not saying we should dismiss a World War as unimportant. The point I'm making is that we shouldn't pick an arbitrary war (why not World War I? Vietnam? The Falklands War?) and then declare anything after that to be "Post-War" and worthy of its own section in the article. Or, I could just agree with Koalorka and Nukes4Tots and say there's nothing wrong with the current arrangement and I don't think it needs to be changed at all. But I don't think you want to hear that, somehow. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he hasn't missed the point...he has just made it. The fundamental crux of why all of this has been taking place is surmised in Some guy's statement which is worth repeating.."I think it is most appropriate to bypass this process that will make the structure guidelines too complicated, and just add a little note saying that subsections are acceptable and may be tailored to suit specific article contents. I think we can allow editors to be rational and add subsections as they deem appropriate and these can be honed in each article through the evolution of the article, same as any other element of any article on Wikipedia."

This freedom to all Wikipedians is the central issue. Projects can set guidelines but do not have authority or dominion over the articles. There has been an effort on the part of a couple of editors to enforce the rigidity of article conformance issues based on a loose quasi-consensus of a WP project group; so rigid that it is stifling to creative liberty. In practical use, it has amounted to what appears to be article ownership, being accounted for with the paraphrased response "what we say over in this project is what goes!". This notion is incorrect and needs to be pointed out. The Wiki community trumps that; the larger community mandates to the smaller group, not the other way around. Hopefully this will help prevent problems in the future.

I agree with Someguy's suggestion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if all we want is a statement that the recommended structure is not binding, then that's already present—it's quite explicitly stated in the passage Some guy quoted above.

However, I think that there's still value to holding a discussion along these lines, even if we decide not to write an amended structure into the style guide. Our main objective, after all, is not to produce a dogmatic rule that people can run around with and use as a club in debates on particular articles; rather, we want to see if we can't come up with some sort of "best practice" approach to organizing such articles. The sharing of ideas that's taking place has value in and of itself, in other words.

Aside from that, there are some valuable points being made that don't relate directly to the question of subsections, but rather point to notes we may want to make about the content of the existing, top-level sections (e.g. Commander Zulu's comments about excessive lists of accessories). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The existing guideline doesn't specifically mention subsections so we would need to add the little "subsections are acceptable and should be tailored to the specific article" or however we would phrase that. Considering "accessories" is already in the guidelines and there hasn't been any trouble, I strongly think we should leave it in. Many of the firearms articles I've already cited have two or three paragraphs about scopes, laser sights, rangefinders, grenade launches, bayonets, etc. I don't think there is any reason to assume anyone would add arbitrary lists of every accessory you can buy, and again if this became a problem it could be addressed on the article's talk page or the text just outright removed as part of the normal editing process. Some guy (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for First Battle of Charleston Harbor now open

The peer review for First Battle of Charleston Harbor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Kaiser class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Kaiser class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:USS Goldsborough (DDG-20)

Fine, here's you're clear up, since you couldn't simply click the link in the banner to take you to the correct section called "Other media". After all, it's the only one with my signature, isn't it? Crash Underride 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful attitude to take, Underride. I've already commented as believing it isn't needed for the article. Skinny87 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Skinny87, I didn't put it there for you. It's for User:Nick-D. See my talk page as to why. Besides, you're one person out of two projects I brought it up with. Crash Underride 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial War Museum Images

Could someone tell me exactly how to upload an image with this tag? I've gotta confess I can't see how to do it, despite some serious searching and a request at Media Copyright Questions, and I don't wanna get it deleted. All I see on the upload screen is US Gov tags and nothing else that lets me attach this. See here for an idea of what I wanna achieve. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I got confused the first time. Select the 'Other' option at the Upload screen, add the PDBritishGov tag in the 'Permissions' section and add the relevent photographer etc info in the other fields, then upload it. Skinny87 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Thank-you Skinny Ranger Steve (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are subsections in firearms articles okay?

I have been advised to create a new section for this and keep it as short and sweet as possible. Is it okay to put subsections in firearms articles? For example breaking up large history or design sections with subsections. Is consensus needed for this? Some guy (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Adding subsections is a routine editorial decision—lengthy sections should be subdivided if doing so makes the article more readable—and there's no reason why this would apply to articles on firearms any less than it does to articles on any other topic. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I really have to object on principle here. Isn't there already a topic above? Why are you starting the same topic again on the same talk page? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, [2] someone suggested it. Please stop criticising me and focus on the relevant discussion. Some guy (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, I have no dog in this particular fight, but you can't just go and make sweeping changes to article layouts without first announcing your intention to do so on the talk page (and, if it's an Important Article, here as well) and then leaving it there for a week or two to give people a chance to comment or make suggestions. Especially when you're not a "recognised", regular WP:MILHIST editor, and even for the "regulars", it's still considered a good idea to let everyone know what you're planning to do, to avoid revert wars and general unpleasantness. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say I can't do that? I have never in my years of editing been faced with a battle over inserting subsections. I have never before this situation heard the suggestion that project-wide consensus is necessary to add a few subsections to anything. I can't even remember any time I've ever added a subsection and had it reverted; there are basic things you are allowed to do on Wikipedia, as Kirill said it's routine and there's no reason it should apply differently here. Nobody owns the articles. I am not going to continue this discussion here as we have already had that discussion as far as it would go, which is nowhere, so we are currently establishing a new consensus, and we hope you will participate in the process. Some guy (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think we've just about exhausted the possibilities of this particular approach. How about everyone agrees to forgive and forget any unpleasantries that have already occurred, and all of us focus on the substantive discussion above? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Loads of PD-1923 Civil War images

Turns out there are lots of high quality Civil War images that are definitely published before 1923 at Archives.org, definite {{PD-US}}.

• The Photographic History of the Civil War in Ten Volumes
  • Vol. 1
  • Vol. 2
  • Vol. 3
  • Vol. 4
  • Vol. 5
  • Vol. 6
  • Vol. 7
  • Vol. 8
  • Vol. 9
  • Vol. 10 (includes index for series)

• The Civil War Through the Camera

• American Caricatures Pertaining to the Civil War

• Abraham Lincoln and the London Punch (caricatures from the other side of the Atlantic)

Enjoy! Jappalang (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 now open

The peer review for Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker class destroyer turbines

Hello

I am translating some GA from en to pl.wiki and have problem with turbine of Tucker class destroyers. When i was translating USS Porter (DD-59) i was asked USER:Bellhalla about turbines in that class: in infobox it was information that he has only 2 turbines, and in text it was information that he has 2 turbines for full speed and 1 for cruise speed (something like COSOS :) ). I was ask Bellhalla, and he change information about that turbine - but only in Porter. I am now translating Conyngham and i want also take others of this series of 7 GA.

I was ask another time Bellhalla, but it was 1,5 week ago and he don`t write anything (he do lots of edits and even aserw to somebody else in his discussion so he ignored me/don`t see me). So - anyone knows that rest of this destroyers has 2 or 3 turbines ? Because the same error is in so many GA i think is problem.

PMG (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921, DD57-57 and 61-62 had a single cruising turbine clutched to one shaft, together with 2-shaft Curtiss turbines with four Yarrow boilers as main engines. DD-60 had a geared turbine installation, presumably without the cruising engine.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General/Admiral Stars rank articles

I need some help, I've got a persistent editor who does not understand that there needs to be discussion before making massive changes to these articles. He claims that he does not need consensus since the articles are so blatantly wrong and US-centric. It appears as though this editor is composing his own article and is redirecting established articles into his new one without preserving the content of the existing articles or even discussing it with the editors of the established articles. I'm getting to the point where 3RR and or blocking will be necessary, and since I'm involved, there is a problem. See this: User_talk:Mesoso2#General.27s_Stars and this: Special:Contributions/Mesoso2. Generals' Stars is the new article, and he is trying to redirect 5 star rank, 4 star rank, 3 star rank, 2 star rank, 1 star rank, and other articles. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have an article that covered the whole topic of stars for rank before thinking about having several individual articles. His target article though is very badly named. As you pointed out on his talk page turning an article into a redirect is implicitly not allowed - which may be part of the problem, that and the user being bold. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the rank articles were not generated as one big list so that we could explicitly expand upon the roles of the officers in there respective countries - obviously, a general and an admrial will do more or less the same thing regardless of which country they are in, but I felt and continue to feel that the individual articles allow us to go in to more detail for the ranks as they pertain to there countries of origin. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Apparently the user in question create his or her current account after being unable to access the original account, Mesoso (talk · contribs). According to the content of the talk page messages there this users seems to have made a few iffy edits in the past, but what got my attention was an edit concerning possible sockpuppeting. I am not saying that our current users is abusing accounts, but perhaps we need a more thorough investigation here of the edit activity of both to determine if anything odd is going on. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with articles on individual ranks and on rank detail for individual nations/services. The 5 star rank article at the moment is more of a half-hearted attempt at a list of 5 star ranks with pictures listing only UK, Australia, US and India.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He is not restricting his opinions to Generals. Since 21 June 2009:

These have subsequently been reverted by other editors:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_enlisted&diff=prev&oldid=297703685
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_officers&diff=prev&oldid=297703830
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO&diff=297704167&oldid=286097478
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NATO_ranks&diff=next&oldid=19930821
• etc (This is not a very exciting passtime ... )

These probably should be reverted:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major&diff=prev&oldid=298593776
• etc

These should be examined by somebody with knowledge of the subject matter:

• British Armed Forces
• Israeli Defense Forces / Israel Defense Forces (And they should be merged)
• Gendarmerie, Gendarmery (Serbia), National Gendarmerie, Argentine National Gendarmerie, etc
• Public Force, Police, Military, Infantry
• etc

Pdfpdf (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

His contribution to British Armed Forces was adding a newline break. His work on infantry is fine. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR for A. E. J. Collins

I have nominated A. E. J. Collins 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.Cirt (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General, Admiral, etc.

I just checked out General and Admiral. It really struck me that both articles were about the formal rank, not about the job of being a general or admiral -- which I, at least, would find a much more interesting topic.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)