Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Proposals to introduce C-Class and FL-Class assessment
San Diego Air & Space Museum images
I recently met with staff from the Balboa Park Online Collaborative, an organization dedicated to improving public access to the content of the park's museums. One of these museums, the San Diego Air & Space Museum, has digitized a portion of its collections over the last few years. So far, they have uploaded over 100,000 images on their Flickr account. The staff have indicated that they will be able to assist in getting the licenses changed for free license use if we can determine which images could be used. With such a large selection of images available on a variety of airplanes, aviators, ships, military bases, and other topics, I'm inviting members of this project to request images that could be used to improve various articles under this project's scope. For any image requests, please list the url of the image at the image request page so we can begin the process of uploading the images to Commons. If there are any questions, please leave them on the project's talk page. Thank you! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Where did the museum get those photos? I'm pretty sure that some of the ones depicting the Royal Australian Air Force and marked as having 'No known copyright restrictions' are Australian Government publicity photos, and hence covered by copyright (for instance [1], [2] and [3] - plus most of the other colour photos depicting the modern RAAF). The museum might need to get its house in order before we can help them, particularly if there are 100,000 photos to sort through. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the images may still be copyrighted while others may be already available in the public domain. That's why I'd like to compile a list that we can go with and individual cases can be researched. Many of the images came from private donors who waived the rights upon donating to the museum. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Aside from the issue above, there are some decent battleship pictures (whoo!) I did find an error, though – Texas didn't have triple gun turrets, unlike what this photo says. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- And this photo is either BB-32 between 1927 and 1930, or BB-33 after 1926. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- And if the museum wanted to confirm the source and release a higher-resolution image, I'd put this image in the lead at USS Yorktown (CV-5). Same with this image for USS Lexington (CV-2). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please list these images along with the requested size parameters at Wikipedia:GLAM/BP/Image requests so I can ask about those particular images. We'll definitely have to point out the incorrect caption for the Texas image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- And if the museum wanted to confirm the source and release a higher-resolution image, I'd put this image in the lead at USS Yorktown (CV-5). Same with this image for USS Lexington (CV-2). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- And this photo is either BB-32 between 1927 and 1930, or BB-33 after 1926. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The Museum is an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institute; I am sure they only want to do what is right, and any assistance we can provide them I think will be paid back to our community in due time, if not more so. Their collection, locally, is rather extensive; given the rich aeronatical history the San Diego region has with aviation, dating back to Montgomery, I am sure that their collection would assist our efforts.
Now if only we can get a hold of someone to assist us from the Flying Leatherneck Aviation Museum in Miramar, that could also be very helpful. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
B to GA for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)
I have recently expanded the article sufficient enough to rate it as a class B. Prior to nominating the article for GA, other then the expansion of the unit's soldiers who wanted to remain being transfered to 2nd Battalion --> PCAUS --> Philippine Army --> disband, the regiment returning stateside, and inactivation, what else should I be doing to get it ready for GA? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Lead could be longer. Should not matter for a review, but the references do not have to have the quoted text. That's mainly for helping with disputes, I believe. Are there any photos of the unit available for use? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, interesting article. Do we know whether the regiment took any casualties during its operations? Is there any more details that could be provided about these operations as currently the article doesn't really provide much detail about the regiment's combat record. Also, when the battalion became a regiment, how many battalions did it then consist of? I think it would have been three, but I'm only guessing - it would probably be a good idea to include this, if you can find a reliable source that states this. Finally, if you can find someone who is keen, I would suggest having someone do a quick copy edit. Good work so far and good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding casualties, there is mention of casualties during operations on the island of Samar, (I think in the DAV11 refererence) but not anywhere else, specifically. There is mention, in one of the references, already used of casualties to the 1st Philippine Division, which maybe a type, however presuming that it is not, then those are the only casualties that are mentioned, that I have found so far.
- Regarding size of the battalions, prior to the enlargement to regiment, or creation of the 2nd Regiment, I have not found out how many battalions it had increased to prior to its enlargement. There is a year book from 1943 for the unit that is linked on the CMH website that is listed as an external link, but that is after the enlargement. (I was actually jumping for joy that they put up what they have up, before it was like searching in a dimly lit room for mentions of the regiment)
- How might the article into be expanded? Include areas where it deployed? A sentance about legacy?
- Perhaps I should nominate the article to be reviewed prior to nominating it for GA, and after completing the history section as stated above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have completed the history section. Should I send the article for peer review prior to sending it up for GA nomination? This will be my first time doing this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, started a peer review on this, and nominated it for GA status. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have completed the history section. Should I send the article for peer review prior to sending it up for GA nomination? This will be my first time doing this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, interesting article. Do we know whether the regiment took any casualties during its operations? Is there any more details that could be provided about these operations as currently the article doesn't really provide much detail about the regiment's combat record. Also, when the battalion became a regiment, how many battalions did it then consist of? I think it would have been three, but I'm only guessing - it would probably be a good idea to include this, if you can find a reliable source that states this. Finally, if you can find someone who is keen, I would suggest having someone do a quick copy edit. Good work so far and good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Help with "spotchecks"
FAC is a little constipated at the moment because only one delegate (Sandy) has been active for a while, and her time is really tight, and will be for a few more weeks. The reviewers have done an outstanding job, making things easy for her, and we expect a lot of promotions soon ... except that we really need for someone to do "spotchecks", meaning roughly checking a few random parts of the text to see if they're representing the sources accurately, without close paraphrasing. Fifelfoo is great at this stuff, and a few other reviewers will tackle this at A-class, but FACs (including Milhist FACs) are going without. If anyone's interested, reply on my talk page, please. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- From reviewer comments, there's a real opportunity here. This really isn't hard to learn, it's just slightly tedious, and some of the active reviewers have stopped doing it. As you guys know, there's a certain "price" at FAC ... as a project, we have to do at least some minimal reviewing, or else people stop reviewing our stuff. We haven't been holding up our end lately, but this is IMO a great opportunity to get a lot of mileage from a little work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help out with this once university finishes up in a about a month. Are there any instructions/guidance on this task? Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Online sources are the easiest to plagiarise / paraphrase. Find the most dubious assertion in the article, or the dodgiest source; and check the cited portion of the text against the wikipedia claim, looking for close paraphrasing at the time. Then check the most esteemable. Then check one random one. If "paraphrasing" amounts to addition or removal of adjectives; it is bad. If the citation doesn't support the assertion; it is bad. If there's direct plagiarism, it is really bad. You can also note jarring changes to style occurring in the body text as a problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help out with this once university finishes up in a about a month. Are there any instructions/guidance on this task? Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Class review for James B. McCreary now open
The A-Class review for James B. McCreary is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't the MilHist connection a little tenuous there? He served briefly in the Confederate Army but isn't notable for his military service and only a fairly small aprt of the article is related to his military service. It's not a criticism, and I've seen much less obvious subjects tagged as within our scope, but where do we draw the line? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd say that the presence of a couple paragraphs of military history content in the article is sufficient to put McCreary's article within our scope (insofar as we, as a project, have an interest in maintaining a substantive portion of the article); but, to be fair, I tend to be somewhat liberal about such things. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I feel the same way as Kirill. If we're not completely overloaded, and someone would like to nominate a tangentially-related article here, I normally wouldn't have a problem with it. It exposes our A-class process to more varied people, too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd say that the presence of a couple paragraphs of military history content in the article is sufficient to put McCreary's article within our scope (insofar as we, as a project, have an interest in maintaining a substantive portion of the article); but, to be fair, I tend to be somewhat liberal about such things. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Article idea
Should we,as a wikiproject, create an article List of military veteran actors and entertainers? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not - it would be a list of people grouped by a factor in their lives which wasn't (in most cases) relevant to the reason for their notability. Many of the actors and entertainers who would be included in such a list would be people from countries/periods in which there was universal conscription and hence there was nothing unusual for young men to have served in the military early in their lives before going onto other things. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Nick-D.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps if we limit the list to actors only, there is significant notability to such a list, IMHO, and a google search brings 18 million hits; granted this is unsorted, but is significant none the less. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- And "military veteran actors" gives five hits mainly nonsense. Also remember that military veteran is normally an American term and "veteran actors" in other parts of the world would just indicate actors who have been around a bit so searches are probably missleading. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's also going to skew heavily in favor of eras of major wars, like WW2, & in favor of nations (like the U.S. under G.I. Bill) providing vets the means to take up acting. (That's quite aside the pure historical skew toward 20th Century we're bound to get, since I don't expect too many 15h & 16h Century actors to make the list, :/ & even fewer 3d or 4h Century BC ones. 8o ) In short, it invites complaints & problems... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- An article about actors and entertainers who became notable because of or as part of their military service (such as Spike Milligan) or who had notable military service after achieving fame (such as Elvis Presley and Clark Gable) would be of interest, but it would be difficult to scope and keep focused. The basic issue is that in many societies/historical periods its not at all unusual for entertainers to have spent time in the military, as this was the norm for young men. I imagine that almost all modern Israeli, Singaporean and South Korean (to name just three countries) male actors and entertainers have spent time in the military due to the mass-conscription in these countries, and many will still be on the rolls as (compulsory) reservists. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree on the first point. (I had a vague notion of something like it, but you've articulated it much better. :) ) The second is what I was thinking of, also, somewhat. ;p It might be possible to include historical figures with a few mentions, explain the information doesn't exist for more than a handful of passing refs until whenever, & concentrate on 18h-20hC examples. The overview should IMO also address the fact many ancient societies demanded military service as a commonplace, so ancient Greek actors (frex) would be vets almost by default. (Spartans, certainly, tho AFAIK there weren't a lot of famous Spartan actors. ;p ) Mention of Israel makes me think, how many women would this apply to? I'd be particularly interested in learning about that. (Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea. :/ ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can section of the list based on era, and based on conscripted or voluntary service?
- Perhaps we can section it off also based on those who became notable Because of the service, and those who were already notable and decided to serve even though the could have not served. This would contrast say BG James Stewart and MAJ Audie Murphy. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- This possible list should not limit itself to the most recent centuries, per WP:RECENT; however, as expressed by others, it will be difficult to find those who have voluntarily have served and became notable actors/actresses and/or entertainers. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree on the first point. (I had a vague notion of something like it, but you've articulated it much better. :) ) The second is what I was thinking of, also, somewhat. ;p It might be possible to include historical figures with a few mentions, explain the information doesn't exist for more than a handful of passing refs until whenever, & concentrate on 18h-20hC examples. The overview should IMO also address the fact many ancient societies demanded military service as a commonplace, so ancient Greek actors (frex) would be vets almost by default. (Spartans, certainly, tho AFAIK there weren't a lot of famous Spartan actors. ;p ) Mention of Israel makes me think, how many women would this apply to? I'd be particularly interested in learning about that. (Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea. :/ ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- An article about actors and entertainers who became notable because of or as part of their military service (such as Spike Milligan) or who had notable military service after achieving fame (such as Elvis Presley and Clark Gable) would be of interest, but it would be difficult to scope and keep focused. The basic issue is that in many societies/historical periods its not at all unusual for entertainers to have spent time in the military, as this was the norm for young men. I imagine that almost all modern Israeli, Singaporean and South Korean (to name just three countries) male actors and entertainers have spent time in the military due to the mass-conscription in these countries, and many will still be on the rolls as (compulsory) reservists. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's also going to skew heavily in favor of eras of major wars, like WW2, & in favor of nations (like the U.S. under G.I. Bill) providing vets the means to take up acting. (That's quite aside the pure historical skew toward 20th Century we're bound to get, since I don't expect too many 15h & 16h Century actors to make the list, :/ & even fewer 3d or 4h Century BC ones. 8o ) In short, it invites complaints & problems... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- And "military veteran actors" gives five hits mainly nonsense. Also remember that military veteran is normally an American term and "veteran actors" in other parts of the world would just indicate actors who have been around a bit so searches are probably missleading. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps if we limit the list to actors only, there is significant notability to such a list, IMHO, and a google search brings 18 million hits; granted this is unsorted, but is significant none the less. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Nick-D.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Primary source clarification needed
There is a polite and inhibited discussion raging on at Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive about the usage of primary sources. Especially can STAVKA orders be used as a source to state what Soviet forces were ordered to do? All help will be appreciated. --Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please! --Whiskey (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've asked a couple of clarifying questions on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
German naval military ranks
There seems to be a lot of confusion about German naval military ranks and how they are to be translated. Already at A-class and then again at FA-class review a debate about the correct translation for German naval military ranks popped up. Today the Ernst Lindemann article is featured on the main page of Wikipedia. The most frequent edits or changes to the article are again centred on the correct translation of the German ranks, predominantly Kapitän zur See, which some like to translate as Captain while others prefer Captain at Sea (what the link of Kapitän zur See points to). This issue also recently popped up with the Wolfgang Lüth article. The article Rank insignia of the German armed forces is also of no help here. What are the guiding principles here? Does a literal translation predominate an equivalent English/American rank, or, is finding a semantically equivalent rank a better choice? I am kind of lost here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since this is the english Wiki, I'd tend to prefer using the equivalent rank (captain), but YMMV as always.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would say it boils down to one question: is Captain at Sea a substantially different rank to Captain (naval)? Does the German Navy use both as separate ranks, in the way the Royal Navy has captain and commodore (rank) ? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Based on this I would say not. I've got text sources that back up this conversion as well, although Feldgrau is a pretty reputable site.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe this mapping here is a good guideline too? See Ranks and insignia of officers of NATO Navies and Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Enlisted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Since I've never seen CzS used except for a naval officer, using the "correct" translation seems pretty silly to me. German isn't English; that German specifies when English doesn't is no reason not to use the English equivalent in this case. (It appears the Germans distinguish between rank & usage {that is, the senior officer of a given ship, ref by his crew, whatever his actual rank}, where many other navies don't.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- So it#'s what Wikipedia would call "disambiguation"? They use the "-at sea" to distinguish from the considerably less senior captain (land)? If that's the case, then it's not materially different from the rank used in English-speaking navies and we should just translate it as "captain". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- If that were the case than the rank would be Oberst zur See and not Kaptain zur See. A captain (US rank) is a Hauptmann. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's only for a captain in the army, air force, or Marine Corps. It's perhaps best to think of these ranks using the O-# formula (which is how the conversion tables were started, if memory serves). A captain (non-naval) is an O-4, while a captain (navy) is an O-6 - the same as a colonel. It can get more confusing, but for the purposes of this I'll just stick to the straight rank conversion. Usually the rank relates to the size of the ship or formation the individual commands (or the level of staff responsibility he or she holds).Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Non-German-speakers will enjoy the article more if they get the sense that they are understanding the article without having to know any German, and German-speakers will enjoy the article more if they've got enough information to tell whether, for instance, Kapitän zur See or some other rank was meant (which they won't get if we just say "Captain" or "Commander"). Some writers approach the problem of making both groups happy by trying to have it both ways, writing "Captain at Sea" so that German-speakers will instantly know what was meant, hoping that English speakers won't be bothered too much that that doesn't mean anything in English. On Wikipedia, I prefer something like "Kapitän zur See (literally, Captain at Sea)". There are a lot of writing "tricks" that just don't work well on Wikipedia, because they aren't precisely correct and they attract reversions and arguments. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's actually an excellent suggestion. Combined with a link to the article (even if it is in a rather dilapidated state), that should give enough context for the expert without overwhelming the more casual reader. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- "So it's what Wikipedia would call 'disambiguation'?" Broadly speaking, IMO that's what it is, but also a linguistic peculiarity of German, since it also uses distinct terms. (It makes me think of the Heer General of Artillery & General of Armor.) I have a suspicion it arose the same way as in English usage, where Captain was an equivalent army & navy rank, then army structure changed & army captains got outranked. On WP, I would use "KzS (Captain, literally 'Captain at Sea'" if you want the flavor, or just Captain if you just want the equivalent. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with the use of the abbreviation for the German rank. And as an aside, I don't think the land and naval versions of captain ever lined up (unless you mean in terms of "the man who commands his own combat unit"). But no matter.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- "I don't think the land and naval versions of captain ever lined up (unless you mean in terms of 'the man who commands his own combat unit')" Actually, that's what captain originally meant, from capo head. Go way back... IIRC, 14h or 15h Century. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I get your point, but since then the terms haven't lined up. And to make it more confusing, the captain of a ship is entitled to be addressed as "captain" regardless of his or her rank. But I digress. And still think using the German abbreviation in these cases is just fine. Makes the distinction clear without confusing people needlessly.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't object to the abbreviation, but I also don't really see the need; you don't need it the first time because it's not oppressive to write everything out the first time, and you wouldn't normally need it the second and third time because you can just call him Lindemann. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I get your point, but since then the terms haven't lined up. And to make it more confusing, the captain of a ship is entitled to be addressed as "captain" regardless of his or her rank. But I digress. And still think using the German abbreviation in these cases is just fine. Makes the distinction clear without confusing people needlessly.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- "I don't think the land and naval versions of captain ever lined up (unless you mean in terms of 'the man who commands his own combat unit')" Actually, that's what captain originally meant, from capo head. Go way back... IIRC, 14h or 15h Century. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with the use of the abbreviation for the German rank. And as an aside, I don't think the land and naval versions of captain ever lined up (unless you mean in terms of "the man who commands his own combat unit"). But no matter.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- "So it's what Wikipedia would call 'disambiguation'?" Broadly speaking, IMO that's what it is, but also a linguistic peculiarity of German, since it also uses distinct terms. (It makes me think of the Heer General of Artillery & General of Armor.) I have a suspicion it arose the same way as in English usage, where Captain was an equivalent army & navy rank, then army structure changed & army captains got outranked. On WP, I would use "KzS (Captain, literally 'Captain at Sea'" if you want the flavor, or just Captain if you just want the equivalent. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's actually an excellent suggestion. Combined with a link to the article (even if it is in a rather dilapidated state), that should give enough context for the expert without overwhelming the more casual reader. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Non-German-speakers will enjoy the article more if they get the sense that they are understanding the article without having to know any German, and German-speakers will enjoy the article more if they've got enough information to tell whether, for instance, Kapitän zur See or some other rank was meant (which they won't get if we just say "Captain" or "Commander"). Some writers approach the problem of making both groups happy by trying to have it both ways, writing "Captain at Sea" so that German-speakers will instantly know what was meant, hoping that English speakers won't be bothered too much that that doesn't mean anything in English. On Wikipedia, I prefer something like "Kapitän zur See (literally, Captain at Sea)". There are a lot of writing "tricks" that just don't work well on Wikipedia, because they aren't precisely correct and they attract reversions and arguments. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's only for a captain in the army, air force, or Marine Corps. It's perhaps best to think of these ranks using the O-# formula (which is how the conversion tables were started, if memory serves). A captain (non-naval) is an O-4, while a captain (navy) is an O-6 - the same as a colonel. It can get more confusing, but for the purposes of this I'll just stick to the straight rank conversion. Usually the rank relates to the size of the ship or formation the individual commands (or the level of staff responsibility he or she holds).Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- If that were the case than the rank would be Oberst zur See and not Kaptain zur See. A captain (US rank) is a Hauptmann. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- So it#'s what Wikipedia would call "disambiguation"? They use the "-at sea" to distinguish from the considerably less senior captain (land)? If that's the case, then it's not materially different from the rank used in English-speaking navies and we should just translate it as "captain". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Since I've never seen CzS used except for a naval officer, using the "correct" translation seems pretty silly to me. German isn't English; that German specifies when English doesn't is no reason not to use the English equivalent in this case. (It appears the Germans distinguish between rank & usage {that is, the senior officer of a given ship, ref by his crew, whatever his actual rank}, where many other navies don't.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe this mapping here is a good guideline too? See Ranks and insignia of officers of NATO Navies and Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Enlisted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Based on this I would say not. I've got text sources that back up this conversion as well, although Feldgrau is a pretty reputable site.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would say it boils down to one question: is Captain at Sea a substantially different rank to Captain (naval)? Does the German Navy use both as separate ranks, in the way the Royal Navy has captain and commodore (rank) ? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to put your project template on this new article about a Frenchman who was executed as a WWI spy for the Germans, but would rather someone else put the template on who is more familiar with its syntax! Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. I added the task forces that jumped out at me, but there might be more (full list at Template:WPMILHIST if you want to look through). If you'd like it assessing against the B-class criteria, head over to WP:MHA (I don't know much about B-class). Interesting article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Wow that was really fast! Invertzoo (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Watchmen, and such...
I just joined the project, and already I am wondering why some of the films have been covered by this project. Not that I don't think we should be terribly dogmatic in our focus, but if the project is aimed at historically based war films, Children of men (set in 2027) is perhaps not the best. Nor would Watchmen be a good fit (though an excellent movie, it is based on a graphic novel, not reality...) Are we going to stick categorically to films based on real wars, or should we perhaps start by redefining the projects aims and looking at films that, say, deal with battle or the repercussions of war? I'm just trying to get a pulse on the project, and I don't mean to step on any toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fesmitty77 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- One thing to keep in mind is that we have never limited our scope to "historical" war films per se, but rather to films for which some discussion of military history (whether in the form of actual events depicted in the film, or as an influence on the combat shown) is relevant:
Whether a particular film falls within those lines is, of course, a legitimate topic of debate.We generally cover only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable. A distinction is made between fictionalized depictions of historical warfare and purely invented depictions of fictional warfare; topics sufficiently divorced from actual history that a discussion of actual military history would no longer be relevant to them—such as futuristic warfare in Star Wars or fantasy battles in Lord of the Rings—are not considered to be within the project's scope.
- In practical terms, however, we are slightly limited in that films tagged as "war films" by the Film WikiProject are automatically entered into our assessment categories and flagged in various lists of our articles, regardless of whether they have actually been tagged by our project directly. This might lead to occasional inconsistencies where the scope of "war films" as defined by one project is not precisely identical to that defined by the other. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Class review for Tim Cross now open
The A-Class review for Tim Cross is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Image check for FAC
Hi, there's been an image query at the FAC for William Brill -- I think it's a non-issue/no-brainer but Sandy'd like another opinion and as she admits dedicated image reviewers are few and far between, I figured I may as well ask here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- FAC would be more pleasant if we could get some dedicated image reviewers for history-related FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well I've found myself answering two image questions in as many days. When I've got more time, I might do some image reviewing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I could also be enticed into image reviewing, something I am reasonably knowledgeable about. It's more the hassle of working out which FACs need image reviews: for example, if someone left me a note on my talk page, I'd respond to virtually all requests. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 14:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are two jobs available: going through all FAC images pointing to potential image problems, and looking at a FAC where someone has done that already and offering advice and potential solutions. Volunteers for either or both are welcome. Sometimes asking a particular person, and particularly, a particular person in the same wikiproject as the nom, is seen as canvassing (sometimes it isn't), so we should probably have some kind of board for posting potential FAC image problems. I'll ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's really canvassing, since you're looking for particular expertise rather than a jelylfish. It's not much different to asking for a copy-edit. I'll join Jarry in offering my services when they're needed (at any FAC, not just MilHist), but I don't have time to get round all the images in all the FACs. essentially what I just said on Sandy's FAC talk page, but I saw that first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are two jobs available: going through all FAC images pointing to potential image problems, and looking at a FAC where someone has done that already and offering advice and potential solutions. Volunteers for either or both are welcome. Sometimes asking a particular person, and particularly, a particular person in the same wikiproject as the nom, is seen as canvassing (sometimes it isn't), so we should probably have some kind of board for posting potential FAC image problems. I'll ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I could also be enticed into image reviewing, something I am reasonably knowledgeable about. It's more the hassle of working out which FACs need image reviews: for example, if someone left me a note on my talk page, I'd respond to virtually all requests. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 14:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well I've found myself answering two image questions in as many days. When I've got more time, I might do some image reviewing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to object to comments like "no-brainer" ... I think people are not getting that there's no shame if the person doing the quickie image review gets a "false positive" (saying there's a problem when there isn't one). Recent comments at FAC have been pretty harsh towards the quickie image reviewers IMO. We don't need to remind the non-experts that they don't know everything, they know that. Their job is to identify everything that even might be an issue, to reduce the work load for the image experts. So far, Jappalang might be the only guy that everyone seems to trust on a variety of questions, but FAC people are very open to extending that reputation to anyone who wants to jump in and do a lot of these, especially if Jappalang is called in to check their work on the hard questions. Sandy would prefer that we usually wait til other questions have been answered before we pull in Jappalang, so we don't wear him out on articles that won't be promoted anyway. (Btw, Nikki has been getting a lot of the quickie image reviews, and it would be great for Milhist and everyone else too if we could free up some of her time.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a list somewhere of FACs that need image reviews? I hate loading the whole page because it's so huge it risks crashing my browser (and because looking through FACs that already have image reviews is not productive). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll go through now and check, and list the results at WT:FAC ... which has been done off and on for a while, but isn't being done these days. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and good lord don't pull up the whole FAC page, pull up the FAC list, WP:FACL, which lists the current FACs in order. Also, I'm going to ask for help creating a new Milhist template that has a separate listing for non-Milhist articles that are currently at peer review/history (PRH), or are currently at FAC after going through PRH ... that will be more useful (for me) than FACL. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now that's much more usable! And it doesn't crash my browser! I can just use popups from there. Thanks for the link! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll go through now and check, and list the results at WT:FAC ... which has been done off and on for a while, but isn't being done these days. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Format for lists of battles
Looking through our various "Lists of battles of the <...> War"-type articles, it seems as though we have nothing resembling a standard format for them. Some of the current ones are simply bulleted lists; others are tables, but with no real consistency on either layout or contents.
I'm planning to start working on List of battles of the Italian Wars, and I'd appreciate hearing people's thoughts about the most suitable table format for such a list. My initial inclination would be to go with something along these lines:
| Battle | Location | Belligerents | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commanders | ||||
| Battle of Ravenna 11 April 1512 |
Near Ravenna, present-day Italy |  France.svg){kind=small} Duchy of Ferrara
|
 Spain Papal States
|
Franco-Ferrarese victory |
| Gaston de Foix †
|
Ramón de Cardona
| |||
I'm not certain, however, whether this format is sufficiently easy to read, and whether it includes too much information or not enough. Any suggestions on either layout or content would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just stick to date, and a link to the relevant article? Or at most add the two sides involved? Though I agree the article needs an overhaul. On a related notes is the Battle of Flodden truly part of the Italian wars or more part of the old antagonism between the Scots and English. Personally I precis it as "Scottish First eleven vs English reserves - collapse of the Scots batting in the first innings." GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would tend to think that something as simple as date+article wouldn't be very useful; at that point, we might as well use a category or navigation template. My understanding of the purpose of such stand-alone lists (which may admittedly be out of date) is that it's preferable to have additional details. Removing the commanders and leaving only belligerents seems like a better approach (although, given the importance of particular commanders in military history, the former data point might be equally useful).
- As far as Flodden is concerned, it's really both. The Scottish invasion was directly motivated by James' alliance with the French, and can thus be treated as a side theater of the War of the League of Cambrai; but, in the broader scheme of things, it can also be viewed as simply yet another episode of the periodic conflicts between England and Scotland. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Date Battle Location Belligerants Outcome 11 April 1952 Battle of Ravenna (1512) near Ravenna Italy France and Ferrara Spain and Papal States Franco-Ferrara victory, Ravenna taken
- Avoiding flags too - at this period flags possibly more confusing than helpful? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I put the flags in mainly to cross-reference belligerents and commanders; if the latter field is removed, then there's no real need for them. (Having said that, allowing such cross-referencing requires merely that the flags be mutually distinguishable, not necessarily that they be identifiable per se. I don't think the fact that most readers won't recognize the flags in question is necessarily a problem in this regard.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed on the other hand, the flags might help readers quickly track through the list to spot which of the "sides" are at any given point in the course of the war. And there is the current discussion on the use of flagicon in lists.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I put the flags in mainly to cross-reference belligerents and commanders; if the latter field is removed, then there's no real need for them. (Having said that, allowing such cross-referencing requires merely that the flags be mutually distinguishable, not necessarily that they be identifiable per se. I don't think the fact that most readers won't recognize the flags in question is necessarily a problem in this regard.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
WWII oral histories
I found a source about a project about oral histories
- Basu, Moni. "Warriors who became walking libraries." CNN. May 28, 2011.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Planned changes to the logistics and review departments
In response to declining activity levels in certain areas of the project, the coordinators have been discussing a series of proposals to restructure the logistics and review departments. The proposals involve closing the two departments by deprecating some of their functions and moving the rest to other locations.
The planned changes are not expected to be controversial, but anyone with an interest is invited to review them and provide any feedback to the coordinators. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy for Livonian War now open
The featured article candidacy for Livonian War 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! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy for Vidkun Quisling now open
The featured article candidacy for Vidkun Quisling 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! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
United States Army Green Books all available online for Download
For anyone doing research in World War II, the United States Army Center of Military History just released all of the History of the Army in World War II greenbooks as PDFs at their website. They are one of the most comprehensive histories of World War II land battles that the US was involved in. Victory for historical materials in the public domain! Sadads (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's excellent - thank you for posting it. I remember staying up to the middle of the night Australian time ten years ago so I could ring the US Government Publishing Office in Washington and order the Green Books on CD-ROM... The official history of the USAAF in World War II can also be downloaded in (very large) PDF files at http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/titleindex.htm Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Those are both terrific links. Thanks so much to both of you. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Superb! I'm bookmarking those links. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Military vehicle has a Wikipedia article?
Hi, I was trying to identify the vehicle (armoured personnel vehicle?) at this Youtube video showing the Castlemartin range and then to know if it has an article on here. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- The only thing which looks anything like those vehicles and is listed in the Modern equipment of the British Army article is the Cougar (vehicle). The variants of these vehicles in British service are called Mastiff, Wolfhound and Ridgbacks. I'd guess that they're Masiffs fitted with Slat armor. The British Army has a photo of a Mastiff in this configuration on its website here. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response. Yes, it does look like the Mastiff as at the link you provide. Eldumpo (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing, plagiarism, copyvio et al
Two instances of close paraphrasing in MilHist articles have been found at FAC in one day. Of particular concern to me is that these instances were found, in both cases, after numerous MilHist reviewers supported the articles at FAC. Please review Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches and perhaps you all can find a way to improve review in this area-- we expect the best from MilHist :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at one of the FACs you mentioned (not linking it here) and I saw that there were three Milhist supports: one person supported on prose and MOS stuff, another supported on basically the same thing (albeit unstated, but that's all they reviewed), and a one-line support, so I don't think there is a major problem. They support the prose as-is so the article receives a few reviews—even if they don't check close paraphrasing, they know it will be checked later.
- Part of this issue is because most reviewers (in general, not just Milhist) don't do spotchecks of the references. We can always encourage our reviewers to do them, of course, but this is why you make sure that paraphrase checking is done by at least one reviewer before an end of a FAC, right? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would have thought that a copy-vio or plagiarism check should be a criterion of GA checks, or even at B-class reviews? I usually take a couple of long sentences and run them through google when copy-editing articles over 1000 words, especially the Indian articles! Chaosdruid (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Me, too. @Ed, that is the way FAC seems to be working (that it falls to one person to do all the real work), but it's not the way it should work-- I'm surprised whenever anyone thinks they can support a FAC without considering the sources. Oh, well ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Spot checking close paraphrasing seems to be a relatively new practice in FACs and something I agree that we should add to our A class reviews. This would be a way to add significant value to the process (as the military history reviewers are the people most likely to have access to the sources and the motivation to check them) and make the FAC process run more smoothly. We've gotten a lot more serious about the quality of sources in the last 18 months or so, and I think that this has had significant benefits. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Watching for copyvio and plagiarism at FAC has been going on since the Halloween 2010 plagiarism scandal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that my reviews are fatally flawed. I'm on a wikibreak, reassessing my participation at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Spot checking close paraphrasing seems to be a relatively new practice in FACs and something I agree that we should add to our A class reviews. This would be a way to add significant value to the process (as the military history reviewers are the people most likely to have access to the sources and the motivation to check them) and make the FAC process run more smoothly. We've gotten a lot more serious about the quality of sources in the last 18 months or so, and I think that this has had significant benefits. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Me, too. @Ed, that is the way FAC seems to be working (that it falls to one person to do all the real work), but it's not the way it should work-- I'm surprised whenever anyone thinks they can support a FAC without considering the sources. Oh, well ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would have thought that a copy-vio or plagiarism check should be a criterion of GA checks, or even at B-class reviews? I usually take a couple of long sentences and run them through google when copy-editing articles over 1000 words, especially the Indian articles! Chaosdruid (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I seem to do citation formatting and source quality checking at MILHIST a fair bit. I will add automated checking by Google "quoted phrase" checking, and using these tools. I'll also try spot checking sources against claims, and manual "text quality" paraphrase / copyvio checks. Hopefully this ought to acculture other reviewers at MILHIST towards these practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whoa, hold on Sandy. I thought supporting on specific sections of WIAFA was encouraged as well? Or should we not be supporting if we only review for certain sections? Dank, for one, has been doing some damn fine copyediting work over at FAC and in our A-class reviews, and he typically supports articles while explicitly noting he is only checking and supporting based on the quality of the prose. I don't dispute that more of us can be paraphrase-checking, but what you just said told him that his extremely hard work over the last few months has not been helpful. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think there's been a misunderstanding here because many of our emotions are involved in quality articles and our reviews to help generate and certify those articles. I took SandyGeorgia to be criticising drive by reviews that claim to Support on content alone. (I myself feel very responsible, as I've examined sourcing quality and citation quality at MILHIST A without examining if the sources support the assertions and if the text is copyvio / plagiarism / close paraphrase free; and as I feel I let some bad ones slip through to FAC which were caught by people such as Dank who examine textual quality). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Both Fifelfoo and Dank (not unlike Tony1) specify exactly what they are reviewing, review all FACs for same, and I take that and the amount of work they do into consideration when weighing the support (for example, I know that Tony checks prose, not sources, so his support alone isn't enough, but if others have checked sources, it is enough to confirm prose is passed). Specialist reviews are encouraged, this is not a problem, and is not the same as people who support specific articles (for example, all MilHist articles) even when sourcing issues have been identified, or even if no sourcing checks have been done on the article. It's the difference between "fans" piling on Support on certain FACs or broader reviewers doing a thorough job in whichever area they've chosen to review, whether or not it's a complete review on all critiera. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think there's been a misunderstanding here because many of our emotions are involved in quality articles and our reviews to help generate and certify those articles. I took SandyGeorgia to be criticising drive by reviews that claim to Support on content alone. (I myself feel very responsible, as I've examined sourcing quality and citation quality at MILHIST A without examining if the sources support the assertions and if the text is copyvio / plagiarism / close paraphrase free; and as I feel I let some bad ones slip through to FAC which were caught by people such as Dank who examine textual quality). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whoa, hold on Sandy. I thought supporting on specific sections of WIAFA was encouraged as well? Or should we not be supporting if we only review for certain sections? Dank, for one, has been doing some damn fine copyediting work over at FAC and in our A-class reviews, and he typically supports articles while explicitly noting he is only checking and supporting based on the quality of the prose. I don't dispute that more of us can be paraphrase-checking, but what you just said told him that his extremely hard work over the last few months has not been helpful. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to generate discussion
That we modify A-Class and A-Class FAQ for point A1 to be more explicitly against close paraphrase, and plagiarism of copyright-free material. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Would support except this is to generate discussion, not !votes. It is a good idea, but could be taken further by creating another separate citerion that articles be free of paraphrasing/plagiarism. WikiCopter 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- See my most recent posts at WT:FAC. I'm not trying to be an a**hole, but MILHIST A-class articles that hit FAC were at one time routinely rife with copyvio (yes, I do mean copyvio, not plagiarism). That is unacceptable for an A-class review of a project as well-developed as MILHIST. – Ling.Nut 03:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you're being hostile at all; and I think the problems identified with MILHIST A process need to be fixed for the good of MILHIST, and due to our heavy impact on FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- See my most recent posts at WT:FAC. I'm not trying to be an a**hole, but MILHIST A-class articles that hit FAC were at one time routinely rife with copyvio (yes, I do mean copyvio, not plagiarism). That is unacceptable for an A-class review of a project as well-developed as MILHIST. – Ling.Nut 03:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds sensible and non-controversial. To put some meat on the bones of this, I'd suggest that we amend criterion A4 to read as follows (changes marked in bold)
- A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines,
anddoes not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant and, with the exception of direct quotes, uses wording which is substantially different to that of any previously-published work.
- A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines,
- In line with this, the FAQ guidance for the criterion could be amended to:
- We're looking for professional standards of English, with the emphasis on brevity and clarity as well as prose that is free of both plagiarism or close paraphrasing of other sources, even if they are in the public domain. We do not expect 100% MoS-compliance, that can be achieved with a technical copy-edit immediately prior to FAC. However, we do expect articles to handle linking, date formats, referencing and citation, national spelling varieties, and measurements and distances consistently.
Thoughts? (and I note that the FA criteria do not explicitly warn against plagiarism/close paraphrasing - hopefully this will prompt a change...) Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I think Fifelfoo makes a very good suggestion and I think Nick-D's suggestion expands on it quite well. I would support adding Nick's wording to the criteria and instructions. Good work, gents. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I too support Nick-D's suggestion as a good result of the above debates. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Me three. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- "prose that is free of both plagiarism or close paraphrasing of other sources, even if they are in the public domain" I know this is an old complaint of mine, but this one, if adopted, is going to deeply screw a lot of the USN submarine & ship articles, which are verbatim lifts (or mainly so) from DANFS.... I think it's way past time WP adopted a guideline like it. If we expect to be taken seriously, this kind of copying has to go. Encouraging dishonesty is a bad idea. Not to mention the trouble anybody relying on WP, but not knowing about this, risks causing themselves... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it'll screw the ones that are nominated at A-class. I'd say we should add it to the B-class standards too, but anything lifted from a single source (especially one like DANFS) shouldn't get that rating. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given the prose style of DANFS, I'd say a rewrite was always in order. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree with the proposal. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- "prose that is free of both plagiarism or close paraphrasing of other sources, even if they are in the public domain" I know this is an old complaint of mine, but this one, if adopted, is going to deeply screw a lot of the USN submarine & ship articles, which are verbatim lifts (or mainly so) from DANFS.... I think it's way past time WP adopted a guideline like it. If we expect to be taken seriously, this kind of copying has to go. Encouraging dishonesty is a bad idea. Not to mention the trouble anybody relying on WP, but not knowing about this, risks causing themselves... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Spotchecking current FACs
I have just run through and spotchecked those MILHIST facs which other people didn't get to first. I wasn't impressed. I am incapable of spotchecking every MILHIST A. We simply must generate more spotcheck reviewers at MILHIST A Review, and conduct this prior to the material reaching FAC (we cannot, of course, be responsible for editors who evade MILHIST A and proceed directly to FAC). We also need to ensure that we carry our weight by spotchecking MILHIST articles that go to FAC, regardless of whether they passed through MILHIST A or not. I'd also strongly encourage FAC nominators to link to the MILHIST A review, which will allow the source, spotcheck and copyedit reviewers to note previous issues or successes with the article in question, and so they avoid spotchecking the same sources over again at FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, but there isn't a crisis. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I spot-checked 22 citations for supporting the fact and close plagiarism in an A Class review just now by an editor who is excellent at scholarly sourcing, sourcing and citations; and, who has an excellent grasp of encyclopaedic style for a free encyclopaedia for everyone. I found two instances of close paraphrase, both where clause order and the verb clause remained identical, both where the source and article were both over single sentence facts. This isn't a condemnation of the editor at all (2/22 checked, and the lowest level of problem); but, it indicates that we do need to do this process in house prior to FAC. My estimate of the time cost to conduct this portion of the A Class review was 60 minutes. I can't handle that reviewing load on a per A Class review. I think I could just handle it on a "one review per chief article editor every 3-6 months" level; but, it would reduce my other wikipedia contributions to nothing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy for John McCauley (RAAF officer) now open
The featured article candidacy for John McCauley (RAAF officer) 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! Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This summer I am serving as the first Wikipedian in Residence at the US National Archives (see Signpost article); in order to serve as a hub for activity related to the National Archives' collaboration with Wikipedia, I have recently created a project page at WP:NARA. Since it seems relevant to this Wikiproject, I wanted to point members to our first editing project, which was recently announced and can be found here. The National Archives is an incredible resource for images and other documents related to American military history. I would be grateful for any input as we work out the details, and, of course, your participation once it launches. Dominic·t 14:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent news; it looks like there's a lot of potential for us here, given the number of military-related documents. (Unfortunately, many of the documents selected by NARA have sufficiently detailed articles that expanding them enough for a DYK nomination is essentially impossible; a few are probably closer to being on the main page as TFAs than as DYKs.)
- On a tangentially related note, I'm thinking we should probably create a place within the project—a subpage of the strategy department, perhaps?—to track the various GLAM activities relevant to us; there's a fair number of them at this point, and we don't really have a list handy anywhere. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- We can certainly use other higher benchmarks like GA and FA. I was mainly concerned with making sure the challenge was approachable and inclusive. (If you have any ideas for better incentives to go along with those, I am open to suggestions, too!) If you are feeling limited by the preselected documents, that's the reason I tried to come up with a more open-ended challenge as well. Dominic·t 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Find me a photo or document of any warship (bigger ones with guns, like battleships, would be nice as I have sources directly on them, but whatever you find works), and I'll put something together. :-) (PS although it is preferable you choose one that hasn't been worked on already!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- As a note there are a large number of Medal of Honor recipients with documentation at the National Archives that would be good candidates for DYK expansion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is the National Archives. I imagine you could find a document related to any American warship. Go wild. :-) Dominic·t 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Find me a photo or document of any warship (bigger ones with guns, like battleships, would be nice as I have sources directly on them, but whatever you find works), and I'll put something together. :-) (PS although it is preferable you choose one that hasn't been worked on already!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- We can certainly use other higher benchmarks like GA and FA. I was mainly concerned with making sure the challenge was approachable and inclusive. (If you have any ideas for better incentives to go along with those, I am open to suggestions, too!) If you are feeling limited by the preselected documents, that's the reason I tried to come up with a more open-ended challenge as well. Dominic·t 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Rush-rush request for June 1
I just created an article about desegregation in the United States Marine Corps and I would like somebody to quickly approve it at T:TDYK for an appearance tomorrow as part of the National Archives collaboration. Any takers?
Also, I am still expanding the article as its potential scope is large. I will accept any observations or suggestions. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you wanted it to appear tomorrow, shouldn't you list it under T:TDYK#Special_occasion_holding_area for June 1st? Sorry, I dont know the DYK process completely. Will it move there once approved?--v/r - TP 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
military images up for deletion
several military images have been nominated for deletion over the last few days, see May 29, 30, 31 of WP:FFD. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
U.S. Army abbreviations 1860s
Question for U.S. Army experts: I'm researching 1860s era Army gravestones. Seeing abbreviations for "Gen. Serv." and "Permt. Party" but don't know what they stand for and what the unit designations mean. Any help here? Thanks very much. K72ndst (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- By no means an expert but Gen Serv = possibly general service Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- General service. The other is permanent party. They aren't unit designations per se. I'd need to see the actual gravestone (or have you type everything that's on the stone) to be able to tell more.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Notice of wikibreak
I need a long wikibreak; it's personal stuff. I'll miss our work together. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- We'll miss you-- I hope the "stuff" works out and we'll see you soon ! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- What Sandy said, I hope everything sorts itself out and you find your way back soon. Woody (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Take care of your self Dank. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Look after yourself and take care. Your contributions to the encyclopaedia have inspired me to improve the quality of my own efforts. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone, I appreciate it. I'll get back as soon as I can ... life is really annoying right now and it's going to affect my wikiwork if I let it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
AfD
The USS Weeks (DE-285) article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- This cancelled ship question brings to mind another issue. Are 'phantom,' dummy army formations which never existed (like the 4th Airborne Division (United Kingdom)) separately notable, in addition to overall articles such as Operation Fortitude? I would say not. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know where your coming from re the three deception airborne divisions and have wondered the same myself. However the 2nd Airborne Division (United Kingdom), 4th and 5th Airborne Division (United Kingdom), did have troops assigned and served a purpose if only to deceive. Maybe one article combining details from the three divisions articles instead of three stubs (which will probably never be expanded) would be better. Any other thoughts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that there can be a single rule for 'dummy' formations given that the extent and nature of the coverage provided to these units differs considerably; some are notable in isolation while others are not. I'd err on the side of merging them with the article on the deception operation though. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know where your coming from re the three deception airborne divisions and have wondered the same myself. However the 2nd Airborne Division (United Kingdom), 4th and 5th Airborne Division (United Kingdom), did have troops assigned and served a purpose if only to deceive. Maybe one article combining details from the three divisions articles instead of three stubs (which will probably never be expanded) would be better. Any other thoughts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)